Mandamus (pronounced man-dey-muhs)
At
common law, an order of a superior court or officer commanding (an inferior tribunal,
public official, or organ of the state) a specific thing be done. Formerly a writ, now issued as an order.
1530-1535: From Middle English, a borrowing from the late fourteenth century Anglo-French, from the Latin mandāmus
(we order (which were printed as the opening words of a writ of mandamus), first person plural present indicative of mandāre (to
order).
Some writs
A mandamus was a writ compelling a court or government official correctly to perform that which the law required; for technical reasons it’s now issued as an order rather than a writ. It’s one of a number of procedures called the prerogative writs, an evolutionary fork of the common law which ensured courts could compel governments to adhere to the law. These devices constitute the means by which the rule of law is maintained and, because of the intent, a mandamus must follow black-letter law. If a law says a minister must review something, the court can force only the review and cannot instruct what the finding should be. The use is now generally limited to cases of complaint someone having an interest in the performance of a public duty, when effectual relief against its neglect cannot be had in the course of an ordinary action.
There are other mechanisms in this class. The subpoena duces tecum (order for production of evidence) is a summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. It’s similar to the subpoena ad testificandum (summoning a witness orally to testify) but differs in that it requires the production of physical evidence. The literal translation was "under threat of punishment, you will bring it with you", the construct being sub (under) + poena (penalty) + duces (you will bring) + te (you) + cum (with). Habeas corpus in the Medieval Latin meant literally "that you have the body". It provides recourse in law by which a person can report an unlawful detention to a court and request the court order those holding the person to bring the prisoner before a court so it might decide whether the imprisonment is lawful; it is best understood in modern use as "bring us the body". The quo warranto, which in Medieval Latin was literally "by what warrant?" required a person to show the court by what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold. A prohibito (literally "prohibited") directed the stopping of something the law prohibits. A procedendo, from Medieval Latin in the sense of the meanings “proceed; prosecute”, was a writ sending a case from an appellate court to a lower court with an order to proceed to judgment and was also the writ by which the suspended commission of a justice of the peace was revived. A writ of certiorari was a request for judicial review of the findings or conduct of an inferior court, tribunal, or other public authority ands in its pure form it existed by right, not by leave of the court. The Medieval Latin was certiorārī (volumus), a literal “we wish to be informed". Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin verbs certioro, certiorare (to inform, apprise, show).
Marbury v Madison (5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137
(1803)) was the US Supreme Court case which established the principle of
judicial review in the United States, the consequence being US courts have the
power to strike down laws they find to violate the US Constitution; it’s thus regarded
as the single most important decision in US constitutional law, establishing
that the constitution, although a foundation political document, is also actual
law and thus the country’s basic law. It
was this decision which made possible the enforcement of the separation of
powers between the federal government’s executive and judicial branches.
The
case had an unlikely origin in a political squabble which sounds remarkably
modern. John Adams (1735–1826; US
president 1797-1801) had lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson
(1743–1826; US president 1801-1809) and in March 1801, two days before his term
ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to judicial
offices, intending to sabotage the Democratic-Republican Party’s incoming
administration. A compliant Senate confirmed
the appointments with a haste which would seem now extraordinary but the outgoing
Secretary of State John Marshall (1755–1835; US secretary of state 1800-1801
& chief justice 1801-1835) did not deliver all of the papers of commission
before Jefferson's inauguration, thus encouraging the new president to declare
them void. One undelivered commission was
that of William Marbury (1762–1835) and in late 1801, after Madison had more
than once declined to deliver his commission, Marbury filed suit in the Supreme
Court requesting the issue of a writ of mandamus, requiring Madison to deliver the
papers.
The court’s judgement was handed down by John Marshall, now the chief justice. The court held that (1) the president’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal and (2) in those circumstances a competent court would order the official in question to deliver the commission. However, despite the facts of Marbury v Madison, no writ of mandamus was issue, the rationale being that upon examining the law with which Congress had granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction in such matters, the legislature had expanded the definition of its jurisdiction beyond that which was specified in the constitution. The Court then struck down that section of the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws they find violate the Constitution. The finding in Marbury v Madison was the origin of judicial review in the US.
Forrest-Marbury House, 3350 M Street NW, Georgetown, Washington DC, once the home of William Marbury. It was in this house on 29 March 1791 that George Washington (1732–1799; president of the US 1789-1797) negotiated the real-estate deal for the land that would become Washington DC. Since 1992, it has been the chancery of the Embassy of Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment