Marbury vs. Madison 1803 : A Landmark Case Study


 Written by HT AL-AMIN KHAN, Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka.

Introduction

Marbury v. Madison was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided in 1803. 

Fact

The case arose from a political dispute between President John Adams and President-elect Thomas Jefferson, who had defeated Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Adams had appointed a number of "midnight judges" to the federal judiciary in the final days of his presidency, including William Marbury. However, Jefferson and his supporters in Congress believed that these appointments were made purely for political purposes and sought to block them. When Jefferson took office, he directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's commission as a justice of the peace.

Marbury then brought a lawsuit against Madison in the Supreme Court, seeking a writ of mandamus (a court order directing Madison to deliver his commission) under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, was faced with the question of whether it had the authority to issue such a writ.

Judgement

In a landmark decision, the Court held that it did not have the authority to issue the writ, because the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, which meant that it had the authority to strike down laws that were inconsistent with the Constitution.

In this case, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act that gave it the power to issue writs of mandamus was inconsistent with the Constitution, which did not give the Court the power to issue such writs. This decision established the principle of judicial review, which has become a fundamental part of American constitutional law.

Conclusion

The decision in Marbury v. Madison was significant because it established the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that were inconsistent with it. This helped to establish the balance of powers between the three branches of government, and ensured that the Constitution would be the supreme law of the land.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) : A Landmark case on Sales Tax Law

Image
      Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Case name: Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras (1952) Citation:  AIR 1952 Mad 91. Introduction This is a landmark case on sales tax law that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1953. The case is Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, which involved a dispute between a merchant firm and the provincial government over the liability to pay sales tax on goods sold outside the province. Facts Poppatlal Shah was a partner of a firm called Indo-Malayan Trading Company, which had its head office in Madras (now Chennai). The firm dealt with groundnut oil, sago and kirana articles, and received orders from merchants in Calcutta (now Kolkata) for supply of these goods. The firm purchased these goods from local markets in Madras and dispatched them to Calcutta by rail or steamer. The railway receipts or bills of lading were taken in the name of the sellers and so were the insur
Read more

ARREST : THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1898

Image
Written by  HT AL-AMIN KHAN , Student, Department of Land Management and Law, Jagannath University, Dhaka. Arrest Generally Arrest how made Section 46 of The law specifies the procedure for making an arrest and the limitations on using force during the process. According to this section: 1.      Arrest Procedure : When making an arrest, the police officer or person arresting must physically touch or confine the person, except if the person agrees to be arrested by their words or actions. 2.      Use of Force: If the person being arrested resists with force or tries to escape, the arresting officer can use any necessary means to make the arrest. 3.     Restriction on Lethal Force: This section does not allow causing the death of a person accused of a non-capital offense. Lethal force is only permitted for those accused of offenses punishable by death or transportation for life. Search Procedure during Arrest: Sections 47, 48, 51, and 52 Searching for Arrested Person S
Read more