Judicial Review

Judicial Review

The case of Marbury and Madison not only was significant to American history but also significant to the way in which many courts and governments operate across the globe. The introduction of judicial review to modern liberal democracy through this case was a prime example of both political and strategic jurisprudence in that it addressed not only the political divide amongst the two main parties at the time but also the unification of different ideologies in order to make constitutional decree the basis and highest law in the United States of America.

The case in point has been one that many have studied and theorized about how significant it was to the establishment of an institution as well as the extent to which political and strategic jurisprudence was executed. The case of Marbury was in essence his commission of appointment as justice of peace by previous president John Adams was withheld by the new and current Jefferson government of the time (Nelson W.E, 2000). Under Jefferson's government the secretary of state had been James Madison who was ordered to withhold Marbury's appointment (Dean A., 1993). The initial problem in this dispute had been the last-minute appointment of Marbury by Federalist President Adams. The new republican Jefferson government withholding this commission set the groundwork for what would be a landmark case in law and political events.

The case was brought to court before Chief Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court of America in 1803 (Dean A., 1993). The first aspect of political and strategic jurisprudence could have potentially occurred within this context only. Chief Justice Marshall was also appointed by the Federalist party as was the majority of the other members of the Supreme Court. However, it was this judicial branch that did not have the same power amongst the branches of government we see today. Marshall could have, but not without consequences, been motivated to with his own party and enforced the Republican Party to commission William Marbury. Had this had happened Marshall and the court system would have been acting within the law and remained dedicated to their own beliefs and political ideologies. The fact that the Jefferson government and congress distrusted the court system would have been exasperated had Marshall enforced the commission of Marbury (Dean A., 1993).

Many have argued that Marshall knew this and also knew that this would greater divide the aspirations of coming together as nation with the two parties as well as de-legitimize the judiciary branch of government (Dean A., 1993). In order to appease both sides and continue to make the various branches of government co-exist there would need to be careful deliberation and thought on the matters of Marbury and Madison. The court therefore wanted to both to "assert the power to compel executive officers to comply with the law as judicially construed and compel Congress to conform its legislative actions to the Constitution as judicially construed" (Dean A., 1993). In order to do this there needed to be some way in which a law could be stated in disagreement with the Constitution and yet not have any serious ramifications or political cost.

Chief Justice Marshall found that Marbury was duly entitled to his commission however found