What was the outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case? (1 point)
Legislature is now allowed to make laws
• President is allowed freedom to make appointments
O Judicial branch has judicial review powers
• Senate now has to confirm presidential appointments
The outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case was that the judicial branch now has the power of judicial review.
The outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case was that the judicial branch now has the power of judicial review.
The outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case was that the judicial branch gained the power of judicial review. To understand this, let's break down the case and its significance:
1. Background: In 1801, outgoing President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace in Washington, D.C. However, Marbury's commission was not delivered before President Thomas Jefferson took office, and the newly appointed Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver it when he assumed office.
2. Lawsuit: Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus (a court order) compelling Madison to deliver his commission. However, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the law that gave the Court the authority to issue such a writ was unconstitutional.
3. Judicial Review: Although the Court did not grant Marbury's specific request, this case established the principle of judicial review. This means that the Supreme Court has the power to review and strike down laws or executive actions that it deems unconstitutional. In Marbury v. Madison, the Court asserted its authority to determine the constitutionality of acts of Congress. This landmark decision firmly established the concept of checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Therefore, the correct outcome of the Marbury v. Madison case is that the judicial branch gained judicial review powers, allowing them to review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The other options mentioned in your question, such as the legislature making laws or the president having freedom to make appointments, are not directly related to the outcome of this specific case.