马伯里诉麦迪逊案英文版.docx

1、马伯里诉麦迪逊案英文版马伯里诉麦迪逊案（英文版）WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY, 1803 Term Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided: 1st. Has the a

2、pplicant a right to the commission he demands? 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3dly. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The first object of enquiry is: Has the applicant a right to the c

3、ommission he demands? His right originates in an act of congress passed in February, 1801, concerning the district of Columbia. This law enacts, that there shall be appointed in and for each of the said counties, such number of discreet persons to be justices of the peace as the president of the Uni

4、ted States shall, from time to time, think expedient, to continue in office for five years. It appears, from the affidavits, that in compliance with this law, a commission for William Marbury as a justice of peace for the county of Washington, was signed by John Adams, then president of the United S

5、tates; after which the seal of the United States was affixed to it; but the commission has never reached the person for whom it was made out. In order to determine whether he is entitled to this commission, it becomes necessary to enquire whether he has been appointed to the office. For if he has be

6、en appointed, the law continues him in office for five years . . . . Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President, and sealed by the secretary of state, was appointed; and as the law creating the office, gave the officer a right to hold for five years, independent of the execu

7、tive, the appointment was not revocable; but vested in the officer legal rights, which are protected by the laws of his country. To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right. This brings us to the second enquiry; whi

8、ch is, 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him 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 gove

9、rnment is to afford that protection. The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. 1 It is then the opinion of t

10、he court: 1st. That by signing the commission of Mr. Marbury, the president of the United States appointed him a justice of peace, for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia; . . . 2dly. That, having this legal title to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission; a refusal

11、 to deliver which, is a plain violation of that right, for which the laws of his country afford him a remedy. It remains to be enquired whether, 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on, 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and, 2dly. The power of this court. 1st.

12、 The nature of the writ. Court determines that having determined that the commission had reached a point beyond the discretion of the president and to the point where the secretary of state had to obey the law. Therefore, the remedy of a writ of mandamus is available. 2d. The power of this court Thi

13、s, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, whether it can issue from this court. The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus,

14、 in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The secretary of state, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description;

15、 and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the duties which its words purport to confer and assign. The constitution vests the whole

16、 judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States. In the distribution of this power it is declared that the