John Marshall's Effect on the American Judicial System I.Introduction In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and its formation also caused many disagreements and debates. The judicial power, also known back then as The Weakest Branch, was created to achieve an effective collaboration of the powers, what we call now Check and Balances. One of the framers of the Judicial Power was John Marshall. Chief Justice John Marshall is one of the main figures in the history of the US Judicial System. He was the youngest Chief Justices in the history of the United States and was the developer of the most important power of the Supreme Court, The Judicial Review. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently... ... middle of paper ... ...y the framers were not in vain. Checks and balances do work and it is one of the greatest strategies of fair governmental system in the world. Works Cited Bork, Robert H. The Tempting Of America. New York: The Free Press, 1990. Burns, James MacGregor, J.W Peltason, Thomas E. Cronin, and David B. Magleby. Government By The People. 01-02 Edition ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002 Cox, Archibald. The Court And The Constitution. Boston: Houghton Miflin CO,1987. Dye, Thomas R. , L. Tucker Gibson Jr., and Clay Robinson. Politics In America. Brief Texas Edition ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2005. Hobson, Charles F. The Great Chief Justice, John Marshall And the Rule Of Law. University Press Of Kansas: Wison Garey McWilliams & Lance Banning, 1996. Shnayerson, Robert. The Illustrated History of The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Abrams, 1986.
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.
Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? Is a conglomeration of articles and short essays that attempts to expose the federal court’s relatively recent intrusion into our way of life by way of immoral legislative influence; made possible by presidents, congressmen, and apathetic voters who have relinquished their consent without contest. The author, Mark I. Sutherland and his associates believe that the Constitution’s system of checks and balances between the three branches of government has been usurped by an overreaching, immoral federal court system. The book explores how Judges have been influencing and shaping social and political policy for years by legislating from the judicial bench. In short, Americans have exchanged the rule of law for the rule by the judges. However, it does a poor job in addressing other major issues concerning the federal court system as a whole.
On may 25 , 1787 the constitutional convention begain at independence Hall in Philadelphia inorder to amend the Articles of Confederation . It was apparent to the framers of the Constitution that the Articles of Condeferations lacked central authority over foreign and comestic commerece threw many conflicts over time after the Revolutionary War . this wouldn’t be a harmonious amendment either . Between the federalists and the Anti – Federalist the spent the entire summer creating a new government unlike any before . Leaving no one happy proving their creation was fair . One of the biggest conflicts was the balancing of powers between the national and state powers in our feredal sytem (KTP 74).
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
Blasi, V. (1983). The Burger Court: The Couner-Revolution That Wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
...neth M. Goldstein, and William G. Howell. "Chapter 20 The Social and Economic Milieu of Texas Poltics." Understanding American Politics and Government. Texas ed. New York: Longman, 2010. 690-93. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“What makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and their manner of appointment.” As John Marshall states, the judges of the Supreme Court should be independent and appointed in an honest manner. This is an interesting statement, as Marshall himself was a “midnight judge,” and therefore considered by Democratic-Republicans as a corrupt appointment. Even though Thomas Jefferson and his followers believed that, it didn’t stop Marshall. His influence in the court left a legacy that would form the basis of the Supreme Court for decades to come. By strengthening the federal government, limiting state powers, and keeping Federalist ideals alive during the Revolution of 1800, John Marshall’s significance to the Supreme Court is still