REPLY 1 NOTES

REPLY 1-1 JS (150 words and 1 reference)

I believe that in order to explain what the Marbury vs.Madison case means, we must recognize the historical concept of the Constitution, since the landmark of the case appeared when, for the first time, the Federal Court struck down an act of Congress on the grounds that Violated the US Constitution. In the presidential election of 1800, before President Jefferson took office, John Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointments of judges (Oyez, n.d). The  Act was approved by the Senate, but would not be valid until the commissions were issued by the Secretary of State,who refers to the dramatic play of the case when Marbury had been appointed but his commission had not been issued. Therefore, the questions hinge on whether Marbury is entitled to receive his commissions and whether the Supreme Court has the power to order the dismissal of the commissions. The Supreme Court ruled that Madison's refusal to surrender the commission was unlawful, but did not order Madison to surrender Marbury's commission by writ of mandamus. However, the Supreme Court as mentioned by Oyez (n.d) found that under the provision of the Judicial Act, Marbury was entitled to take his  case to the Supreme Court, as it  sought to extend the original jurisdiction of the Court established by Article III, Section 2. Concluding that Congress had no constitutional power to change legislation, because the Supremacy Clauses put the Constitution before the laws.

REPLY 1-1 AS (150 words and 1 reference)

Before Jefferson entered office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress approved the Judiciary Act of 1801, which established additional courts, increased the number of judges, and granted the president increased authority over the selection of judges. Jefferson became president on March 4, 1801. Because Adams's successor utilized the Act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 additional justices of the peace, the Act was simply an attempt by Adams and his party to thwart his successor's efforts. The appointees received approval from the Senate, but their commissions were not going to be handed over by the Secretary of State until after the Senate had ratified them(Marbury v. Madison. ,n.d.)

William Marbury had been selected to serve as a Judge of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but he never received his commission. Marbury submitted a request to the Supreme Court to compel James Madison, the newly appointed Secretary of State, to hand over the records. The Court determined that Madison's failure to provide the commission was in violation of the law, but it did not issue a writ of mandamus requiring Madison to hand up Marbury's commission. Instead, the Court decided that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that allowed Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was unconstitutional in and of itself because it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was established in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. In other words, the Court ruled that the provision was unconstitutional. (Marbury v. Madison. ,n.d.).

REPLY 1-2 NG (150 words and 1 reference)

Religion is an important aspect of many people’s lives. “Trying to remove religion from human life is like trying to remove cells from the human body…human beings inherently seek meaning and purpose” (Smolin, 2018, pg. 522). Consequently, some do not hold religion as near and dear as others and there is nothing wrong with that either however, this can create conflicting views between individuals especially when in positions where power and politics are preeminent. 

When it comes to combining religion and politics, I feel that everyone would see there being pros and cons to this. “It appears that for many people their politics define them…hence Americans are more divided…to be on the other side is to be of the devil” (Smolin, 2018, pg. 536). It is a dangerous thing to be divided when we are meant to be untied yet religion isn’t the only thing that divides us. Those who can put their differences aside and embrace diversity will set the tone and lead by example. According to the Grand Canyon University (GCU, 2023) Christians believe in compassion and care for both spiritual and physical needs. Even though mankind abuses political power, God ensures that the good prevails. The Christian world view instills morals and ethics that teach us how to live. God works through us to restore what is broken by spreading the word of God not by changing the nation through political reform. 

Regardless, of religious preference it is our responsibility as citizens to abide by the government and be good to thy neighbor.