Introduction
Thomas Jefferson is without doubt a significant figure in the history of the United States owing to his contributions to establish democratic systems that respected the rule of law. He was the first president to be elected in a period marked by civil unrest. Reforms and the suffrage of the people were the key issues that defined the revolution that saw Jefferson win the presidential elections (Currie 19). The people through the ballot box rejected the politics of faction and intrigue advanced by his Federalist rival. In March 1801, Jefferson admitted that the journey to his victory was tough, and the will of the people drove him to compel the government of the day to respect and address the issues presented by the masses. His victory gave Americans hope that Jefferson was sure to protect the Constitution and respect the rights of the people. Jeffersonian democracy is believed to be the origin of today’s constitutional review of America due to the influence it had on various issues including the Marbury versus Madison case.
Background
The Marbury versus Madison case is a memorable event in the history of the United States because the Supreme Court formed the basis for judicial review in this country (Field 38). The decision defined and created a difference between the separate functions of the judiciary and executive. William Marbury had been appointed the Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia; however, James Madison refused to deliver the commission, and this compelled the new appointee to file a petition in the Supreme Court. The court found Madison’s action illegal, but this did not grant Marbury the right to file the petition because this was unconstitutional (Miller 40). The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Judicial Act of 1789 and threw out the petition.
Most political analysts argue that the failure to deliver the commissions was an extension of the rivalry between Jefferson and Adams. They believe that Jefferson’s decision to cancel the delivery of the remaining commissions when he was sworn in as president demonstrated his defiance to the Judicial Act of 1801 (Field 56). The Supreme Court’s decision gave Marbury the right to receive the commission even though it stated that it did not have the power to compel Madison to deliver it. In addition, the court noted that Madison had political and ministerial functions that he performed according to the Constitution of the United States (Currie 23). His political powers did not have a limit and thus he was free to do as he wished provided it was within the laws of the land. On the other hand, he had an obligation of honoring his commitment to serve the people of the United States through his ministerial functions.
The Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that there was a conflict between the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III of the Constitution of the United States (Field 97). He explained that courts follow and act according to the regulations of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, if a congressional act conflicts with an article in the Constitution, the former is not binding; therefore, it does not have the legal power over the decisions of the judiciary. He presented that the court applies appropriate laws to make decisions and even if there are conflicting rules, it chooses the best one depending on the nature of the case.
Marshall used the Judges’ Oath to argue that they swore to uphold and protect the Constitution regardless of the opinions of other arms of government. He stated that the role of all judicial officers is to interpret and apply laws in making decisions (Field 109). Therefore, they are bound by the Constitution to make legal decisions that cannot be questioned through other institutions like parliament or executive arms of the state (Currie 58). He insisted that the Constitution of the United States is a legal document and thus its orders must be followed without question. Moreover, he pointed at the conflicts between some articles in the Constitution and the Judicial Act, and this opened ways for reforms in this country. Marshall explained that the Constitution is more powerful than the law, and that is why he used it to interpret and make a decision regarding the Marbury versus Madison case (Miller 66).
The Supreme Court’s decision issued by Marshall was a revelation that enabled the government and its citizens to identify serious conflicts in the Constitution. Separation of powers was a key issue that followed the Supreme Court’s decision (Currie 71). The Congress embarked on a journey to identify conflicting issues in the Constitution and Judicial Act and amend them to ensure they were harmonized. In addition, the decision changed people’s perceptions about the application of the law and other treaties to make decisions. Marbury versus Madison’s case created room for reforms in the judiciary and the amendments of the constitution to ensure there were no conflicting laws. The decision concluded that the Constitution was supreme, and no other treaty or statute should reign over it.
Works Cited
Currie, David P. The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period 1789-1801. University of Chicago Press. 1997. Print.
Field, Robert. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2013. Print.
Miller, Mark C. The View of the Courts from the Hill: Interactions between Congress and the Federal Judiciary. Virginia: The University of Virginia Press, 2009. Print.