Marbury v. Madison
525
used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what
they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
‘‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as—, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the
Constitution and laws of the United States.’’
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule for his
government—if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery.
To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what
shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only
which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United
States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential
to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is
void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that
instrument.
The rule must be discharged.