MARBURY V MADISON AND CHECKS AND BALANCES: In a nation established by peoples of differing languages, ethnicities, and religions, Americans find unity in the democratic principles of the founding fathers; principles that united the thirteen colonies after the American Revolution and continue to unite Americans during such crises as the attacks of September 11th. Fundamental doctrines associated with the Constitution are familiar to average Americans even today, two hundred years after its ratification.
For example, Americans widely believe that governmental "checks and balances" safeguard American democracy by equalising powers between the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. While most Americans probably remember how the first three articles of the Constitution address this point, many have no knowledge of the single most important event that elevated the federal judiciary to equal footing with Congress and the president: the case of Marbury v. Madison.
Without this landmark Supreme Court case, the highest federal court would not have the power to render decisions substantial enough to change the face of American history.
During John Adams's presidency (1797-1801), his Federalist party began losing its strength to the ever-growing Republican party headed by Thomas Jefferson. As the election of 1800 came and went, the Federalists lost the presidency to Jefferson along with their congressional majority.
Simultaneously, the Federalist lame-duck Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 creating sixteen vacancies in federal judge judgeships and other judicial positions. Attempting to sustain the party, Adams appointed Federalists to these offices during his last day as president.
These "midnight judges" never received their commissions because a new Republican Congress immediately repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, destroying the positions. Jefferson therefore told Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver some commissions.One "midnight judge," William Marbury, whom Adams had appointed as a justice of the peace for Washington, D.C., sued for his commission using the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Marbury requested that the Supreme Court give him a "writ of mandamus" (a court order requiring a specific action) that would force Madison to hand over the commission. Chief Justice John Marshall, a newly appointed Federalist justice, dismissed the case but went one step farther when writing the court's opinion. He argued that the portion of the Judiciary Act that allowed the Supreme Court to issue such writs was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not grant the judicial branch such authority. Therefore, any law including such writs was invalid.
This decision, while avoiding a confrontation with the presidency over the writ's enforcement, set an important precedent for "judicial review," the Supreme Court's power as the final judge of a federal law's constitutionality. This authority raised the judiciary to a level equal to that of the legislative and executive branches, one able to check and balance the other two branches' power.
Americans need to remember the principle of checks and balances because without them, American democratic government would not survive. Checks and balances exist to ensure that one branch of government does not become too powerful. For example, if nothing restricts presidential power, the chief executive could become a dictator, commanding the military, vetoing laws not to his liking, and assigning overwhelming authority to executive agencies.
An unchecked legislature could degenerate into "majority rule" with the potential to create laws that trample individual liberties or the welfare of less populated regions. An all-powerful judiciary could hand down cruel punishments that would be out of proportion to the crimes committed. To ensure that no government branch became too powerful, the founding fathers included explicit checks and balances in the Constitution so the legislative branch could restrain the executive branch and vice versa.
Article three governing the judicial branch however consists of only three small sections. The first describes the term of judicial appointments; the second, the cases it may accept; and the third, the terms of a treason case. Given these three sections, the judicial branch possessed little power over the other two branches. It therefore was considered the weakest branch of government. Before Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court had in fact never declared a law unconstitutional because the Constitution did not specifically provide this authority.
Ironically, in denying the courts the additional writ authority and declaring the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Marshall gave the court the more important, implied constitutional authority of "judicial review," which was essential for effective checks and balances with the presidency and Congress.
Judicial review, a check, has had a large influence on American history. Foremost, it provided a nationally accepted process for individuals and states to oppose oppressive or unacceptable federal legislation without open rebellion or state nullification.In the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, nullification declared that a state could invalidate any federal law because the states comprised the national government. Nullification reached dangerous potential in 1833 when South Carolina nullified the tariff of 1828, almost invoking a civil war. If judicial review had not existed, such nullification controversies would have occurred much more often, leading to chaos, civil war, and the nation's ultimate collapse.
Many cases of judicial review involving individual civil rights have produced paramount effects on American society such as Southern desegregation in the 1950s.
In 1896, the Supreme Court upheld Southern segregation in the Plessy v. Ferguson case, ruling that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional under the fourteenth amendment. Fifty-eight years later in 1954, the Court reversed its earlier decision in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case. It decided that legislated segregation produced "inherently unequal" conditions in the schools, and therefore, segregation was unconstitutional. Without judicial review as a balance against state and federal legislatures and executives, African Americans might still face the oppressive Jim Crow voting laws and the humiliating segregation practices of previous decades.
Tragic events like the September 11th attacks may fragment Americans' lives and sense of security, but common principles pull us together into a unified nation. Checks and balances, a principle first established by the founding fathers, continues to support and safeguard our strong national government, which provides citizens security and aid in times of crisis. Without it, American liberties and ideals could be at the mercy of dictatorial presidents, majority rule, or cruel and irreversible judicial decisions. The possibility of continued segregation in the South, a military dictator, or an extensive list of capital offences seems all too real. As a "check," judicial review exemplifies how the system has protected democracy and personal liberty against such terrors since its creation.
Without a strong system of constitutional checks and balances and the implied powers of judicial review from Marbury v. Madison, Americans today could not boast a truly free country.
Morghan Transue is a junior at South Brunswick High School in New Jersey. She lives in Kendall Park.
This article is in the public domain
As part of the "We the People" initiative, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) invited high school juniors across the United States to participate in an essay contest on the Idea of America -- to explore what it is that connects us as a nation. More than thirteen hundred essays were submitted. The winner, Morghan Transue, received a $5,000 grand prize at the First Annual NEH Heroes of History lecture. Five finalists each received $1,000 Prizes. - Morghan Transue
Comments
Comments are closed.