Marbury vs. Madison Case - Essay Example

Marbury vs. Madison CaseSome legal scholars have accepted the legitimate reasoning of Marshall while others remain to challenge the decision he made toward the Marbury vs. Madison case. Alexander Bickel question John Marshall ruling, Bickel argued that Marshall Verdict in advocated justice for Marbury vs. Madison case was unconvincing and power-driven interpretation of jurisprudence. Marshall recommended that the Supreme Court had an outright obligation to strike-down every rule it discovers violated the constitution.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is1." Bickel foresees that consenting the constitution to mean whatever the Supreme Court perceives to be right might turn the constitution into a mere document in the hands of the judges. Consequently, judges may twist and shape the constitution into any form that delights them rather than giving the legal decision that will facilitate court attaining decision that depict legitimate, fair and just ruling.

Alexander Mordecai Bickel puts evidently that the aim of John Marshall was using federalist tactic to craft a strong central government over the opposition of Jeffersonian who was alacritous to have a resilient state government. Therefore, John Marshal used the case to establish the Supreme Court as center of power, proficient at overruling the legislature, the president, and the state. Bickel believed that allowing Supreme Court to dictate the constitution might turn it susceptible as judges may desire to shape and twist the constitution towards their lusts, personal gains and egotistical interests2.

It is important that Alexander Bickel’s notion is taken into consideration to circumvent future judges from using their positions for personal interest. Conversely, Supreme Court remained to be a vital constitutional independent branch, but it has to incorporate other institution such as congress, and the state interest thus fashioning a holistic relationship for sustainable governance of the country.Scholars such as Winfred H. Rose disagree with the ruling of chief justice John Marshall toward Marbury vs.

Madison case3. Marshall had quoted out of context Article III of the Judicial Act of 1789 in the basis that it was unconstitutional. Marshall is believed to have done the misquotation of the constitution intentionally so as Marbury, his friend, benefit by getting his appointment from Madison hence embracing his individual interests. Marshall knew that the court had no right to grant a Writ of Mandamus that will coerce secretary of state Madison to convey the essential paperwork that will render Marbury to have right to the commission as a judge.

Marshall wanted to fulfill his personal interest, and this made him forget that only the citizens have the right to alter the constitution4. Marshall realized that the constitution lacked jurisdiction to compel Madison to accept appointing Marbury as the judge. Therefore, Marshall had to misquote article III of the Judicial Act of 1789 hence granting Marbury the right to commission as a judge. Supreme Court had the ultimate supremacy on the law thus it has the power to overrule any other institution.

BibliographyBickel, Alexander Mordecai. The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Swindler, William Finley. The Constitution and Chief Justice Marshall. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978.