Final answer:
John Marshall's discussion of the limitations of power and the necessity of their commitment to writing in the Constitution is an argument for the principle of judicial review. Marshall's ruling in Marbury v. Madison highlighted the balance of power by refraining from overstepping judicial bounds, yet affirming the Supreme Court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Marshall asks, "To what purposes are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained," he is essentially arguing for the principle of judicial review and the necessity of a written constitution to serve as a check on government powers. Marshall's question raises an important point about the nature of limitations placed on branches of government, specifically the legislative branch, by the written constitution. He emphasizes the point that if the limitations on the powers of government can be ignored or overridden at any time, then the written constitution would fail in its role as a fundamental law meant to restrain the powers of those it governs.
The landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison showcases the dual nature of the Supreme Court's power. Although the decision refused to grant Marbury a writ of mandamus, thus showing judicial restraint, it established the Supreme Court's ability to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thereby greatly enhancing the role of the judiciary. This was a significant assertion of judicial review, affirming the judiciary's role as a check on the other branches of government.
Marshall's opinion in the Marbury v. Madison case serves as a foundation for the court's authority and is considered a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history. It highlights the balance of power among the branches of government and the essential nature of limitations on government through a written constitution. This balance is paramount to maintaining a democratic government where no single entity holds unchecked power.