Marbury v. Madison (1803): Overview and Application

-

 

Marbury v. Madison (1803): Overview

Case Citation:
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Summary:
Marbury v. Madison is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, empowering courts to determine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. This case firmly established the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and affirmed the judiciary’s role as the arbiter of constitutional compliance.

Key Facts of the Case

  • Background:
    At the end of President John Adams' administration, he appointed several "midnight judges" under the Judiciary Act of 1801. William Marbury was one of these appointees, but his commission was not delivered before Adams left office.
    When Thomas Jefferson became President, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver it.

  • Ruling:
    Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the Court’s opinion, which held:

    1. Marbury had a right to his commission.
    2. The law providing Marbury a remedy (the Judiciary Act of 1789) conflicted with the Constitution because it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allowed.
    3. The Court could not issue the writ of mandamus because the statute authorizing it was unconstitutional.

  • Significance:
    Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, affirming that:

    • The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
    • Any law, action, or order that conflicts with the Constitution is void.
    • It is the judiciary’s duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution.

Core Principles Relevant to Mr. Moore’s Defense

  1. The Supremacy of the Constitution

    • Marbury v. Madison declared that no law, statute, or court order can stand if it conflicts with the Constitution.
    • Application to Mr. Moore:
      • If the mortgage contract underlying the foreclosure lacks valid consideration (e.g., fiat currency) or violates constitutional protections, the foreclosure itself is unconstitutional and void.
      • Any court order enforcing the foreclosure is also invalid under the supremacy principle.

  2. Judicial Duty to Uphold Constitutional Rights

    • Courts are bound to strike down actions that violate the Constitution.
    • Application to Mr. Moore:
      • The Elbert County Court is obligated to review whether the foreclosure process complies with constitutional protections such as the 5th Amendment (property rights) and 14th Amendment (due process and equal protection).
      • If the court fails to protect these rights, its actions are null and void, as Marbury asserts.

  3. Void Actions Lack Legal Authority

    • An unconstitutional law or order is "void" and does not need to be obeyed.
    • Application to Mr. Moore:
      • If the foreclosure is based on unconstitutional or fraudulent grounds, Sheriff Norton and other officials enforcing the eviction are acting without legal authority.

Marbury v. Madison and the Role of State Officials

  1. State Officials Must Uphold the Constitution

    • Marbury established that all branches of government are bound by the Constitution. This includes law enforcement officers like Sheriff Norton.
    • Application to Mr. Moore:
      • Sheriff Norton’s primary duty is to uphold the Constitution, even if doing so requires refusing to enforce an unconstitutional court order.

  2. State Actions Are Subject to Judicial Review

    • Marbury reaffirmed that unconstitutional state actions cannot be justified or excused by precedent, statutes, or directives.
    • Application to Mr. Moore:
      • The Sheriff cannot claim immunity or justification for enforcing an unconstitutional eviction simply because it was ordered by a court.

Defense of Mr. Moore’s Property

  1. Void Mortgage and Foreclosure

    • If Mr. Moore’s mortgage lacks valid consideration (fiat currency as fraudulent consideration), the contract is void under constitutional law.
    • Foreclosure proceedings and any subsequent court orders enforcing the foreclosure would also be void. Marbury supports the principle that unconstitutional actions cannot stand.

  2. Due Process Violations

    • If Mr. Moore was not afforded fair legal procedures, his 14th Amendment rights were violated. Any court orders based on such processes would be unconstitutional and invalid under the Marbury precedent.

  3. State Action Without Legal Authority

    • Sheriff Norton’s enforcement of an unconstitutional foreclosure would be an overreach of his authority. Marbury’s principle of judicial review empowers Mr. Moore to challenge the legality of such enforcement.

Key Quote from Marbury v. Madison

"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Conclusion

Marbury v. Madison underpins Mr. Moore’s defense by affirming that:

  1. The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
  2. Any mortgage, foreclosure, or court order that violates constitutional principles is null and void.
  3. State actors, including Sheriff Norton, are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution above all other directives.

This case reinforces Mr. Moore’s position that his property cannot be seized without valid constitutional justification, and it holds all parties accountable for ensuring that no unconstitutional actions are taken against him.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. (2025) Affirmative Opinion in the Voice of Justice Alito

-
Image
  Supreme Court of the United States Zachary Moore v. Alliant Credit Union et al. Opinion of the Court by the voice of Justice Alito Delivered January 14, 2025 Today, this Court renders a decision of profound constitutional and societal importance. At issue is whether the foreclosure proceedings initiated by Alliant Credit Union against Mr. Zachary Moore—based on a mortgage loan derived from fiat currency—violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This case also raises broader questions about the legality of a monetary system that facilitates perpetual debt cycles through fiat currency and usury. After careful consideration, we hold that the foreclosure proceedings, as applied to Mr. Moore, constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to property and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, we find that the systemic exploitation inherent in the fiat currency system and its application to the facts of...
Read more

Citing RICO Violations to stop unlawful debt collections

-
Who is Zach Moore? and what to know about my movement If you’re reading this, take it as a call to prepare—for yourself, your family, and the world around you. At the heart of my movement is a simple but powerful truth:  any contract secured with a lie, or a claim not backed by anything real (like the U.S. dollar and debt), cannot be enforced.  Moreover, those who attempt to collect on these fraudulent contracts are committing crimes and are liable to RICO charges for perpetuating a system built on deception. I’m Zachary Moore, and I’m leading a movement to destroy the U.S. dollar, bankrupt billionaires, and end the tyranny of usury. I grew up in a trailer in Alabama, surrounded by the poverty and oppression that debt creates. I worked my way out, earning $550,000 a year as a top sales consultant, but in 2023, I realized I was part of the problem—a system built on lies, fiat currency, and the exploitation of human labor. So, I walked away. I quit my lucrative job, defaulted on...
Read more

Response to Alliant Credit Union

-
  Re: Loan Number XXXX To whom it may concern, My name is Zachary Moore, owner of the property at [address redacted]. I received a letter in the mail from Alliant Credit Union dated December 15, 2023 citing information regarding a mortgage contract between myself and Alliant. I am challenging the validity of this contract.  As you know, in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must put up valid property for consideration. Without consideration, no contract can be lawfully valid.  This property must be rightfully owned by each party.  In the case of Alliant, the money loaned would need to be an asset on Alliant’s balance sheet prior to closing. As the loanee, I put up my own property for valid consideration. I put up a promissory note representing my ownership of my work and labor, a down payment of nearly $100,000, and title to the property at [address redacted] What property did Alliant put up? Please provide evidence that Alliant provided me, the loaner wi...
Read more