Case
Descriptions
Marbury
v. Madison (1803)
At
the end of his term, Federalist President John Adams appointed
William Marbury as justice of the peace for the District of
Columbia. The Secretary of State, John Marshall (yes - the
same person who later became Chief Justice) failed to deliver
the commission to Marbury and left that task to the new Secretary
of State, James Madison. Upon his inauguration, Thomas Jefferson
told Madison not to deliver the commissions. Marbury filed
suit and asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus,
or a court order which would require Madison to deliver the
commission.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall said that while Marbury
was entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court did not
have the power to issue the writ of mandamus. This
was because the Judiciary Act of 1789, the act written by
Congress which authorized the Supreme Court the to issue such
writs, was unconstitutional. Thus, the Court gave up
the power to issue writs, but affirmed their power
of judicial review, saying that if a law written by the legislature
conflicts with the Constitution, the law is "null and
void."
<<
back to questions
McCulloch
v. Maryland (1819)
Many
state banks did not like the competition and the conservative
practices of the Bank of the United States. As a way to restrict
the Bank's operations, the state of Maryland imposed a tax
on it. After the Bank refused to pay the tax, the case went
to court. Maryland argued that the federal government did
not have the authority to establish a bank, because that power
was not delegated to them in the Constitution.
The
Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision that upheld the
authority of Congress to establish a national bank. In the
opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the Constitution
does not explicitly grant Congress the right to establish
a national bank, but noted that the "necessary and
proper" clause of the Constitution gives Congress the
authority to do that which is required to exercise its enumerated
powers. Thus, the Court affirmed the existence of implied
powers.
On
the issue of the authority of Maryland to tax the national
bank, the Court also ruled in the Bank's favor. The Court
found that "the power to tax involves the power to
destroy . . . If the states may tax one instrument [of the
Federal Government] they may tax any and every other instrument
. . . the mail . . . the mint . . . patent rights . . .
judicial process? This was not intended by the American
people. They did not design to make their government dependent
on the States." Furthermore, he said, "The Constitution
and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; they
control the Constitution and laws of the respective states
and cannot be controlled by them."
<<
back to questions
Cohens
v. Virginia (1821)
The
Cohen brothers sold D.C. lottery tickets in Virginia, which
was a violation of Virginia state law. They argued that it
was legal because the U.S. Congress had enacted a statute
that allowed the lottery to be established. When the brothers
were convicted and fined in a Virginia court, they appealed
the decision. In determining the outcome, the Supreme Court
of Virginia said that in disputes that involved the national
and state government, the state had the final say.
The
Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It answered the larger
question of whether or not the Supreme Court could review
decisions of the highest state courts, including those in
which the state was a party, by saying, "When we consider
the situation of the government of the Union and of a State
in relation to each other; the nature of our Constitution;
the subordination of the State governments to that Constitution;
the great purpose for which jurisdiction over all cases
arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States
is confided to the judicial department are we at liberty
to insert in this general grant an exception of those cases
in which a State may be a party? . . . We think . . . not.
We think a case arising under the Constitution or laws of
the United States is cognizable in the Courts of the Union
whoever may be the parties to that case."
<<
back to questions
Gibbons
v. Ogden (1824)
Aaron
Ogden held a Fulton-Livingston license to operate a steamboat
on the well-traveled route between New York and New Jersey.
The State of New York gave him the license as a part of a
monopoly granted to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton. The
route was so successful financially that competitors secured
a license from the U.S. Congress to operate a ferry service
along the same route. Thomas Gibbons held such a license from
Congress. At issue in this case is whether New York's monopoly
over steamboat passage in the waters between New York and
New Jersey conflicted with Congress' constitutional power
to regulate interstate commerce.
Ogden
argued that the New York monopoly was not in conflict with
Congress' regulation of commerce because the boats only
carried passengers between the states and were not really
engaged in commerce. Justice Marshall, who wrote the decision,
disagreed. He ruled that the concept of commerce included
not only the exchange of products, but also navigation and
commercial intercourse generally. Since navigation on interstate
waterways came under Congress', not the states', power to
regulate, the New York monopoly was illegal. Marshall essentially
expanded the meaning of commerce and asserted Congress'
power over it. In fact, the commerce power now extends to
almost every kind of movement of persons, things, ideas,
and communication, for commercial purposes or not, across
state lines.
<<
back to questions
|
