NATIONALISM AND THE MARSHALL COURT
JOHN MARSHALL
Revolutionary War/Washington’s aide—Adams’ secretary of State/Adams’ appointee—Federalist Chief Justice Supreme Court (1801-1835)—dominated Court/opinion writing—master of debate and reasoning—used “reductio ad absurdum”—often changed Republican judges to “nationalists”—common man appearance—no legalese (or legal training)—dissenting opinion once in 1006 decisions.
POLITICAL TEMPERAMENT
Loose interpretation/implied powers/judicial review/enforcement of “national supremacy clause” (Article VI)
MOTIVES
Promote nationalism in spite of:
- Revolution of 1800/decline of Federalists
- rise of Jeffersonian democracy/Virginia dynasty/secular democracy
- strengthen the federal government at the expense of state legislatures
- strengthen the Court at the expense of Congress/ presidency
- advance the interests of the propertied/commercial class:
- protect free enterprise from state control
- protect the sanctity of contracts
- promote industrialization and economic growth
MAJOR DECISIONS
MARBURY v. MADISON (1803)
Issue:
One of Adams’ midnight judges (Marbury) sued for a writ of mandamus (Judiciary Act 1789) forcing Madison (Jefferson’s Secretary of State) to deliver his federal judicial appointment
Ruling:
Jefferson should have ordered Madison to deliver the appointment. Also—writ of mandamus is unconstitutional. Thus, no appointment for Marbury
Result:
Court decides constitutionality/Marbury loses appointment/Jefferson reprimanded for not fulfilling his duty
Precedent:
Judicial review/Court power to review the acts of Congress and the President for constitutionality established—respectability/power of the Supreme Court established
Court Power:
Co-equal with the other two branches/judicial review
FLETCHER v. PECK (1810)
Issue:
Yazoo Land Co./Georgia repeals land grant of previous (corrupt) legislature
Ruling:
Land grants are contracts/states may not impair the obligations of a contract
Result:
Georgia may not repeal Yazoo land grant/Court seen as supporting corrupt money interests
Precedent:
Sanctity of contracts protected/power of the court to overrule decisions of a state legislature when in conflict with the Constitution or federal laws/treaties
Court Power:
Judicial review of state laws—enforcement of “national supremacy clause”
DARTMOUTHCOLLEGE v. WOODWARD (1819)
Issue:
State legislature attempts to create a public college out of a private college established under a royal charter from George III (1769)—Webster argues case for Dartmouth
Ruling:
Charters are legal contracts, therefore inviolable
Result:
Dartmouth remains a private institution/Court seen as protecting the interests of elites
Precedent:
Loose interpretation of “contract”/power of the Court to override a state court decision
Court Power:
Judicial review of state court decisions/protection of private charters by federal government (reaffirmed in COHENS v. VIRGINIA, 1821)/Marshall argues that states are no longer sovereign having given up certain powers/rights when ratifying Constitution
MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND (1819)
Issue:
Southern/Western states seek to destroy/limit the power of National Bank—Maryland seeks to tax bank business/destroy bank
Ruling:
Bank constitutional/necessary and proper clause/”power to tax is the power to destroy”
Result:
Constitutionality of Bank upheld/state tax of federal agency unconstitutional/Court very unpopular in South/West (Panic of 1819)
Precedent:
Loose interpretation of necessary and proper clause upheld/state cannot tax a federal institution
Court Power:
Judicial review of state power to tax
GIBBONS v. OGDEN (1824)
Issue:
New York gives Ogden a monopoly over Hudson River ferrying/federal Congress gives Gibbons license to ferry same/N. Y. Court rules Gibbons in violation of state law
Ruling:
“Navigation” is interstate commerce/state monopolies over interstate commerce null and void
Result:
Free enterprise promoted/state power to grant monopolies limited/popular Court decision makes Republican attacks against Court cease
Precedent:
Federal supremacy over interstate commerce enforced/loose interpretation of “commerce” established (transportation is commerce)
Court Power:
Federal government will regulate interstate commerce