When an instrument which fundamentally organizes a judicial system divides it into a supreme court and as many subordinate courts as the legislator may decree and establish; then enumerates its powers and goes so far as to allocate them in order to determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by explaining the cases in which it assumes initial jurisdiction and that, in other cases, it assumes appellate jurisdiction; The clear meaning of these words seems to be that, in a class of cases, its jurisdiction is initial and not appellate; In the other, it is on appeal and not original. If any other interpretation renders the clause invalid, this is yet another reason to reject such a different interpretation and maintain its obvious meaning. “It is a general and indisputable rule that if there is a statutory right, there is also a remedy by legal action or legal action if that right is violated. In the case of assignments to civil servants, the law directs the Secretary of State to register them. Thus, when they are signed and sealed, the order of their registration is given, and whether or not they are inserted into the book, they are registered. reiterated that any request to a court to control his conduct in any way would be rejected without hesitation. “an ordinance issued in the name of the King by the Court of King`s Bench and addressed to any person, body or subordinate jurisdiction under the King`s dominion, which requires them to do a particular thing therein, which forms part of their office and duty and which the Court of King`s Bench has previously determined or at least accepted; to be in harmony with law and justice.” If, therefore, he considers that he has, by virtue of his appointment, a legal right either to the commission issued to him or to a copy of that commission, this is also a matter which may be examined by the courts, and the decision of the Court on this matter must depend on the opinion expressed in his appointment. The essence of civil liberty certainly lies in the right of every individual to avail himself or herself of the protection of the law whenever he or she is violated. One of the first duties of government is to provide this protection. The U.S. government has been categorically referred to as the government of laws, not the people. He will certainly cease to deserve this high title if the laws do not provide for a remedy for infringement of an acquired legal right.
This is a rare case that has been received by the Supreme Court as a court of first instance rather than on appeal by a lower court. Marshall and the other judges had to determine not only whether Marbury was entitled to his commission, but also whether he had an appeal that could be enforced by the courts. Marshall noted that a remedy could be implied because no right could exist without recourse. In addition, the awarding of the contract was a purely ministerial task of the executive. By requiring him to exercise his ministerial functions, the Court does not undermine the separation of powers by encroaching on the discretion of another branch. Marshall also ruled that a writ of mandamus was the right way to seek redress, but wrestled with whether the Supreme Court could issue it. He identified a conflict between the Judicial Act of 1789 and the Constitution, each of which provided different parameters for the court`s original jurisdiction. Marshall rejected Marbury`s argument that the Constitution merely served as a basis on which Congress could rely with subsequent legislation, stating that the Constitution trumped all laws and that Congress did not have the power to amend the Constitution through regular legislation. In explaining why the Constitution was superior to all laws, he noted that the primacy clause placed the Constitution before laws and that judges had to take an oath to respect the Constitution. [The Supreme Court had only six justices at the time, so Marshall`s four-judge opinion was unanimous because two of the justices retired.] And it can also be decreed that the Supreme Court has exclusive [initial] jurisdiction over all civil cases in which a State is a party.
And has exclusively all this competence for prosecutions or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers. The Supreme Court shall also have jurisdiction over the district courts and the courts of the various States, in the cases expressly provided for in this Convention; and is allowed to. Writs of mandamus, in cases justified by the principles and customs of law, to all courts appointed or in office under the authority of the United States. Mr. Marbury was then appointed because his commission had been signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State, and since the law establishing the office gave the civil servant the right to remain independent of the executive for five years, the appointment was not revocable, but was granted to the officer, who is protected by the laws of his country. Marshall went on to cite several other reasons for judicial review. He argued that the authorization given in Article III of the Constitution to the Court to decide cases under this Constitution implies that the Court has the power to repeal laws contrary to the Constitution.  This, Marshall writes, meant that the founders were prepared to let the U.S. judiciary apply and interpret the Constitution when judging cases. He also argued that the oath of office of federal judges — in which they swear to perform their duties impartially and “in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States” — requires them to uphold the Constitution.  Finally, Marshall argued that judicial review was implicit in Article VI of the United States.
Constitution, because it declares that the supreme law of the United States is the Constitution and laws made “in pursuit of the same,” not the Constitution and all federal laws generally.   The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (popularly known as the Constitution Annotated) contains legal analysis and interpretations of the United States Constitution based primarily on Supreme Court jurisprudence. This regularly updated resource is particularly useful when considering the constitutional implications of a particular topic or topic. The chapter on article III deals with Marbury v. Madison. The U.S. Courts Establishment Act empowers the Supreme Court “to issue to any designated court or person in office under the authority of the United States in such cases as may be justified by the principles and customs of the law.” Since Marbury`s order was valid, Marshall writes, Madison`s restraint was “the violation of an acquired title” of Marbury.  This law, considered unconstitutional in the counties, was repealed and another system was introduced; However, the question whether, on the basis of that report, persons notified by judges as Commissioners were entitled to be entered on the pension list was a question of law that could be validly decided before the courts, even if the inclusion of such persons on the list had to be made by the head of a department. When the matter was brought before the Court, the decision was not that a mandamus would not lie to the head of a department, who had ordered him to perform an act prescribed by law, in the execution of which a person had a personal interest, but that a mandamus in this case should not issue – the decision that would necessarily have to be taken, if the Commissioners` report does not confer any legal rights on the applicant. If the concern for the convention which respected our peace with foreign powers motivated a provision according to which the Supreme Court should assume original jurisdiction in cases which might be presumed to be affected; However, the clause would have gone no further than providing for such cases if no other limitation on the powers of Congress had been provided.
The fact that they have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases, with such exceptions as Congress may make, is not a restriction; unless the words are considered exclusive to the court of origin. It is expressly the task and duty of the judicial authority to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to certain cases must necessarily explain and interpret this rule. When two laws conflict, the courts must rule on the application of each of them. Marbury v. Madison is important because it established the judicial review power of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and, eventually, parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions. The exercise of judicial oversight would help to ensure that the judiciary remains an equal branch of government alongside the legislative and executive branches.