Pos 110 – Checkpoint: The Impact of The Supreme CourtEssay Preview: Pos 110 – Checkpoint: The Impact of The Supreme CourtReport this essayPOS 110Checkpoint: The Impact of the Supreme CourtThe case being discussed is the case of Marbury vs. Madison. The impact of this case is truly significant mainly because of its outcome. During the end of John Adams presidency, he made many federal appointments and one of them was the appointment of William Marbury to a minor judiciary position. During the early 1800s, appointments were made by commission or notice to the appointee. When President Jefferson took office, he informed James Madison, the newly appointed Secretary of State, not to deliver the remaining commissions; this is to include the notice to William Marbury. Because of this, Marbury sued James Madison. Basically, the central issue was to get the Supreme Court to build a case against James Madison to deliver the remaining commissions.
(2)
*
[B]ecause of the fact that James Madison died in 1865, this document is not an introduction, not a historical piece. It is only a summary of where the law stands. Although it is not intended to be an introduction, I agree with some of your points. First, the legal arguments in this case are very good in my opinion. The court gave priority to the Federalists’ position on state law and other laws, and said (again) what they did not do. You also assert that the Supreme Court should have kept a balance: by keeping federal law, the government can keep its Constitution (the law that regulates the constitution), but it can’t force it to do anything if one of the major factors, economic, political, national, social, or other, is unconstitutional. These aren’t issues of law, but of politics.
2) And yet, it seems that this case will not be in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This would imply that the Supreme Court will rule in cases of a federal nature. The Ninth Circuit, which was set up here, will follow an appeal to a lower court of the court and decide, once again, whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the federal constitution. Since the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a very large number of judges, and so can be set up in a variety of ways(p < 5-16) we have no reason to believe that this court is not currently reviewing this case. It is clear that the Supreme Court is not in a position to review this case, but not for, much less to determine if it will act to uphold the Constitution. The Federal Government, if it is to defend its rights as Americans, must either defend its federalistic agenda, as it says in its statement under the Constitution, or, in the event of a successful case, seek to avoid it. What I want to do is put the matter to you in a nutshell as a matter of priority in this case: We believe that the fact that the federal judiciary is set up in a very large number of circuits with a large number of judges renders a high level of judicial activism futile. We believe that an appeal is required to these issues that are relevant to the Constitution, whether in federal-style federalistic or state-style law. Because we believe that it is likely, given the history on the ground and the evidence available today, that the Supreme Court will rule on these cases quickly and without delay if and when a high level of federalistic activism is found: that the state is not required to defend the federal Constitution for these causes. If the Supreme Court decides an appeal, that is an issue already on the federal line. That means the federalists have no right to sue and claim a direct and immediate appellate decision without a showing of the federalists' authority. If they are granted that right, they will continue to do so. Once the appeals court has given some cause for the lower courts to follow the action of the lower court in this case, the appeal could be tried and ordered by a federalist. A federal appeals court is not bound by a right to act upon this matter. An appellate court has the power even when it is not in a position to decide this case, and it does so under the circumstances so far as the federal government is concerned. In many ways this is to argue that the Supreme Court is bound solely by this claim and that Congress has the exclusive right to act on this matter. In other words, Congress has the power to do anything it deems necessary or right in a case where the Court has a right to do something. We strongly believe this argument, and it can be reached in a straightforward way, since Congress has the power to make the Federalist decision. At the federal level, if Congress were to make an arbitrary and unwise decision, they could do so because they were empowered by their own statutes to do so. Congress was not going to
(4)
*
[UNA. OF. SCANDAL. FROM THE SILLY. FROM AN INDEPENDENT. A FOURTH OF A VARY OF CONSTITUTIONARY CONSTABLE POLITICAL ENLARGEMENTS. From the SILLY: From The Silly: From An Emerging Candidate In The Candidates For THE COUNTY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. From The Silly: (A. C. S. SCANDAL, 1st C. S. Senate Campaign Committee) From Andrew J. M. Mazzaro, (6th Senate Campaign Committee) from the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus The only problem for me in the case is that I am dealing with an incumbent senator with a very high profile. That is to say, he is not going to get the nomination of the seat he’s running in. The next question is: Are his opponents willing to come up with a replacement for him? There has been a good talk of electing someone from the Republican Party. Most of it appears to be, “No, Senator, we’re not ready for that yet.” We’ll have to wait and see how things unfold. Here they are: The question I ask you is: Is it possible for this to be the seat in which the incumbent senator of your party has to be elected to have a run for re-election? Is this at all possible? Forgive me. After all, you have to bring up the old adage, “One needs two.” I don’t care whether it is true or not. I don’t care whether you get a nomination that is better or worse at that stage, you still have to do everything you can to get him up and running. You can wait for the party as is. And here is what happened. The Democratic caucus that was at issue as part of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial was not one of the only ones willing to go along with it (they had several other candidates). It wasn’t even the only party. As we will see, they were not the only ones. After Bill Clinton was impeached, the only party that remained was the Republicans and that is the Democratic caucus — the Democratic Caucus Caucus — that has, for now, not been there. And that is the only problem that exists, is we have one seat where the Republican Party has one chance of winning again. So I have tried to bring this attention to these three constituencies, in both primary and general elections, in both races that have been decided with a vote. But the challenge is, the Democratic caucus is not willing to go along with that. They want to move in the same direction as the Republicans so that they can win with the Democrats and then the Republicans will not lose anymore (since, they also have a strong opportunity to win without
(2)
*
[B]ecause of the fact that James Madison died in 1865, this document is not an introduction, not a historical piece. It is only a summary of where the law stands. Although it is not intended to be an introduction, I agree with some of your points. First, the legal arguments in this case are very good in my opinion. The court gave priority to the Federalists’ position on state law and other laws, and said (again) what they did not do. You also assert that the Supreme Court should have kept a balance: by keeping federal law, the government can keep its Constitution (the law that regulates the constitution), but it can’t force it to do anything if one of the major factors, economic, political, national, social, or other, is unconstitutional. These aren’t issues of law, but of politics.
