Did Marshall believe Marbury should have been given his job?
And
Did Marshall believe Marbury had a remedy for his grievance?
These two I cannot find in my reading, and I thought I would ask you guys.
Hopefully you can help!
You'll find your answers here.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.html
After reading that I've decided and maybe you can help
1) Yes because President Adams has granted him the comission when he signed it.
And 2)
Yes because of civil liberty.
Is this right?
Right.
You could go into more detail about 2).
To determine whether Marshall believed Marbury should have been given his job and whether Marbury had a remedy for his grievance, we can refer to the case of Marbury v. Madison decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803. Marshall's opinion in this case can shed light on his beliefs.
1. Did Marshall believe Marbury should have been given his job?
In the case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall did not explicitly state his personal belief on whether Marbury should have been given his job as a justice of the peace. However, Marshall's opinion focused on the broader issue of the Supreme Court's power to issue writs of mandamus, which would have been the remedy for Marbury to obtain his job.
Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, asserting that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional. While Marbury did not ultimately receive his job, Marshall's decision implicitly recognized the Court's power to review executive actions, including appointments.
2. Did Marshall believe Marbury had a remedy for his grievance?
In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Marshall asserted that Marbury did have a remedy for his grievance, which was to file a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver Marbury's commission. However, Marshall concluded that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to issue the writ, as it went beyond the Court's power as outlined in the Constitution.
Marshall argued that the relevant section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which granted the Court the authority to compel the delivery of commissions, was unconstitutional because it extended the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what was outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, while Marshall acknowledged the existence of a potential remedy for Marbury, he concluded that the Court could not provide it due to jurisdictional limitations.
In summary, while Marshall did not express his personal beliefs on whether Marbury should have been given his job, he recognized that Marbury had a potential remedy for his grievance through a writ of mandamus. However, the Court's decision ultimately concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to provide that remedy in Marbury's case.