Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation that congress has passed and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on the Legislative branch, but it also lends itself to an important debate over when the Court can and should use this power. Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to individuals? During the period around the Great Depression, the court dealt with many economic cases regarding these questions, and at first glance, it appears that they did not seem to favor either the government or the individual. Looking closer, however, one sees that the cases that side with the individual struck down legislation that interfered with the commerce clause or police power. When legislation invoking either of the aforementioned clauses was provided, the Supreme Court tended to side with the Government over the individual, as seen in the cases Munn v. Illinois, National Relations Board v. Jones, and Wickard v. Filburn. When the legislation provided had no business with the commerce clause or police power, such as in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, the court had no choice but to side with the individual. The case Munn v. Illinois, using the provisions of the police power derived from the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, was a pivotal case involving the government versus the individual in regards to their rights in economic matters. The 1877 ruling held ... ... middle of paper ... ...the Supreme Court, during the time in and around the Great Depression, valued the commerce clause and the police power above the contract clause. The aforementioned cases clearly show this bias of siding with the government using these provisions. Could the President’s threat of a “Court-Packing Plan” have forced the Supreme Court to act in this way? It is theoretically possible, but public out lash at Roosevelt’s plan nearly ensured that such a plan would not have come to fruition, and if that is the case, the justices had nothing to fear and no reason to give in to his wishes. Works Cited Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923). Constitution of the United States Amendment 14. 1868. Reprint in “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments” Comp. C. Mathie. 2013. 2. Munn v. Illinois (1877). National Labor Relations Board v. Jones (1937). Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
The case came to the Supreme Court as the infamous Federal versus State battle for power. Once again the question plagued Marshall whether to support Federalism, or keep States’ rights alive.
In 1896, the Supreme Court was introduced with a case that not only tested both levels of government, state and federal, but also helped further establish a precedent that it was built off of. This court case is commonly known as the case that confirmed the doctrine “separate but equal”. This doctrine is a crucial part of our Constitution and more importantly, our history. This court case involved the analysis of amendments, laws, and divisions of power. Plessy v. Ferguson was a significant court case in U.S history because it was shaped by federalism and precedent, which were two key components that were further established and clarified as a result of the Supreme Court’s final decision.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
Despite the downfall of the Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century, John Marshall continued to exert a strong Federalist influence on the government, which acted as a catalyst to ignite political controversy. In the McCullough vs. Maryland trial of 1819, Marshall deemed Maryland taxing the second bank of the United States as being unconstitutional, which gave even more power to the central government. (Doc D) Majority of the American population was against his ruling and refuted it because many people believed that having a strong central government was bad because if a bad decision was made, it would have affected the entire union, whereas if there was a strong state government, a bad decision would have just hurt the state. However, this was not the only time where the economy had failed in the early 1800’s. In 1816, John Randolph addressed congress and stated that it was unjust to tax the poo...
James Madison, an American statesman and political theorist that was present at the constitutional convention. Many of the ideas proposed by Madison are part of the reason that the Constitution has withstood the test of time. Madison was ultimately prepared to deal with one of the biggest problems this new government would face in his eyes, factions. Factions, which as defined by Madison are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison 156). Madison addresses various ways that he sees factions can be cured of its mischiefs such as removing a faction’s causes and also controlling their effects. Madison points out that this is would potentially create an even bigger problem than the factions themselves by stating, “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires” (Madison 156) Madison also stated that the way for a government to remove the cause of faction was either to destroy the liberty that causes factions to exist in the first place or to give every citizen the same beliefs and opinions. Madison deemed this impractical, because it is nearly impossible to give everyone in a given place the same opinions and destroying the liberty would take away the very thing that the colonies fought for 4 years earlier. The fact is Madison knew that the country wouldn’t be able to count on a well-educated statesman to be there any time a faction gets out of hand. Madison knew the only viable way to keep factions under control is not to get rid of factions entirely but to set a r...
According to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though last in the Bill of Rights, it is one of the most powerful and ever changing in interpretation over the course of America’s history. Some historical events that altered its meaning include the Civil War, The Civil Right’s Movement, and even modern event’s like the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In this paper I will discuss how the Tenth amendment has a large effect in both America’s history, but also how it is now portrayed America’s present.
The national government was still too weak and the states were unrestrained. It is believed that it would have been more important to limit the states than the federal government. The first attempt to limit the states came with the Fourteenth Amendment and sought to ensure that the slaves freed under the Thirteenth Amendment would not be denied full protection of the law. Despite the clarity of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court actually applied the Fourteenth Amendment to the states in the case of Gitlow v. New York, when it ruled with the state of New York against Gitlow who was advocating for the overthrow of the government. This process of selective incorporation is not smooth and continues to progress in surges with the most recent ruling in 2010 in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment by striking down a gun control ordinance in Chicago, while reaffirming the ownership restrictions adopted in 2008. The Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments remain
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
Trump has not yet called for a radical piece of legislation that would change the composition of the court to the degree of the Court Packing plan. Moreover, President Roosevelt’s purpose behind the court packing plan was to nominate more judges that would in theory be more open to the administration’s New Deal programs. While some of these programs were poorly conceived and did have some constitutional deficiencies, many well written acts were still struck down because the conservative bloc of the Court refused to move past its arcane beliefs surrounding the Freedom of Contract. This was a completely different set of circumstances from those that Trump experienced when he chose to berate the judges for striking down the ban. However, there are some striking similarities between president Roosevelt’s statements during his fireside chat and Trump’s
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.