Marshall's Take: Superior Constitution Or Legislature?

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is best known for two important contributions to modern U.S. government. Firstly, he established the power of the judiciary department, allowing it to claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Secondly, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall established the principle of judicial review, adding a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to expound the Constitution as paramount law, stating that the constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

Explore related products

Constitutional Theory

$70

Constitutional Theory

$32.95 $32.95

Constitutional Theory: Arguments and Perspectives

$89 $120

John Marshall's Constitutionalism (American Constitutionalism)

$22.04 $33.95

Race, Law, and American Society: 1607-Present (Criminology and Justice Studies)

$19.87 $24.99

The Constitutional Decisions;; Volume 2

$33.95

The constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is known for two significant contributions to modern US government. Firstly, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, allowing it to claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Secondly, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government.

In the Marbury vs Madison case of 1803, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. Marshall wrote:

> A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This was the first time the Supreme Court had declared a law passed by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional. Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to expound the Constitution as paramount law and to hold the other branches accountable to that law. He stated that it is the duty of the judicial department to interpret the law and ensure that acts prohibited and allowed are not treated with equal obligation.

Marshall's argument is that the constitution is either a superior, paramount law, or it is not. If it is not, then it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, alterable by the legislature. If the constitution is superior, then it is unchangeable by ordinary means, and the legislature cannot alter it with an ordinary act. The constitution, therefore, controls any legislative act repugnant to it.

The judiciary's authority to interpret the Constitution

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is best known for two important contributions to modern US government. Firstly, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, allowing it to claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Secondly, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government.

Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to interpret the Constitution as paramount law and to hold the other branches accountable to that law. He established the principle of judicial review, adding to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the federal government from becoming too powerful. Marshall's decision in the Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a key example of this. In this case, the Supreme Court declared a law passed by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional, establishing the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote, "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." He argued that the constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on the same level as ordinary legislative acts, alterable by the legislature. According to Marshall, if the constitution is superior, then it must govern over any ordinary act of the legislature. He believed that the judiciary had the duty to interpret the law and ensure that acts of the legislature did not contravene the Constitution.

Marshall's opinions and interpretations of the Constitution continue to be studied and taught in law schools today, demonstrating his lasting impact on American constitutional law and the judiciary's authority to interpret the Constitution.

The right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is best known for two important contributions to modern U.S. government. Firstly, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, so that it could claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Marshall's decision in the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government. This case also established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.

In Marbury v. Madison, William Marbury received a judicial appointment from President John Adams, but his commission was not delivered before Adams's term ended. When President Thomas Jefferson refused to deliver Marbury’s commission, Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order the new Administration to deliver it and finalize his appointment under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Although the Supreme Court held that it could not provide a remedy for Marbury’s claim because the relevant part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional, the Court’s decision in Marbury confirmed the principle of judicial review—that the Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. Marshall wrote, "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." With these words, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Marshall asserted the judiciary’s authority to expound the Constitution as paramount law and to hold the other branches accountable to that law. He took the ground that the validity of a commission, like that of a deed, depends on its delivery. The court thought otherwise; but as they also held that they had no cognizance of the case because the act of Congress conferring the power on them was in violation of the Constitution, Jefferson considered their opinion as to the legality of Marbury’s claim gratuitous. Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish." Marshall's opinion was that the powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. He argued that the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and allowed are of equal obligation.

Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government. He also displayed a character notable for its simplicity and utter lack of pretension. Marshall died in 1835, nearing the age of 80, without realizing the full impact of his long career as chief justice. He is generally considered to be the greatest jurist to fill that role, and his opinions are still taught in law schools today.

Explore related products

John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court

$14.32 $30

Chief Justice Marshall and the Constitutional Law of His Time

$22.95

The Constitutional Decisions of John Marshall John With an Introductory, Vol. 2 (Classic Reprint)

$17.06

World War I

$15.99 $19.99

Feminist Critical Policy Analysis II (Educational Policy Perspectives Series)

$62.39 $77.99

John Marshall's Constitutionalism (SUNY series in American Constitutionalism)

$33.95 $99

The principle of judicial review

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is best known for two important contributions to modern US government. Firstly, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, so that it could claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Secondly, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government.

Marshall's tenure as chief justice was brief but potent in forming the character of the person who would lay the foundations of American constitutional law. Marshall asserted the judiciary’s authority to expound the Constitution as paramount law and to hold the other branches accountable to that law. In the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.

In 1801, outgoing President John Adams issued William Marbury a commission as justice of the peace, but the new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it. Marbury then sued to obtain it. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Marshall wrote: "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void." With these words, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. The decision in this Supreme Court case established the right of the courts to determine the constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.

Marshall's dictum that there must be neither a strict nor a liberal construction of the Constitution, but that the natural meaning of the words must govern, was undoubtedly sound and wise. Marshall took the ground that the validity of a commission, like that of a deed, depends on its delivery. The court thought otherwise; but as they also held that they had no cognizance of the case because the act of Congress conferring the power on them was in violation of the Constitution. Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish."

In conclusion, Marshall's principle of judicial review established the important precedent that the judiciary has the power and duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, ensuring a balanced government and protecting against the concentration of power in any one branch.

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, or alterable by the legislature

John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the United States, is best known for two important contributions to modern U.S. government. Firstly, he established the power and prestige of the judiciary department, so that it could claim equal status with Congress and the Executive in a balanced government of separated powers. Secondly, Marshall interpreted the Constitution in ways that significantly enhanced the powers of the federal government.

Marshall's opinion is best reflected in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this case, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful. Marshall wrote, "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void". With these words, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall further elaborated on the role of the Constitution and the legislature. He stated that the powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and that the Constitution is written to ensure these limits are not forgotten. He argued that the Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on the same level as ordinary legislative acts, alterable by the legislature. There is no middle ground between these two alternatives.

Marshall asserted that if the Constitution is not considered superior, then the courts must "close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law". This would subvert the foundation of all written constitutions and give the legislature practical omnipotence, despite the intention to restrict their powers. Thus, Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution as superior or alterable by the legislature had significant implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature in the United States government.

Frequently asked questions