A Supreme Beginning

John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of these United States; but he certainly made the most lasting mark on them. For it was he who shaped the Supreme Court's authority into what it is today. The fourth Chief Justice eloquently catapulted that Court's rightful place along side the other branches of government.

Although the power of the judicial branch of government is expressly set out in Article III of the Constitution, in practice the limits were virtually unknown until then secretary of state, James Madison, refused to commission several would-be justices of the peace - one of whom was Mr. William Marbury - even though they had been legally appointed by outgoing President John Adams. Mr. Madison's defiance lead to a writ of Mandamus (an order to command) being filed in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, first discussed whether or not his body of government had jurisdiction to hear the case. He looked to the Constitution itself for his answer. The wording was (and still is) in Article III..."the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls..."

Of course, the critical issue in this case was whether or not the Court could command Mr. Madison to commission legally appointed government officials. The short answer was yes. The opposing argument, put forth by our early day legislature presumably through Mr. Madison, was that...well, the legislature has the final say as to its own laws, without judicial review of that legislation. After all, the three branches of government are created equal and no one is superior to the other.

But does that mean that obviously unconstitutional laws should stand? Mr. Chief Justice thought not. "It is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply."

Enough said; and quite eloquently spoken by the Chief Justice. If a law is contrary to the demands of the Constitution, it will fail. And that's how we get "the supreme law of the land."

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic