520
Interpreting and Preserving the Constitution
tion, to issue a writ of mandamus (an order commanding performance of
a specific duty) to compel Madison to give him his commission.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, saying
in part:
In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following
questions have been considered and decided.
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? . . . [The
Court finds that he has.]
2d. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of
his country afford him a remedy? . . . [The Court finds that they do.]
3rd. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this
court? . . .
This, then, is a plain case of a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be inquired,
Whether it can issue from this court.
The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes
the Supreme Court ‘‘to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by
the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons
holding office, under the authority of the United States.’’
The Secretary of State, being a person holding an office under the authority of the United States, is precisely within the letter of the description, and if this court is not authorized to issue a writ of mandamus to
such an officer, it must be because the law is unconstitutional, and therefore absolutely incapable of conferring the authority, and assigning the
duties which its words purport to confer and assign.
The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States
in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from
time to time, ordain an