Marbury v. Madison Court Case

Research Findings 

1. Case Name: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Case

2. Information Source: Oyes.org, Pbs.org, Ourdocuments.gov 

3. The reason for Choosing Decision: I chose the decision because it revolves around the constitutional duty issue. About constitutional duty, it is essential to have clear guidelines concerning the ways that the President’s executive power should be vested to guide his office term in a span of four years. 

4. Aspect Addressed: The decision is a governmental issue in the U.S., and it addresses the conflicts the Congress had together with the Constitution to the extent that the Supreme Court emerged as a separate government branch as the case with the executive and the Congress. 

5. Case’s Major Issues:  The major issues for choosing the case revolve around the role that the Supreme Court should play in comparison with the with the other two government branches, including the Congress and the executive. The other issue under emphasis entails the power that executive power that should be vested in a U.S. president in line with the constitution. 

6. Court’s Primary Argument: The primary argument by the court was that the Constitution provides the president with the power of appointing and commissioning U.S. officers. Since the commission served as the only proof of the appointment, the two activities were linked. If the commission were absent, the appointment would be incomplete, meaning that the signature of the president on the commission would be the final step in the process of appointment. 

Marbury v. Madison Case Brief

During President John Adam’s last presidency days, he selected several individuals to operate as peace justices in District of Columbia. Upon confirmation of the nominations by the Senate, the commissions were arranged. John Marshall who served as the Secretary of State for President John Adams failed to issue all commissions before the assumption of office by President Thomas Jefferson. President Jefferson coerced James Madison, who served as his Secretary of State to refrain from delivering the commissions. The plaintiffs, in this case, the individuals whose commissions failed to be delivered, filed a suit against Madison in the Supreme Court. They argued that for failing to issue the commissions, the defendant neglected Constitutional duty. Here, the major question worth consideration was whether the plaintiffs had a right for receiving their commissions (Marbury v. Madison, n.d). 

Reference 

Marbury v. Madison. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 17, 2016, from 

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137