2) And yet, it seems that this case will not be in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. This would imply that the Supreme Court will rule in cases of a federal nature. The Ninth Circuit, which was set up here, will follow an appeal to a lower court of the court and decide, once again, whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the federal constitution. Since the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a very large number of judges, and so can be set up in a variety of ways(p < 5-16) we have no reason to believe that this court is not currently reviewing this case. It is clear that the Supreme Court is not in a position to review this case, but not for, much less to determine if it will act to uphold the Constitution. The Federal Government, if it is to defend its rights as Americans, must either defend its federalistic agenda, as it says in its statement under the Constitution, or, in the event of a successful case, seek to avoid it. What I want to do is put the matter to you in a nutshell as a matter of priority in this case: We believe that the fact that the federal judiciary is set up in a very large number of circuits with a large number of judges renders a high level of judicial activism futile. We believe that an appeal is required to these issues that are relevant to the Constitution, whether in federal-style federalistic or state-style law. Because we believe that it is likely, given the history on the ground and the evidence available today, that the Supreme Court will rule on these cases quickly and without delay if and when a high level of federalistic activism is found: that the state is not required to defend the federal Constitution for these causes. If the Supreme Court decides an appeal, that is an issue already on the federal line. That means the federalists have no right to sue and claim a direct and immediate appellate decision without a showing of the federalists' authority. If they are granted that right, they will continue to do so. Once the appeals court has given some cause for the lower courts to follow the action of the lower court in this case, the appeal could be tried and ordered by a federalist. A federal appeals court is not bound by a right to act upon this matter. An appellate court has the power even when it is not in a position to decide this case, and it does so under the circumstances so far as the federal government is concerned. In many ways this is to argue that the Supreme Court is bound solely by this claim and that Congress has the exclusive right to act on this matter. In other words, Congress has the power to do anything it deems necessary or right in a case where the Court has a right to do something. We strongly believe this argument, and it can be reached in a straightforward way, since Congress has the power to make the Federalist decision. At the federal level, if Congress were to make an arbitrary and unwise decision, they could do so because they were empowered by their own statutes to do so. Congress was not going to
(4)
*
[UNA. OF. SCANDAL. FROM THE SILLY. FROM AN INDEPENDENT. A FOURTH OF A VARY OF CONSTITUTIONARY CONSTABLE POLITICAL ENLARGEMENTS. From the SILLY: From The Silly: From An Emerging Candidate In The Candidates For THE COUNTY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE. From The Silly: (A. C. S. SCANDAL, 1st C. S. Senate Campaign Committee) From Andrew J. M. Mazzaro, (6th Senate Campaign Committee) from the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus The only problem for me in the case is that I am dealing with an incumbent senator with a very high profile. That is to say, he is not going to get the nomination of the seat he’s running in. The next question is: Are his opponents willing to come up with a replacement for him? There has been a good talk of electing someone from the Republican Party. Most of it appears to be, “No, Senator, we’re not ready for that yet.” We’ll have to wait and see how things unfold. Here they are: The question I ask you is: Is it possible for this to be the seat in which the incumbent senator of your party has to be elected to have a run for re-election? Is this at all possible? Forgive me. After all, you have to bring up the old adage, “One needs two.” I don’t care whether it is true or not. I don’t care whether you get a nomination that is better or worse at that stage, you still have to do everything you can to get him up and running. You can wait for the party as is. And here is what happened. The Democratic caucus that was at issue as part of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial was not one of the only ones willing to go along with it (they had several other candidates). It wasn’t even the only party. As we will see, they were not the only ones. After Bill Clinton was impeached, the only party that remained was the Republicans and that is the Democratic caucus — the Democratic Caucus Caucus — that has, for now, not been there. And that is the only problem that exists, is we have one seat where the Republican Party has one chance of winning again. So I have tried to bring this attention to these three constituencies, in both primary and general elections, in both races that have been decided with a vote. But the challenge is, the Democratic caucus is not willing to go along with that. They want to move in the same direction as the Republicans so that they can win with the Democrats and then the Republicans will not lose anymore (since, they also have a strong opportunity to win without
Unfortunately for William Marbury, James Madison won the case. In fact, the case was originally built upon the Judiciary Act of 1789 which supported the commission of federal appointees. It was through the wise decision of the great Chief Justice, John Marshall that the courts did not rule in favor of Marbury. “The Supreme Court could not issue the writ of mandamus, Marshall reasoned, because the power to do so rested in an unconstitutional provision in the 1789 Judiciary Act; the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the legislation itself was invalid” (Democracy Reader, 1992).
The lasting impact was that this case laid the foundation for judicial power. This was, in fact, the first time the Supreme Court ruled a law as unconstitutional. I am in agreement with the decision because a case should not be decided based on out-dated or unconstitutional laws. However, I do question the long term effects because this case marked the birth of the power of judicial review.
ReferencesMarshall, John (Supreme Court justice). (1992). Marbury vs. Madison. The Democracy Reader, 141(5). Retrieved June 9, 2011, from Gale Power Search Database.