Marshall claims that “by the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the [5 U.S. 137, 166] exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience” (FindLaw Website n.p.). As far as the president is authorized to appoint the officers who will aid him to perform the duties, the officers’ acts are his acts as he bears responsibility for their actions. Marshall proves that the applicant had a consequent right to the commission and that right was violated.
Further Marshall proposes to answer the question of whether the law of the country should afford an applicant a legal remedy. He claims: “The government of theUnited States has been emphatically termed a government of laws and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right” (FindLaw Website n.p.). Marshall examines the Judiciary Act of 1789 and finds out that the Judiciary Act tends to provide the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. Further Marshall examines Article III of the Constitution.