Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Ramos 1
Marshall Court Forum
This case arose from the ‘midnight appointments’ made by Adams in order to secure Federalist power in the Federal government, most notably William Marbury, who was named justice of peace but never received his commission before Jefferson’s assumption into office. The new secretary of state, James Madison refused to give Marbury his commission and, as a result, this issue was brought to the Supreme Court by Marbury. This is important because it applied to the principle of ‘judicial review’ in which the federal courts could void acts that conflicted with the Constitution. The decision by the Court was that, while Marbury had the right to his commission, Madison was not obligated to hand it over. This brings to light the importance of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its role in this particular case. Whereas the Act gave the Court the power to compel executive officials to act, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority when it defined the powers of the judiciary. According to Article III of the Constitution, this ‘power to act’ only applied to executive officials such as ambassadors, public minsters, and consuls, therefore the extension of the Court’s authority to apply to Marbury’s case would be considered as Congress exceeding its authority. This enabled the Court to refer to this case in order to legitimize their equality to the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government.
Ramos 2 v Marbury: Congress had given the Supreme Court the power to compel his opponent
(Madison) to deliver his commission in order to be justice of peace, citing the
Judiciary Act of 1789 in order to help his argument. Wanted Supreme Court to order v Madison to execute his intended role as secretary of state.
v Madison: Marbury’s appointment was invalid because his commission wasn’t given
to him before Jefferson assumed office, the appointment of Marbury required delivery of commission in order to take effect.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
This case emphasized the ‘implied powers’ as stated in the Necessary and Proper
Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These powers have often been a subject of conflict, most notably before the establishment of the First Bank of the United States. Now in 1819, the Second Bank of the United States became so unpopular that several states had drove branches out of business or utilized confiscatory taxes. This raised the question of the state governments’ capability to tax the National Bank. State banks began to see the Bank of the United States as a competitor and resented its privileges, directing this case towards Maryland as it had imposed a tax on any banks that weren’t chartered in the state which excluded the Bank of the United States. When one of the state banks refused to pay, Maryland sued James McCulloch, the bank’s cashier, for collection of debt, in which he replied that it was unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Bank of the US was constitutional but the imposed tax wasn’t. It was constitutional because the Bank of the US relate to Congress’s power to tax, borrow, and regulate interstate commerce was established in the Constitution, thus confirming its
Ramos 3 constitutionality in the United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution stated that the
Federal laws hold power over that of state laws, and as stated by Daniel Webster, ‘the power to tax is the power to destroy.’ This case expanded the powers of Congress to those implied by the Constitution and affirmed state laws’ inferiority to that of federal laws.
v McCulloch: McCulloch’s argument was that Maryland’s taxation of unchartered banks (unlike the National Bank) was unconstitutional. This argument most likely pertained to the state’s ability to tax a national bank charted by Congress as McCulloch’s bank was required to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland whereas the Bank of the United States wasn’t.
v Maryland: Chartering banks was not one of the ‘delegate powers’ of Congress. This argument most likely correlated with the question pertaining to the constitutionality of a National Bank.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810)
In this case, the Supreme Court made clear that a contract, more specifically a grant
to a private company, was within the meaning of the Contract Clause of the Constitution and therefore could not be repealed. This marked the first time that the Supreme Court utilized the Constitution in order to defy an established state law. This event would also hold significance in 1819 during Dartmouth College v. Woodward that would pertain to an issue similar to the one brought up in the Fletcher v. Peck case. The basis of this dispute came from when the Georgia legislature granted state land to speculators, later realizing that nearly all of them were the result
Ramos 4 of bribery which led to the repeal of these grants in 1803. Josh Peck was one of the many
speculators who took part in the purchase of these grants and later, proceeded to sell it to Robert Fletcher who would discover that the land he bought was void. This case brought up the question of if Georgia violated Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, where either the state could constitutionally revoke the grants of 1795 or their repeals were prevented by the Constitution and thus violated by the state. The final decision by the Supreme Court was that the state of Georgia had violated the Contract Clause by repealing the grants sold to the speculators but it did condemn the bribery that had taken place during the sale of these land grants. As a result, Peck was innocent given that he took place in two valid contracts, one when he originally paid for the land from the state and the other when he sold it to Fletcher, Fletcher’s suit was dismissed and Georgia’s law that repealed these grants became void.
v Fletcher: Argued that since the state had repealed the original grants of land in 1803, Peck didn’t have to right to sell land grant. As stated in the pbs.org article, (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_fletcher.html), Fletcher also made the claim that Peck had lied to him, promising a good claim when in fact, the land was void. This focused on the questioning of the constitutionality of Georgia’s repeal of the land grants rather than the actions of Peck himself.
Cherokee Indian Cases
In both of these cases, it established the Indians’ role in the Constitution of America as well as the rights these ‘nations’ held with the growing influence and expansion of America
Ramos 5 westward. Both of the cases refer to the passing of state laws by Georgia in 1828 that deprived
Cherokee Indians rights as well as their removal due to the growing demand for land. These two separate cases were brought to the Supreme Court against the state of Georgia in order to prevent these laws from being taken into effect with interjection by the Supreme Court.
Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831)
In this case, the Supreme Court decided that they had no power to review claims
pertaining to the Indian tribes (‘nations’) that resided in and often came into conflict with settlers. This resulted from the enforcement of laws in Georgia that stripped the Cherokee Indians of what little rights they had previously enjoyed. Sympathy played a role in the final decision of the Court but ultimately the Cherokee Nation was not seen as in independent or foreign nation by the Court. This was because although they were considered an independent nation and maintained an identity separate of that in America, they were also largely dependent on the United States. Despite the Constitution only having the jurisdiction to hear cases regarding the affairs of ‘foreign nations,’ this came to exclude the affairs of ‘Indian nations’ and, as a result, the Court dismissed the case altogether.
v Cherokee Nation: Sought an injunction (‘order to stop’) by the federal government against the Georgia laws passed in 1828 that deprived the Cherokee Indians of their rights.
Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court invalidated Georgia’s attempts to regulate the movement of U.S. citizens into Cherokee territory through the requirement of a state license in order to reside in Cherokee territory. Marshall stated that only the federal government could do so, expanding the federal government’s power as it gave them, and not the state governments, the power to regulate issues regarding Indian tribes. In 1830, Georgia passed a law that required the possession of a state license for those who wished to live within the Cherokee nation. This law was opposed by a group of missionaries, most notably Worcester and another missionary who were brought to trial and convicted. Despite this conviction, Worcester appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that Georgia had no authority to convict them and as a result, Georgia’s license law was seen as unconstitutional and Worcester’s conviction was overturned. As the Court argued that Indian territory was a completely separate nation and entity from that of the states, only the federal government had the power to negotiate deals such as the terms of Indian lands and their subsequent use, therefore Georgia’s license law and conviction of Worcester was a violation of the laws established by the Constitution. Unfortunately, Georgia’s inability to abide to the Court’s ruling as well as the disinterest of the federal government to enforce them resulted in the forced relocation of Indians westward known as the ‘Trail of Tears.’
v Worcester: Argued that his conviction as well as the imposition of a state license law was unconstitutional and therefore had no authority to convict him. This brought up the question of who had the power to regulate and deal with Indian affairs and its constitutionality.