Good Afternoon!Good Afternoon!

Please obtain a copy of Please obtain a copy of “Quotations about the U.S. “Quotations about the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court and the Constitution.”Constitution.”

Answer questions 1—4 for Answer questions 1—4 for Individuals, a and bIndividuals, a and b

The Early U.S. The Early U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court and theand theMarshall Marshall Court EraCourt Era

What Do You Think ?What Do You Think ?

#1 “The Constitution — its words and their meaning — was established by the people, can only be changed by the people, and is sacredly obligatory upon all of government, including judges.”

What Do You Think ?What Do You Think ?

#2 “(The Constitution is) #2 “(The Constitution is) intended to endure for ages to intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises adapted to the various crises of human affairs.”of human affairs.”

What Do You Think ?What Do You Think ?

#3 “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

What Do You Think ?What Do You Think ?

##4 4 ““Those who made and Those who made and endorsed our Constitution endorsed our Constitution knew man's nature, and it is to knew man's nature, and it is to their ideas, rather than to the their ideas, rather than to the temptations of utopia, that we temptations of utopia, that we must ask that our judges must ask that our judges adhere.”adhere.”

Continuing Theme Through HistoryContinuing Theme Through History

Federalist v Anti-FederalistFederalist v Anti-Federalist

Federalist Party v Democratic RepublicansFederalist Party v Democratic Republicans

Adams, Marshall, Chase v Jefferson, Burr, MartinAdams, Marshall, Chase v Jefferson, Burr, Martin

Strong National Government v States RightsStrong National Government v States Rights

Strong Judiciary v Limited JudiciaryStrong Judiciary v Limited Judiciary

Article III, U. S. ConstitutionArticle III, U. S. Constitution

What are the specific duties, What are the specific duties, powers and organization of the powers and organization of the Supreme Court as stated in Supreme Court as stated in Article III of the U.S. Article III of the U.S. Constitution? Constitution?  There are NONE stated

Article III, U. S. ConstitutionArticle III, U. S. Constitution

"[t]he judicial Power of the "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in in one Supreme Court, and in

such inferior Courts as the such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time Congress may from time to time

ordain and establish."ordain and establish."

Judiciary Act of 1789Judiciary Act of 1789

• Created 13 Judicial Districts for 11 StatesCreated 13 Judicial Districts for 11 States• Eastern, Middle & Southern Circuits Eastern, Middle & Southern Circuits • Created U. S. Attorney General Created U. S. Attorney General • President Nominates Justices & Senate ApprovesPresident Nominates Justices & Senate Approves• Established the Supreme Court’s JurisdictionsEstablished the Supreme Court’s Jurisdictions• One Chief Justice & 5 Associate JusticesOne Chief Justice & 5 Associate Justices• All Justices “Ride the Circuit”All Justices “Ride the Circuit”• the Court could issue “writs of mandamus”the Court could issue “writs of mandamus”

  

The First U.S. Supreme CourtThe First U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice:Chief Justice:

John Jay, from New YorkJohn Jay, from New York

Associate Justices:Associate Justices:John Rutledge, from South CarolinaJohn Rutledge, from South Carolina

William Cushing, from MassachusettsWilliam Cushing, from MassachusettsJames Wilson, from PennsylvaniaJames Wilson, from Pennsylvania

John Blair, from VirginiaJohn Blair, from VirginiaJames Iredell, from North CarolinaJames Iredell, from North Carolina

Supreme Court LocationsSupreme Court Locations• The Supreme Court was first called to assemble on Feb. 1, 1790, in the Merchants Exchange Building in New York City, the nation’s first capital The Supreme Court was first called to assemble on Feb. 1, 1790, in the Merchants Exchange Building in New York City, the nation’s first capital

City Hall, Philadelphia

• 1790—1801: Court meets in the old 1790—1801: Court meets in the old City Hall, PhiladelphiaCity Hall, Philadelphia

• 1801: Court meets in basement of 1801: Court meets in basement of the capitol in Washington, D.C. the capitol in Washington, D.C. (except for 1812—1819 due to War (except for 1812—1819 due to War of 1812). and from 1860 until 1935 of 1812). and from 1860 until 1935 it met in the old Senate Chamberit met in the old Senate Chamber

The early Court was not at all prestigious. Jay resigned in 1795 to run for Governor of New York.

