Friday, March 29, 2024
08:35 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Optional subjects > Group VI > Constitutional Law

Constitutional Law Notes and Topics on Const Law

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Islaw Khan's Avatar
Senior Member
Qualifier: Awarded to those Members who cleared css written examination - Issue reason: CSS-2008, Roll no. 5170, CSS-2012 Roll no. 11105PMS / PCS Award: Serving PMS / PCS (BS 17) officers are eligible only. - Issue reason: PCS - 2008 / TehsildarMedal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,066
Thanks: 928
Thanked 1,758 Times in 791 Posts
Islaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud ofIslaw Khan has much to be proud of
Lightbulb Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).


Facts

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.

William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1783 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”


Issues

1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void?
4. Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution?
5. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?



Holding and Rule (Marshall)

1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission.

The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive’s constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams.
2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy.The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right 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 the country afford him a remedy.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.
5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction.


Disposition

Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn’t get the commission.
__________________
Life is a tale told by an idiot...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Islaw Khan For This Useful Post:
Sana Tariq Khan (Monday, January 02, 2012)
  #2  
Old Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Xeric's Avatar
Provincial Civil Service
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason: PMS / PCS Award: Serving PMS / PCS (BS 17) officers are eligible only. - Issue reason: Diligent Service Medal: Awarded upon completion of 5 years of dedicated services and contribution to the community. - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,639
Thanks: 430
Thanked 2,335 Times in 569 Posts
Xeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdomXeric is a bearer of wisdom
Default

dear islah G,


do our supreme court have power of judicial review? if yes, pls tell me any important case where supreme court of pakistan exercised this power.
__________________
No matter how fast i run or how far i go it wont escape me, pain, misery, emptiness.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Thursday, February 03, 2011
41st CTP (PAS)
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 186, CE 2015 - Merit 9
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: karachi
Posts: 155
Thanks: 19
Thanked 75 Times in 54 Posts
out of place is on a distinguished road
Default

Yes our supreme court has this power of judicial review and it has used it quite often. Most recently it was used in declaring NRO null and void as ultra vires of the constitution.
Anywhere where there is a federal polity with a written constitution has to have a strong, independent Supreme court with the power of judicial review.
In such a constitutional framework, judiciary plays the role of a zealous guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens and an important arbiter of disputes between centre and states and among states themselves.
__________________
Why not !?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Friday, February 04, 2011
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
rqabutt is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by islah_G View Post
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).


Facts

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.

William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1783 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”


Issues

1. Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
2. Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
3. Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void?
4. Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution?
5. Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?



Holding and Rule (Marshall)

1. Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission.

The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive’s constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams.
2. Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy.The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right 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 the country afford him a remedy.
3. Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically 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 the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
4. No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.
5. No. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus.

To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.

It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that case. Although, therefore, a mandamus may be directed to courts, yet to issue such a writ to an officer for the delivery of a paper is, in effect, the same as to sustain an original action for that paper, and is therefore a matter of original jurisdiction.


Disposition

Application for writ of mandamus denied. Marbury doesn’t get the commission.
thnx
i need this too,,can u share Benazir v President of Pakistan PLD 1992 case plz
I need that too in short words
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Constitution of the United States Muhammad Adnan General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 3 Saturday, February 01, 2020 02:25 AM
Presidents of USA Last Island History of USA 41 Wednesday, December 26, 2007 07:09 AM
History of USA Sureshlasi History of USA 13 Wednesday, September 12, 2007 02:34 AM
James Madison Qurratulain History of USA 3 Saturday, September 09, 2006 12:47 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.