US_Constitution_and_the_Early_Supreme_Court_revision_6-24

advertisement
Interpreting the US
Constitution
US Supreme Court before 1830
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
• Argued: February 22, 1819
• Decided: March 6, 1819
Facts of the Case
In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States.
In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on
the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch
of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
Constitutional Question
Does Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the
Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional
powers?
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Article I, Section 8
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested
by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.
Article IV
•
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Opinion of the Court; 7-0
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Necessary and Proper Clause
gave Congress the power to establish a national bank. Chief
Justice John Marshall, in his opinion for the Court, supported a
loose construction of the Constitution. He wrote that the
Constitution, unlike a legal code, contained the broad outlines of
government power, not every small detail.
• “The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
• “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are
expounding.”
– Chief justice J. Marshall
Question:
– How do the above quotes relate to Marshall’s view of judicial
review and the role of the Court in the US government?
Gibbons v. Ogden
• Argued: February 4, 1824
• Decided: March 2, 1824
Facts of the Case
• A New York state law gave Gibbons the exclusive right to operate
steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. This law, and others like it
across the Eastern US at the time, led to friction as some states would
require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for access to
state water ways. In this case a rival steamboat owner (Ogden) who did
business between New York and New Jersey challenged the state law
which forced him to obtain an operating permit from New York to navigate
on that state's waters.
Constitutional Question
• Does the Commerce Clause deny New York state the right to govern
interstate waterways with New Jersey? Are waterways “commerce”
according to the Constitution?
Gibbons v. Ogden
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
Congress shall have the power…To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Article IV
• This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Opinion of the Court; 7-0
• The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state
operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the
coasting trade.
• The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. In his
opinion, Chief Justice Marshall developed a clear definition of the word
commerce. Commerce for the Chief Justice included navigation on
interstate waterways. He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the
several states" in the Commerce Clause.
• Marshall's was one of the earliest and most influential opinions
concerning this clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by
steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate
commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress.
Question:
• How does the above ruling affect commerce in the US today?
Chisholm v Georgia
• Argued: Tuesday, February 5, 1793
• Decided: Monday, February 18, 1793
Facts of the Case
• In 1792, South Carolina’s Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate
of Robert Farquhar, brought suit against the state of Georgia in the
United States Supreme Court. Chisholm sought payments due for goods
that Farquhar had supplied Georgia during the American Revolutionary
War.
• Georgia refused to appear in court, claiming that as a sovereign agent, a
state dose not have to appear in Federal Court to hear a suit against it to
which it did not consent.
Constitutional Question
• Is a state subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Federal
government? Can Georgia be forced to pay debts to a citizen of another
state (Chisholm) by the US government?
Chisholm v Georgia
Article III, Section 2
• The judicial power shall extend to all cases,…to controversies between
two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state;…
Article IV
• This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Chisholm v Georgia
Opinion of the Court; 4-1
• In a 4-to-1 decision, the Court held that "the people of the United States"
intended to govern the states through the legislative powers of the
national government.
• The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens
themselves, not by the "artificial person" or individual states (Georgia).
• The Constitution also clearly expresses that controversies between
individual states and citizens of other states is under the jurisdiction of
federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.
Question
• How does this case relate to the 11th Amendment to the Constitution:
Amendment XI
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
Dartmouth College v
Woodward
• Argued: Tuesday, March 10, 1818
• Decided: Tuesday, February 2, 1819
Facts of the Case
• New Hampshire’s newly elected Jeffersonian Republican governor
sought to convert the private college into a public university and replace
its mainly Federalist trustees with publicly elected/Republican board.
The state legislature then revoked the school’s charter dating from 1769
and turned the college into publicly controlled “university”.
Constitutional Question
• Is the royal charter a contract, and if so, can a state legislature violate a
private contract?
Dartmouth College v
Woodward
Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any
bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Dartmouth College v
Woodward
Opinion of the Court; 5-1
Justice Marshall authored opinion for the court
• The Court ruled that the college’s charter was a contract and must be
honored. The Contract Clause prevents the states from impairing the
original agreement between the college and the state (charter originating
from a royal grant and transferred to the colonial government).
• Justice Marshall also ruled that private entities (the privately run college)
are protected by the Commerce Clause.
Question
• Did the framers intend to include private property in the Contract
Clause of the Constitution as Marshall ruled in this case?
Fletcher v Peck
• Argued: Thursday, February 15, 1810
• Decided: Friday, March 16, 1810
Facts of the Case
• In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a bill selling land in the
Yazoo River country to private speculators. The sale was then exposed
