Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:05:02.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Hundred Years of Marbury v. Madison: The Struggle for Judicial Review of Constitutional Questions in the United States and Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This year we celebrate a United States Supreme Court decision that marks the beginning of modern jurisdiction over constitutional questions: Marbury v. Madison. This is all the more remarkable since, when it was decided two hundred years ago in 1803, it was controversial and many still maintain it was wrongly decided. Chief Justice Marshall ruled on a dispute which he had earlier had a hand in causing, since the alleged legal error – the untimely delivery of a commission to Justice of the Peace Marbury – fell within his area of responsibility as Secretary of State. He dismissed the petition because the incorrect legal procedure had been chosen. However, he did not examine this question at the outset but – contrary to the accepted procedural rules of his time – at the end. This left room for a wide-ranging discussion of the right of judicial review, which was not required by law, and was, therefore, obiter dicta. Thomas Jefferson later referred to this discussion as the Chief Justice's “obiter dissertation.” Of course, Adams himself contended that the case turned on the judicial right of review, since this was a component of his argument that the petition should be dismissed.

Type
European & International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 6 , 01 June 2004 , pp. 685 - 701
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).Google Scholar

2 Cf. Alstyne, Van, A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison, 1969 Duke L.J 1; Nelson, Marbury v. Madison: The Origins and Legacy of Judicial Review (2000).Google Scholar

3 Alstyne, S. Van, 1969 Duke L.J. 2.Google Scholar

4 Concerning his carreer see J. E. Smith, John Marshall (1996).Google Scholar

5 This is an ongoing discussion, cf. Troper, The Logic of Justification of Judicial Review, 99 Int'l J. of Constitutional L. 2003.Google Scholar

6 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How) 393 (1856).Google Scholar

7 Cf. Wendenburg, Die Debatte um die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und der Methodenstreit der Staatsrechtslehre in der Weimarer Republik 51 (1984); See also 3 Stolleis, Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland 117 (1999).Google Scholar

8 RGZ 111, 320 (1925).Google Scholar

9 RGZ 111, 320, 323 (1925).Google Scholar

10 Statement of January 8, 1924, Juristische Wochenschrift 1924, 90.Google Scholar

11 W. Jellinek, Das Märchen von der Überprüfung Verfassungswidriger Reichssätze durch das Reichsgericht, Juristische Wochenschrift 1925, 454.Google Scholar

12 RGZ 124, 173 (1929).Google Scholar

13 See Wendenburg, supra note7, at 92.Google Scholar

14 Id.Google Scholar

15 8 Coke Rep. 118 a (1610).Google Scholar

16 See Grossmann, Die staats- und Rechtsideologischen Grundlagen der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und in der Schweiz 62 (1948).Google Scholar

17 Art. 79(3) of the German Basic Law enshrines this idea in positive German constitutional law.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Stourzh, Vom Widerstandsrecht zur Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit: Zum Problem der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im 18. Jahrhundert 23 (1974).Google Scholar

19 See Stourzh, supra note 18, at 10, 19, and 23.Google Scholar

20 See Madison in The Federalist No. 51, 26 (Garry Wills ed., 1982). See further Alton, From Marbury v. Madison to Bush v. Gore: 200 Years of Judicial Review in the United States, 7 Wesleyan L. Rev. 2001.Google Scholar

21 Cf. Noll, Internationale Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit 53 (1992).Google Scholar

22 See Noll, supra note 21, at 17.Google Scholar

23 The Federalist No. 78, 395.Google Scholar

24 See Robbers, Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès – Die Idee einer Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in der Französischen Revolution, in: Festschrift für W. Zeidler 247 (1987).Google Scholar

25 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); See also 2 Tribe, American Constitutional Law 567 (1988).Google Scholar

26 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar

27 De Toqueville, De la democratie en Amerique (Part 1, 1836).Google Scholar

28 Welcker, Art. “Gesetz”, Das Staatslexikon, Vol. 5, 1847, 695, 702, 704.Google Scholar

29 Mohl, R. von, Kritische Zeitschrift für Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des Auslandes, vol. XXIV, 1852, revised in: Staatsrecht, Völkerrecht und Politik, Vol. 1, 1860, 66.Google Scholar

30 See The Democratic Tradition: Four German Constitutions (E. M. Hucko ed., 1987).Google Scholar

31 See Hartmann, How American Ideas Travelled, 24 Tul. Eur. & Civ. L. F 40, (2002).Google Scholar

32 Laband, Das Staatsrecht des deutschen Reiches 43, 46 (vol. II, 1878).Google Scholar

33 Wahl, Der Vorrang der Verfassung, Der Staat 485, 493 (1981).Google Scholar

34 Cf. Dreier, Dimensionen der Grundrechte 27 (1993); 2 Grimm, Die Zukunft der Verfassung 226 (1994).Google Scholar

35 The German Basic Law is translated by D. P. Currie, The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (1994).Google Scholar

36 See Tribe, supra note 25, at 580.Google Scholar

37 See Bundesverfassungsgericht, Jahresstatistik 2002, 17.Google Scholar

38 Lamprecht, Zur Demontage des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (1996); Schulze-Fielitz, Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Krise des Zeitgeistes, AöR 122 (1997), 6.Google Scholar

39 C. Schmitt, Verfassungslehre (4. ed. 1969).Google Scholar

40 Cf. Brunner, Der Zugang des Einzelnen zur Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im europäischen Raum, in Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 191 (2002); Schwartz, The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2000); de Vergottini, Guistizia Costituzionale E Sviluppo Democratico Nei Paesi Dell'Europa Centro-Orientale (2002).Google Scholar

41 See Arnold, Das Prinzip der Kontrolle des Gesetzgebers in der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit Mittel- und Osteuropas als Ausdruck gemeineuropäischen Verfassungsrechts, 17 Jahrbuch für Ostrecht 24, 26 (2002); Brunner, supra note 40, at 230.Google Scholar