| Line 51: |
Line 51: |
| | [[Marbury v. Madison]], decided in 1803, ruled for the government (that is, Madison), by deciding a minor law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Ironically what was unconstitutional was Congress' granting a certain power o the Supreme Court itself. The case allowed Marshall to proclaim the doctrine of judicial review, which reserves to the Supreme Court final authority to judge whether or not actions of the president or of the Congress are within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. The Constitution itself is the supreme law, and when the Court believes that a specific law or action is in violation of it, the Court must uphold the Constitution and set aside that other law or action. The Constitution does not explicitly give judicial review to the Court, and Jefferson was very angry with Marshall's position, for Jefferson, president at the time, wanted the president to decide whether his acts were constitutional or not. Historians mostly agree that the Founding Fathers Constitution did plan for the Supreme Court to have some sort of judicial review; what Marshall did was make operationalize their goals. Judicial review was not new and Marshall himself mentioned it in the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788. Marshall's opinion expressed and fixed in the American tradition and legal system a more basic theory, '''government under law'''. That i, judicial review means a government in which no person (not even the president) and no institution (not even Congress), nor even a majority of voters, may freely work their will in violation of the written Constitution. Marshall himself never declared another act of Congress or of a president unconstitutional. | | [[Marbury v. Madison]], decided in 1803, ruled for the government (that is, Madison), by deciding a minor law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Ironically what was unconstitutional was Congress' granting a certain power o the Supreme Court itself. The case allowed Marshall to proclaim the doctrine of judicial review, which reserves to the Supreme Court final authority to judge whether or not actions of the president or of the Congress are within the powers granted to them by the Constitution. The Constitution itself is the supreme law, and when the Court believes that a specific law or action is in violation of it, the Court must uphold the Constitution and set aside that other law or action. The Constitution does not explicitly give judicial review to the Court, and Jefferson was very angry with Marshall's position, for Jefferson, president at the time, wanted the president to decide whether his acts were constitutional or not. Historians mostly agree that the Founding Fathers Constitution did plan for the Supreme Court to have some sort of judicial review; what Marshall did was make operationalize their goals. Judicial review was not new and Marshall himself mentioned it in the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788. Marshall's opinion expressed and fixed in the American tradition and legal system a more basic theory, '''government under law'''. That i, judicial review means a government in which no person (not even the president) and no institution (not even Congress), nor even a majority of voters, may freely work their will in violation of the written Constitution. Marshall himself never declared another act of Congress or of a president unconstitutional. |
| | | | |
| − | ==McCulloch v. Maryland== | + | ===McCulloch v. Maryland=== |
| | McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) was perhaps Marshall's greatest single judicial performance. While consistent with Marbury v. Madison, cuts the other way and prevents states from passing laws that violate the national Constitution. It was not allowed for a state to tax a federal body. The heart of this opinion is the famous statement, "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." Marshall laid down the basic theory of implied powers under a written Constitution; a written, but a living, Constitution, intended, as he said "to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs ... ." Marshall envisaged a federal government which, although governed by timeless principles, possessed the plenary powers "on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends." It would be free in its choice of means, not tied to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, and open to change and growth. | | McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) was perhaps Marshall's greatest single judicial performance. While consistent with Marbury v. Madison, cuts the other way and prevents states from passing laws that violate the national Constitution. It was not allowed for a state to tax a federal body. The heart of this opinion is the famous statement, "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." Marshall laid down the basic theory of implied powers under a written Constitution; a written, but a living, Constitution, intended, as he said "to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs ... ." Marshall envisaged a federal government which, although governed by timeless principles, possessed the plenary powers "on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends." It would be free in its choice of means, not tied to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, and open to change and growth. |
| − | ==Cohens v. Virginia== | + | |
| | + | ===Cohens v. Virginia=== |
| | Cohens v. Virginia (1821) displayed Marshall's nationalism as he enforced the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state law and overturned the Virginia supreme court. The decision means the federal judiciary can act directly on private parties and state officials, and has the power to declare and impose on the states the Constitution and federal laws. | | Cohens v. Virginia (1821) displayed Marshall's nationalism as he enforced the supremacy of federal law over conflicting state law and overturned the Virginia supreme court. The decision means the federal judiciary can act directly on private parties and state officials, and has the power to declare and impose on the states the Constitution and federal laws. |
| − | ==Gibbons v. Ogden== | + | |
| | + | ===Gibbons v. Ogden=== |
| | Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) overturned a monopoly granted by the New York state legislature to certain steamships operating between New York and New Jersey. In empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Constitution automatically deprived the states of the power to obstruct interstate commerce in order to serve their own interests. The long-term impact was ending many state-granted monopolies and promoting free enterprise. | | Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) overturned a monopoly granted by the New York state legislature to certain steamships operating between New York and New Jersey. In empowering Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the Constitution automatically deprived the states of the power to obstruct interstate commerce in order to serve their own interests. The long-term impact was ending many state-granted monopolies and promoting free enterprise. |
| − | ==Opposition== | + | |
| | + | ===Opposition=== |
| | Never during Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice was there a presidential administration fully sympathetic to his outlook. The Court faced, especially in Virginia, an unrelenting campaign against almost all the Court's decisions dealing with state powers. Marshall's opponents did not want state power limited in any way. Jefferson was actively hostile, in part because of the substance of Marshall's decisions and more because of his Federalist origins. (While on the Court, Marshall did not engage in any partisan activity.) | | Never during Marshall's 34 years as Chief Justice was there a presidential administration fully sympathetic to his outlook. The Court faced, especially in Virginia, an unrelenting campaign against almost all the Court's decisions dealing with state powers. Marshall's opponents did not want state power limited in any way. Jefferson was actively hostile, in part because of the substance of Marshall's decisions and more because of his Federalist origins. (While on the Court, Marshall did not engage in any partisan activity.) |
| | | | |