Marbury vs. Madison
5 US (Cranch) 137
February 1803
FACTS:
Petitioner William Marbury was appointed Justice of the Peace for the county if Washington in the District of Columbia by then President John Adams of the US shortly before the latter vacated his Office. However, Adams' Secretary of State, John Marshall, failed to deliver to Marbury the latter's duly signed and sealed commission documents, without which the petitioner cannot undertake his office as Justice of the Peace.
When Thomas Jefferson assumed presidency, his new Secretary of State, herein respondent James Madison, continued to withhold the said commission document from Marbury. Hence, this petition for mandamus was filed to the US Supreme Court to compel Madison to deliver the commission document top Marbury.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the same Court has jurisdiction to issue the mandamus, given the circumstances of the case
COURT RULING:
The US Supreme Court, through the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, denied Marbury's petition for mandamus on the argument that the said Court has no jurisdiction on the case, and that the law on which Marbury based the said petition is unconstitutional.
As a general rule, the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, and shall have appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. In the case at bar, the Court made it clear that Marbury had already attained the five year legal right ti the commission because of the fact that the commission document has been completed the moment it was officially sealed, obliterating any doubt as to the authenticity of the signature affixed by the US President himself. However, Marbury failed to show that the mandamus he prays for is an exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original jurisdiction, which led to the denial of his petition.
"It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it reviews and corrects the proceedings in a case already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed ot courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer to deliver a paper, is in effect the same as to sustain an original jurisdiction, Neither is it necessary in such a case as this, to enable the Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction"
Another general rule is that any law repugnant to the Constitution is void. The Courts, as well as other departments, are bound by the instrument, as repeatedly emphasized by Chief Justice Marshall. He further reiterated that the written Constitution should be upheld and protected at all times, and that the Court has a duty to ensure that such reverence is given to the written Constitution. It must remain above all laws.
The power of the legislative department to create laws cannot ever exceed the written Constitution which itself is the source of such power. The power remains to the legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases; provided those cases belong to the jurisdictional power of the US. As to the power of the President over the officer whom he appoints, it is limited by the written Constitution and is deemed completed the moment he affixed his signature unto the commission document and "to withhold the commission x x x is an act deemed by the Court not warranted by law but violative of a vested right."
The action for mandamus in this case filed by the petitioner is in excess of the Court's jurisdiction, and any law enacted by the legislature which diminish or increase the Court's jurisdiction without the Court's prior consent is unconstitutional and must be discharged.
The power of the legislative department to create laws cannot ever exceed the written Constitution which itself is the source of such power. The power remains to the legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases; provided those cases belong to the jurisdictional power of the US. As to the power of the President over the officer whom he appoints, it is limited by the written Constitution and is deemed completed the moment he affixed his signature unto the commission document and "to withhold the commission x x x is an act deemed by the Court not warranted by law but violative of a vested right."
The action for mandamus in this case filed by the petitioner is in excess of the Court's jurisdiction, and any law enacted by the legislature which diminish or increase the Court's jurisdiction without the Court's prior consent is unconstitutional and must be discharged.
