The classic case USA Marbury v. Madison

[case] a general principle of constitutional review: the case of Marbury v. Madison

(Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. [1 Cranch]137[1803])

[1] event summary

In 1800 American presidential election, the federal party suffered a crushing defeat, but the outgoing Federalist President John Adams used the opportunity is still in the 42 federal party person appointed justice of the peace Columbia zone. But the mandate issued by President Adams, Secretary of state for all John Marshall did not. When the new president Thomas Jefferson became president, he ordered the Secretary of state James Madison not to 17 of them presented appointment certificates, including the appointment of William Marbury. Marbury decided to initiate proceedings. He based on the grounds of 1789 "law" the provisions of article thirteenth, namely, "the Supreme Court has the power to need need within the legal system and the customary rights granted in the United States need to need those who need a court order need to shape" (order form is a requirement issued by a court of law the officials responsible to perform the duties of the command). Marbury appeal to the Supreme Court through his lawyer, asked the Supreme Court to issue an order to the Secretary of State Condoleezza Madison, ordered him to issue credentials. But the Supreme Court spokesman John Marshall (who had become the chief justice of the Supreme Court) thinks, 1789 "law" the first paragraph of article thirteenth and third of the Federal Constitution conflict, as the Constitution itself to the Supreme Court of limited jurisdiction in "relates to the ambassador, minister, consular and by States parties of the case". Since Marbury did not belong to any of the above categories, the Supreme Court will not accept the case, although the "judicial" thirteenth conflict with the constitution.

[sentence]

America Federal Supreme Court in the case of Marbury that: Although the rights have been violated and should receive the legal relief, however, the Federal Supreme Court of this belongs to political issues are not jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court held that, Marbury the 1789 "law" the relevant provisions of the law unconstitutional, not applicable to the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court overruled Marbury litigation request.

The Federal Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall (J.Marshall) in the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has the first constitutional judicial review power of explanation. Marshall described in detail in the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court judicial interpretation has the reason

A, Marshall thinks, USA Congress legislative power is limited, because the constitution lists for Congress legislative (article eighth USA constitution of first), but did not ban Congress exercises the legislative power (ninth, first). The people's government, given various organs in various privileges, not allowed to various organs have the authority to do; Parliament is no exception, the exercise of legislative power should be limited in scope. In order to make the people will not forget the power is limited, in order to limit the scope of error will not, it will be "limited" written in the constitution. If the state organs by the restrictions, and can break the limit, then the limits to what in? Written in the constitution, again have what meaning? If this restriction not bound by state organs, the state is prohibited on both matters, or allow matters, all can be effective behavior, so, legislation and authoritarian and what is the difference? In a word, not to change the constitution, parliament with ordinary legislative procedure, this is self-evident truth.

Two, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The constitution as the supreme law of the land, can not use ordinary legislative procedure to change? Or in an equal status and common law, the Parliament can be modified? If the former is, then, the law is not a law; if the latter, then all the written constitution constitutional procedure is not complicated. Therefore, since theThe grass the constitution, must take the constitution as the supreme law of the state, in a written constitution, the law unconstitutional invalid reason is of course.

Three, why has the constitutional court interpretation of the power of judicial review. Analysis of significance, is the court authority. The judge in the trial proceedings applicable regulations, of course, necessary to explain the regulations. Two laws conflict with each other, the court must decide what kind of regulations applicable. So, if the constitution law and conflict law and the constitution, and also can be used as a case, the court is the provisions of the law or applicable regulations, apply the Constitution? Two it must be one. If the court to respect the constitution, thought the constitution validity in the law, is Yishe legal and constitutional, otherwise, all written constitutions are no longer necessary. On the one hand to limit the power of Parliament, on the other hand, give the Council by universal power; restrictions on the one hand, on the other hand, allowing it to exceed limit, this is a contradiction in logic.

Four, Marshall in accordance with the provisions of the constitution America, illustrate the legal reasons can not review: the federal judicial power, all cases under the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitution (Cases and Controversies), which is the Federal Constitution. With this provision, the court can not participate in the Constitution's decision? Examples show, the Constitution prohibits states on the output of trade goods shall direct or indirect tax (article first paragraph ninth fifth), if a state law. This law, and litigation, courts can not consider the constitution, but only according to law? And as the Federal Constitution prohibits Congress Si seized the civil rights bill and retroactive law (article first paragraph ninth third), if Congress enacted a law against with this provision, and litigation, courts can not consider the constitution, and set the prisoner to death? Obviously, there are not only to use the constitution to restrain the parliament, but also to use the constitution to restrict courts.

Summary of Marshall the USA Federal Supreme Court has the judicial review power of interpretation of the cause, it is mainly three aspects: (1) the legal reason. The Constitution on all other laws, therefore unconstitutional laws, decrees, orders, rules and sanctions, of course, regarded as invalid. (2) the system reason. In accordance with the separation of the three powers of the view, the independence of judicial power in the legislative interpretation power of its own, independent of the constitution, the fallacy of corrective legislation. In the implementation of people's sovereignty, the constitution represents the highest will of the people, so naturally superior people's representatives congress will play a role of intermediary, the court mediation between the people and the Congress, the applicable law should be the will of the people is higher than the Congress will. (3) the policy reason. The court as the defender of the constitution, in the treatment of specific litigation, safeguard the people's rights, the people's rights are unaffected by the constitutional law violation.