Marbury v Madison
... first question the court decided that he did have the right to the commission. This right comes from an act of Congress. The court said that if there was an appointment made and the seal of the United States on it the appointment was his. The problem was that the appointment never made it to him. This is where a problem lies. The court says that the powers to appoint a person to office and to commission them are two different jobs. Even if the president did both of the jobs they were two separate jobs. They also decided that for the Secretary of State to seal the commission the president must sign the commission. After the seal was on the appointment was made. It was said that “It is therefore, decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the President the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete when the deal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State.” (2) After the seal was on the president could not control the commission because the judicial seat was a five year seat that was not removable by the president. If the seat was revocable by the president than there would be no harm in Jefferson’s actions. “To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.” (2) Because he has proven a vested legal right the second question was to ask if the laws of the country afforded him a remedy. The court said that every person has the right of protection under the laws when there is an injustice. If the courts could not remedy the situation they did not deserve the right to have “this high appellation” (1). Clearly there was an injustice done to Marbury in this case. He was not given the opportunity to fill the position that was appointed to him. During the case Marshall then went on to say that it is in the president’s powers to “use his own discretion” (1) to make up his mind on political issues. He had the right to do what he pleases when political issues were in question. When the law prescribes a certain action though that action should be done. The action not taken in this case was by the new Secretary of State James Madison. The law indicated that when the seal of the United States was placed on the commission the Secretary of Stated would then deliver the commission. Because the law states that the commission should have been delivered Marbury had a right to a remedy for his injuries. “It is then the opinion of the court, 1st. That by sighing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the President of the United States appointed him a justice of peace for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia; and that the seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, s conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment, and that the appointment conferred on him a legal right to the office for the space of five years. 2d.That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy.” (2) Because the first two questions were answered in agreement with Marbury they had to look at the third question. That question was if he is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. Marshall wrote that the third question could only be answered by asking 2 more questions. He said the remedy depended on “1st The nature of the writ applied for; and, 2dly.The power of this court.”(1) The first question entails the fact that Marbury didn’t want the commission paper as much as he wanted the job of justice of the peace. He made the argument and the court decided that Marbury had a vested legal claim to the job. He had been appointed and President Jefferson could not take that claim away from him. The court did decide that the writ of mandamus should be issued. The second question raised was the question that made this a landmark case. The question dealt with the power of the Supreme Court. The court decided that the Supreme Court could issue a writ of mandamus to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. Then the court decided the law was in violation of the Constitution. “The Secretary of State being a person holding an office under the authority of the United...