Marbury v. Madison (1803)

            
             FACTS: President Adams attempted to fill the vacancies on the judiciary bench before the end of his term. He had not delivered a number of commissions. When Jefferson became President, he refused to honor the appointments of President John Adams. As a result, Marbury, one of those appointees, sued Madison, the Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his commission.
             THE ISSUE: 1) Should Marbury be issued his commission? .
             2) If so, and his right to the commission has been violated, does the law offer him relief? .
             3) If he should be relieved, is it by the court issuing a writ of mandamus?.
             4) The issue being what is the duty of the court when the Constitution and the law are in conflict?.
             HOLDING:.
             1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No, because the case is beyond the court's jurisdiction 4) The duty of the court is to decide whether a law acts within the bounds of the constitution.
             REASONING OF THE COURT: .
             1) Since the President had signed and sealed Marbury's commission, then the situations surrounding the lack of delivery of the commission should not have any influence on the validity of the commission. 2) There was a specific duty assigned by the law, which is to deliver the commission, and that duty was not performed. Thus, the person whose rights were violated by the omission of the duty has the right to seek relief. 3) The court does have the right to issue a writ of mandamus to persons and the secretary of state would be a person. However, the law prohibits the court from authorizing a writ. Therefore, since the law is in conflict with the constitution, the law is null. 4) If both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, the court must determine whether the law or the constitution should be upheld, therefore granting the court judicial review.