Class 3- Conlaw

Chief Justice Marshall addresses three main questions in the case:
- Right to the Commission: Did Marbury have a right to the commission?
- Existence of a Remedy: If there was a right, did a remedy exist?
- Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to issue a remedy?

Typically, jurisdictional issues are addressed first as a threshold question.
In this case, Marshall reverses this order:
- He deals with the merits of the case first.
- Jurisdiction is addressed last, demonstrating a strategic choice.
This order allows him to convey a lesson to President Jefferson about the binding nature of the Constitution.

Marshall concludes that Marbury was entitled to the commission based on:
- His nomination by the previous president and the Senate's assent, signifying a valid appointment.
- There exists an opposing view relating to property law (similar to the need for delivery for a deed).
Marshall asserts that withholding the commission violated a vested legal right.

Marshall invokes the common law maxim: "Where there is a right, there is a remedy."
He emphasizes that civil liberty entails individual claims to legal protection when injured.
The pivotal issue is whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus.
- Marshall affirms that the court can compel the executive branch to act, contrary to President Jefferson's views.

Marshall articulates that some presidential functions are discretionary and not subject to judicial review:
- Examples include the president's power to remove officers or to pardon.
Conversely, when the law imposes a duty on the president, the president's actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.
This establishes the principle that the executive must follow the law.

Marshall finds that while Marbury has a right and a remedy, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
- Section 13 of the Act purportedly confers original jurisdiction but conflicts with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
- The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in cases involving ambassadors and states.
Therefore, the Judiciary Act's section is unconstitutional.

Marshall argues for the authority of the court to declare a law unconstitutional:
- The Constitution embodies the will of the people and is the supreme law of the land.
- He states that it is the judiciary's duty to interpret this law.
Despite there being no explicit provision in the Constitution stating that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter, Marshall asserts this authority implicitly:
- It is the function of the judiciary to say what the law is, including constitutional judgments.

Legal philosophy emphasizes that constitutional law differs from other forms of law (e.g., contracts) due to its open-ended nature and lack of precise definitions for many rights.
The interpretation of constitutional provisions often requires value judgments and is influenced by current societal contexts.

Various interpretative methods exist, which can significantly influence outcomes:
- Textualism: Looks strictly at the text's plain meaning.
- Precedent (Stare Decisis): Relies on previous rulings to guide current decisions.
- Living Constitution: Views the Constitution as adaptable to contemporary circumstances.
The approach taken can change judicial outcomes:
- Example: Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade utilized a living constitution approach to derive a right to privacy not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Judicial activism tends to promote a more dynamic interpretation of the Constitution, adapting it to modern issues.
Judicial self-restraint advocates that judges should respect the roles of elected branches and limit their intervention in political matters.
This ongoing tension shapes American legal interpretation and reflects the evolving landscape of constitutional law.