Marbury v. Madison 1 CR. (5 U.S.) 137 (1803) PART 3

Is the Supreme Court the appropriate place for Marbury to seek remedy?

Yes according to the Judiciary Act of 1789. No according to the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall was not only about to undertake judicial review, but also define and solidify its place the judicial branch.

Judicial Review: The authority of federal courts to declare a law unconstitutional and therefore void.

While that may sound a bit confusing, it is really quite simple. Think of it like this:

In this country, we must obey the law (rules). If we don't (like we steal a Nintendo Wii), we go see a judge and then he throws you in jail. Judicial review works in a similar way.

In this country, the laws past by Congress also need to follow the rules written in the Constitution. Similar to what happens to us, if a law breaks the rules, it also gets sent to the slammer. A judge examines the law and then decides if it violates what is written in the Constitution. If it does, he "strikes down" the law, and that law is gone.

In the opinion, Marshall is very practical about why this power should be exercised by the judicial branch. He writes:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret the rule.

He essentially states that since courts are always dealing with situations where they need to understand the law (a trial), it makes sense that they would be the ones who would have the responsibility of interpreting the laws. Furthermore, he emphasizes that this power is necessary because the Constitution would be useless if there was no way to enforce its rules. Poof! Judicial review is born.

How is it applied in this case? Well, the problem is that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allows people to bring their case directly to the Supreme Court (specifically Marbury in this case), or in other words, the act allowed this case to originate in the Supreme Court (original jurisdiction). HOWEVER, Article III already specifies when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over a case. Congress does not have the power to add new instances.

I understand this a bit confusing, so I would like to use an easier example. Think of the requirements for becoming president. The Constitution states that a person needs to be a citizen born in the United States and thirty-five years old. Those are the only two requirements and no law can be passed that adds to these requirements. It would be unconstitutional if they tried to make a law saying that a person also had to be from New York... or that they had to be thirty-six for that matter. Because the Constitution has already spoken on the issue, nothing can be added.

In this case, the Constitution already specifically lays out when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, Congress cannot add to that jurisdiction. That part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional and Marbury should not be in the Supreme Court for this case.

A few interesting points:
1. Chief Justice Marshall pulled a great coup in this case. He broadened the Supreme Court's power undoubtably against the wishes of President Jefferson. However, Marbury did not get the appointment, so Jefferson won the case in a practical sense and couldn't really complain.
2. The Court ruled that Marbury should have brought his case to a lower court first. However, for his particular issue, no lower court existed yet. He had no place to turn. He was screwed from the beginning.
3. Marbury never did get his commission. Yet, his name will forever be known because he didn't get it. Seems like a fair trade to me.