1 / 15

John Marshall, Chief Justice Nominated to Supreme Court by John Adams in1801

John Marshall, Chief Justice Nominated to Supreme Court by John Adams in1801 Marshall agreed, and upheld Hamilton’s doctrine of “implied powers” By doing so, Marshall enlarged federal power to an extraordinary degree. Marshall’s Major Goals

madra
Download Presentation

John Marshall, Chief Justice Nominated to Supreme Court by John Adams in1801

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. John Marshall, Chief Justice • Nominated to Supreme Court by John Adams in1801 • Marshall agreed, and upheld Hamilton’s doctrine of “implied powers” • By doing so, Marshall enlarged federal power to an extraordinary degree

  2. Marshall’s Major Goals A. Increase the powers of the national govt at the expense of the state legislatures B. Diminish the powers of the states & encourage the Federalist principle of centralization of gov’t C. Strengthen the Court at the expense of Congress/Presidency D. Property rights of individuals need to be protected from government interference E. Advance the interests of the propertied class/commerce class – (Protect free enterprise from state control – promote industrialization and economic growth)

  3. Marbury v. Madison 1803 McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 Dartmouth College v. Woodward - 1819 Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 FOR EACH What was the case? What was the decision of the court? What was the Court’s reasoning? What was the long-range significance of the case? Research the following Marshall Court Cases….

  4. Marbury v. Madison(1803) • Background • “Midnight Judge” Marbury asked Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his commission as a federal judge (according to the Judiciary Act of 1789) • Constitutional Issue • The Judiciary Act of 1789 added the power of the writ of mandamus to the original powers in the Constitution

  5. Marbury v. Madison • Decision • Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it added instances of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court that were not in the Constitution • Importance • Supreme Court established the precedent of JUDICIAL REVIEW – the power of the court to declare a law unconstitutional

  6. Dartmouth College v. Woodward(1819) • Background • In Colonial days, Dartmouth was chartered as a private college run by a board of trustees • In 1816, the State of New Hampshire passed a law converting it to a state-run college without the consent of the college board of trustees • Constitutional Issue • Did the N.H. law violate the Constitutional provisions protecting private property and the sanctity of contracts?

  7. Dartmouth College v. Woodward • Decision • Actions of N.H. legislature were unconstitutional. The charter was considered to be a contract and could not be broken by the state • Importance • Supreme Court reversed the decision of the state court. • It guaranteed the protection of contracts from government actions, and defined a corporation as an “artificial being”.

  8. McCulloch v. Maryland(1819) • Background • Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the US branch office in Maryland in an attempt to force the BUS out of business in Maryland • Constitutional Issue • Was the BUS properly created through the use of the elastic clause? • Can the state tax a federal agency like the BUS?

  9. McCulloch v. Maryland • Decision • Upheld the Constitutionality of the BUS • Ruled the states cannot tax the federal government because “the power to tax is the power to destroy” • Importance • ↑ power of the national gov’t through use of elastic clause • Limited power of states

  10. Gibbons v. Ogden(1824) • Background • 2 men operating competing steamboats in the waters between NY & NJ • Ogden – exclusive license by NY • Gibbons – license from federal gov’t • Constitutional Issue • Could NY authorize exclusive rights to the waters between NY & NJ?

  11. Gibbons v. Ogden • Decision • Operation of steamboats was interstate commerce; Congress, not states, regulates interstate commerce • Importance • Defined interstate commerce to include transportation (eventually railroads, airlines, trucking companies) • Expanded role of federal gov’t

  12. Fletcher v. Peck(1810) • Background: Georgia legislature was involved in a fraudulent land deal. A new legislature revoked the sale of the land. Mr. Peck bought land from original company and sold it to Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher wanted his contract with Mr. Peck to be declared null & void and his money returned because Mr. Peck did not have clear title to the land when it was sold.

  13. Issue: Can a contract be invalidated by a new law passed by the legislature? Decision Original land grant was valid even though the legislature was corrupt. Cannot cancel the sale ex post facto (Fletcher v. Peck) • Importance: • States cannot pass a law impairing the terms of a contract • Supreme Court declared a state law unconstitutional

  14. Worcester v. Georgia(1832) • Background • 2 missionaries refused to obey the Georgia law requiring all whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a license. Missionaries were sentenced to 4 years hard labor for violating the state law • Constitutional Issue • Can the state pass laws concerning the Indian Nations or are the Indian Nations sovereign?

  15. Worcester v. Georgia • Decision • The state has no power to pass any laws affecting the Cherokees because it was federal jurisdiction • Importance • Established tribal autonomy within their boundaries • Pres. Jackson disagreed, refused to enforce; Cherokees won case but lost land (“Trail of Tears”)

More Related