(Describer) Homework help: 'Marbury v. Madison.'

(narrator) When there's a clash between a law of Congress and the Constitution, who gets to decide what's constitutional? The answer now is the Supreme Court, thanks to the principle of judicial review. "What is judicial review?" you ask. It's the ability of the federal courts to review congressional laws, actions taken by the president, and laws and actions of the states for constitutionality. But it wasn't always this way, and it was a confrontation that involved three famous founding fathers-- Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison. You see, when Adams was president, he was given authority from the Judiciary Act of 1801 to appoint a number of Midnight Judges, who were a small group of judges in the Federalist Party, which was the same political party that Adams belonged to. This would ensure that the Federalist Party controlled the courts when Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Federalist, took over as president. One of these would-be Midnight Judges was William Marbury, whose appointment to be a justice of the peace was never delivered. When Thomas Jefferson became president, Secretary of State James Madison refused to deliver the commission to Marbury. This was the first time that a presidential election brought about a party change in the nation's short history. So the political tensions were high. Furious, Marbury took up his issue with the Supreme Court and asked them for a writ of mandamus-- basically, a document that would order Madison to deliver the commission. The court did not want to get involved in the partisan dispute between the parties, but it had to make a decision about the case. The justices found the solution in establishing a principle that Alexander Hamilton mentioned in Federalist essay #78 that highlights the role of the courts. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the court, which decided, first, that Marbury was entitled to the commission. But, more importantly, they decided that the clause allowing the court to issue writs, which came from the 1789 Judiciary Act in the first place, was actually unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall then outlined the role of the courts saying, "It is 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 that rule. "If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." This principle is called "judicial review," and it invalidated an act of Congress through the power of the Supreme Court. And, although not in the Constitution, judicial review strongly supports the constitutional principle of checks and balances and brings about a greater balance among all three branches. For a deeper understanding of Marbury v. Madison, explore the following questions.

(Describer) In what potential ways would the federal government function today had the principle of judicial review not been established? When reviewing for constitutionality, how do Supreme Court justices go about making their decisions? In what way had the principle of Judicial Review been utilized in other court cases throughout history? Bill of Rights Institute. Accessibility provided by the US Department of Education.

[patriotic music]

Accessibility provided by the U.S. Department of Education.