Chief Justice Marshall used both Original Meaning, Original Intent, and Structural Analysis in the interpretation of the Constitution as it applied to Marbury v. Madison. Marbury raised concerns in his case against Madison in which Chief Justice Marshall decided: 1st The right to the commission of Justice 2nd If he had the right was the right violated and do the laws give him a form of redress 3rd If he has a form of redress, it a mandamus issued by the Supreme Court
In addressing the Marbury’s 1st point Justice Marshall refers to Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution and interprets the passage through Original Meaning as he states “It is... decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State..” Justice Marshall opinion thusly mirrors the exact meaning and intent of the Constitution as the Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution provides the following: “and he[President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” -Article 2 Section 2 U.S. Constitution- Thusly Justice Marshall holds that Marbury appointment as a justice was completed after the conditions of Article 2 Section 2 were met and he was entitled to the position. Furthermore, he continues on to state that once appointed “the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President; the rights he has acquired are protected by law and are not resumable by the President.” Consequently, Jefferson being the newly appointed President hand no power to hold Marbury’s commission. Justice Marshall uses Original Meaning and Original Intent interpretations in addressing Marbury’s second point as Justice Marshall relies on the 1789 Judiciary Act section 13 which provided the following “and shall have the power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” Justice Marshall uses the Original Meaning and Original Intent interpretation of the constitution to validate the Supreme Courts power to issue a writ of mandamus in compelling James Madison the Secretary of State to deliver the Marbury’s commission. …show more content…
In addressing Marbury’s third point Justice Marshall uses both Original Meaning and Intent interpretation of the Constitution as he references Article 3 which provides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Marbury brought his case to the Supreme Courts under Article 2 Section 2 seeking a writ of mandamus making his case originating in the Supreme Court and not an appellate review. Marshall uses Original Intent, Original Meaning, and Stare Decisis as he uses the literal meaning of Article 3 Section 2 “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Marbury does not qualify as an Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls under the Constitution thus Marshall denies holds that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear his case. Justice Marshall then continues on to lay the foundation for Judicial Review using Structural Analysis. Marshall upheld that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus only as a function if the complainant met the qualification for original jurisdiction or if the case was forwarded by appeal. Thusly he held that the 1789 Judiciary Act section 13
In addressing the Marbury’s 1st point Justice Marshall refers to Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution and interprets the passage through Original Meaning as he states “It is... decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the President, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State..” Justice Marshall opinion thusly mirrors the exact meaning and intent of the Constitution as the Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution provides the following: “and he[President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” -Article 2 Section 2 U.S. Constitution- Thusly Justice Marshall holds that Marbury appointment as a justice was completed after the conditions of Article 2 Section 2 were met and he was entitled to the position. Furthermore, he continues on to state that once appointed “the officer is by law not removable at the will of the President; the rights he has acquired are protected by law and are not resumable by the President.” Consequently, Jefferson being the newly appointed President hand no power to hold Marbury’s commission. Justice Marshall uses Original Meaning and Original Intent interpretations in addressing Marbury’s second point as Justice Marshall relies on the 1789 Judiciary Act section 13 which provided the following “and shall have the power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.” Justice Marshall uses the Original Meaning and Original Intent interpretation of the constitution to validate the Supreme Courts power to issue a writ of mandamus in compelling James Madison the Secretary of State to deliver the Marbury’s commission. …show more content…
In addressing Marbury’s third point Justice Marshall uses both Original Meaning and Intent interpretation of the Constitution as he references Article 3 which provides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Marbury brought his case to the Supreme Courts under Article 2 Section 2 seeking a writ of mandamus making his case originating in the Supreme Court and not an appellate review. Marshall uses Original Intent, Original Meaning, and Stare Decisis as he uses the literal meaning of Article 3 Section 2 “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Marbury does not qualify as an Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls under the Constitution thus Marshall denies holds that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear his case. Justice Marshall then continues on to lay the foundation for Judicial Review using Structural Analysis. Marshall upheld that the Supreme Court had the power to issue writs of mandamus only as a function if the complainant met the qualification for original jurisdiction or if the case was forwarded by appeal. Thusly he held that the 1789 Judiciary Act section 13