in scandal as investors were chosen in return for bribes. Voters rejected
most of the incumbents in the next election and the new legislature,
reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law and voided transactions
made under it.
• John Peck had purchased land that had previously been sold under the
1795 act. Peck then sold this land to Robert Fletcher who was stripped of
the newly bought land by the outcome of the scandal and the new
Georgia legislature. In 1803, Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming
that he did not have clear title to the land when he sold it.
Constitutional Question:
• Is the private sale of land a “contract” and can a state pass a law
violating a private agreement or sale?
Fletcher v Peck
Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any
bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Fletcher v Peck
Opinion of the Court; 7-0
• In a unanimous decision, Justice Marshall ruled that the state
legislature's repeal of the law was unconstitutional. The opinion
argued that the sale was a binding contract, which according to the
Contract Clause of the Constitution cannot be invalidated, even if
illegally secured
– “It is, then, the unanimous opinion of the court, that, in this case, the estate
having passed into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration,
without notice, the state of Georgia was restrained, either by general principles,
which are common to our free institutions, or by the particular provisions of the
constitution of the United States, from passing a law whereby the estate of the
plaintiff in the premises so purchased could be constitutionally and legally
impaired and rendered null and void.”
Question:
• What are the limits of protecting private property and the right to
conduct private business transactions in light of the Court support
of the Contract Clause?
Worcester v Georgia
• Decided:Saturday, March 3, 1832
Facts of the Case
• In September 1831, the grand jurors for the county of Gwinnett in the
state of Georgia, indicted: Samuel A. Worcester, and several others,
“white persons of said county,” with the offence of 'residing within the
limits of the Cherokee nation without a license.‘ This was in violation of a
state preventing non-natives from living on the reservation without a
permit.
Constitutional Question
• Does the state of Georgia have the power to regulate trade with the
Cherokee Nation on the reservation?
Worcester v Georgia
Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any
bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - Commerce Clause
Congress shall have the power…To regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Worcester v Georgia
Opinion of the Court
• In Worcester v. Georgia, the court struck down Georgia's extension laws.
In the majority opinion Marshall wrote that the Indian nations were
"distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural
rights" and that the United States had acknowledged as much in several
treaties with the Cherokees. Although it had surrendered sovereign
powers in those treaties with the United States, he wrote, the Cherokee
Nation remained a separate, sovereign nation with a legitimate title to its
national territory.
– "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own
territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole
intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our
constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States."
--Chief Justice Marshall
Question
• How does this case attempt change the stance of the US government
toward Indian tribes in light of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the
actions of President Jackson?
Cohens v Virginia
• Argued: Tuesday, February 13, 1821
• Decided: Saturday, March 3, 1821
Facts of the Case
• Philip and Mendes Cohen sold lottery tickets in Virginia under the
authority of an act of Congress which created a lottery for the District of
Columbia. The Cohens appealed their conviction for violating a Virginia
state statute, which had banned such lotteries. Virginia asserted that the
Eleventh Amendment precluded the Supreme Court from hearing the
case and that section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 did not apply.
Constitutional Question
• Does the Court have the right to rule on a matter involving state law in
which the state is a named appellee?
Cohens v Virginia
11th Amendment:
•
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The Judiciary Act of 1789; sec. 25:
•
“And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court
of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in
question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United
States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the
validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their
being repugnant to the constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision
is in favour of such their validity, or where is drawn in question the construction of any
clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the
United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially
set up or claimed by either party, under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute
or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of
the United States…”
Cohens v Virginia
Opinion of the Court; 6-0
• The Cohens case reflected the effort by several states, including Virginia,
to challenge John Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Marshall used Cohens as chance to reemphasize federal judicial power.
He asserted that the Constitution made the Union supreme and that the
federal judiciary was the ultimate constitutional arbiter. While the states
could interpret their own laws, any federal question must ultimately be
resolved only by the federal courts (sec. 25, Judiciary Act of 1789 ).
According to the Court, the Eleventh Amendment did not prevent federal
courts from deciding properly a legitimate federal question, even where a
state was the appellee.
• Marshall avoided Virginia’s noncompliance by upholding the convictions
after asserting the power of the Federal bench.
Question
• How can you use the 11th Amendment to side with or against the Court? What
aspects of the 11th Amendment are central to Marshall’s argument?
Sources
•
Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to
American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002.
•
Hartman, Gary, R., Roy M. Mersky, and Cindy L.
Tate. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York,
Facts on File, Inc., 2004.
•
The Oyez Project, www.Oyez.org, 2007.
Download
Related flashcards

Restaurant franchises

66 cards

Fast-food franchises

91 cards

English contract law

13 cards

Create Flashcards