Who was our second Chief Justice from July to December of 1795 who never actually sat on the Supreme Court?

Washington appointed John Rutledge as an Associate Justice in 1789. He resigned in 1791 to serve on the South Carolina Supreme Court; he never sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In July 1795, he was appointed Chief Justice.

On July 16, 1795, Rutledge gave a highly controversial speech denouncing the Jay Treaty with England. He reportedly said in the speech "that he had rather the President should die than sign

that puerile instrument" – and that he "preferred war to an adoption of it.” Independent Chronicle (Boston). 1795-08-13, reprinted in The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800 by Maeva Marcus and James Russell Perry.

…Rutledge’s attack of Washington and the Jay Treaty and rumors of mental illness resulted in the Senate

letting his appointment expire on 12/28/95 and he attempted suicide that day.

Oliver Ellsworth served as our third Chief justice from 1796 to 1800. As a Senator, he had co-authored the Judiciary Act of 1789

Election of 1796Pres. John Adams Pres. John Adams Federalist PartyFederalist PartyMost electoral votesMost electoral votes

Vice Pres. Thomas JeffersonVice Pres. Thomas Jefferson Democratic Republican PartyDemocratic Republican Party #2 electoral votes#2 electoral votes

The Election of 1800Candidate

PartyElectoral

Vote

Thomas Jefferson (VA)Democratic-Republican 73

Aaron Burr (NY)Democratic-Republican 73

John Adams (MA) Federalist 65C.C. Pinckney (SC)

John Jay (NY)

Federalist

Federalist

64

1

Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican replaces Adams, a Federalist

How can Federalists retain their

national power?

Adams’ Efforts to Preserve Federalists’ Power

• Appoints Marshall Appoints Marshall

Chief JusticeChief Justice• Appoints 42 Appoints 42

““Midnight Judges” at 9 pm on Midnight Judges” at 9 pm on final day in office final day in office

In 1801, Adams appointed his Secretary of State, John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Like Adams, Marshall was a Federalist who favored a strong central government.

The Federalist Senate stayed in session until midnight to confirm Adams’ 42 new judges, but only 25 were actually delivered that night. The next day, Thomas Jefferson became President. His Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the final 17 appointments.

Who should have the final decision?

• The Congress?The Congress?

OROR

• The U.S. Supreme Court?The U.S. Supreme Court?

William Marbury, one of the midnight judges, asked the Court for a writ of mandamusto order Madison to deliver his appointment and those of the other 16 “midnight judges.” This became the case of Marbury v. Madison.

William Marbury

James Madison

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Court’s Decision• Marbury’s appointment was legal.Marbury’s appointment was legal.• The Court’s power to grant a writ of The Court’s power to grant a writ of

mandamus under the Judiciary Act of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. 1789 was unconstitutional.

• Marbury v. Madison Marbury v. Madison was the first time was the first time the Supreme Court declared a law of the Supreme Court declared a law of Congress to be unconsitutional.Congress to be unconsitutional.

Jefferson’s Reaction to DecisionJefferson’s Reaction to Decision

President Thomas Jefferson said that President Thomas Jefferson said that judicial review made the Constitution…judicial review made the Constitution…

"a mere thing of wax in the hands of the "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they (Supreme Court) judiciary, which they (Supreme Court) may twist and shape into any form they may twist and shape into any form they please."please."

Origins of Judicial Review• England: Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion England: Chief Justice Edward Coke's 1610 opinion • