美國憲政史上最重要的釋憲案：馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案

Abstract

美國的政治體制是根據行政、立法、司法三權分立，互相均衡的理論所建立，憲法中更是明文規定各自的權限。但實際實行時，卻並非如此。黨派利益，意識形態，從立國一開始就是行政與立法部門鬥爭的根源。司法權力的獨立性雖然有憲法條款的保障，但由於聯邦最高法院的大法官們是由總統提名，因此也糾纏在權力與利益的衝突中，很難達到真正的自主。\\r 美國聯邦最高法院在1803年所面對的《馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案》，一方面顯示出司法權在建國初期，處於不同黨派，及行政與立法爭權中的困境，另一方面則是其裁決的結果，是否能決定此後司法權是否能落實憲法中所賦予的獨特性。此是該案在美國憲政進展史上位處樞紐點的原因。聯邦最高法院首席大法官馬歇爾，在1803年2月24日裁決《馬伯瑞控訴麥迪遜案》時，巧妙利用行政與立法兩權之間的矛盾，採取使「共和黨」及「聯邦黨」都能接受的妥協策略。不但鞏固了經常被行政與立法兩者侵越的司法權，得保持其獨立性，更將理論上的行政、立法、司法三權均衡的建國理論實際化。最重要的是，聯邦最高法院獲得「司法復審權」，可以否決任何違背憲法的立法。它本身成為了憲法的最高維護者。

The Marbury vs. Madison, a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America on February 24, 1803, is a pivot that helped in shaping the future direction of U.S. history. In the beginning of the Republic, both Legislative and Executive branches of the government controlled the political power, while the Judicial branch was purposely neglected. The Congress, through partisan’s control and manipulation, could even pass resolutions to usurp the judicial power to achieve its own agenda. Through the powers endowed by the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court of the U.S. used this case to put a stop to this trend. It reasserted its responsibility to have the power of judicial review to determine whether any law was constitutional or not. If so decided, even the laws passed in the Congress could be invalid if they were deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court of the U.S. The supreme court is thus the ultimate force to uphold the constitutionality of any law. The significance of the Marbury vs. Madison was that it did not only strengthen the judicial power of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also reaffirmed the basic principles of Check and Balance of powers through the three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial.