Hearing about Marbury v. Madison? Here’s what it is, and why it matters for Idahoans | Opinion

The judicial branch plays a critical role in the vital health of our American constitutional system of government. But it is often the least understood.

It may be asked: “Why does an unelected branch of government get to strike down decisions of an elected executive or legislative body?” This important question must be understood if we are to maintain the system envisioned by our founders.

The Constitution establishes a system of courts — the highest being the U.S. Supreme Court — and states that the judicial power is vested in those courts. Most importantly, this judicial power extends to all cases involving the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

Now fast-forward 11 years after the Constitution’s effective date. Thomas Jefferson had just defeated John Adams for the presidency. However, before leaving, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts and added new judges, one of which was William Marbury. When Marbury’s commission for his new judge position was not honored by the new presidency, he filed suit.

In the seminal case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court decided that Marbury’s commission was valid and the new administration’s unwillingness to honor it violated a “vested legal right.” As a result, the court ordered new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury’s commission — in essence, to follow the law.

This begged the question asked above: “Does the court, part of the judicial branch, have the power to command Madison, who is part of the executive branch of government?” The answer, according to the author of the decision, John Marshall (who happened to be Jefferson’s second cousin), was yes.

Of critical importance, the court concluded: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” In other words, it was the job of the courts, and not other branches of government, to decide the constitutionality of laws, or whether actions of elected officials or bodies were consistent with the Constitution or the nation’s laws. This was embodied in the courts’ “judicial power” enumerated in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution was the highest law of the land, and an act of government “repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

Marbury and the court were not creating new powers out of whole cloth. Indeed, Marbury was almost exactly quoting from Federalist No. 78. Written in May of 1788, Alexander Hamilton stated that “the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.” Hamilton also wrote that it was the duty of the courts of justice to “declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void,” and, therefore, that “no legislative act … contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

Hamilton emphasized that in carrying out this role, the “complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential,” and that “there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”

A week after Federalist No. 78 was published, the Constitution was ratified.

Many great thinkers through time have recognized the tendency of people to bristle at any system of government that is not “democratic.” The courts are certainly not. And many leaders have cursed and castigated the courts when those leaders’ actions were struck down by judicial order.

However, as Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, quoting John Adams, the United States is “a government of laws, and not of men.” It is important that we as Americans understand this principle — we are not governed by one man, or a group of people, or even a majority of Americans. We are governed by a Constitution. And that Constitution grants the courts the power to keep individuals, governments and leaders in check with its written precepts.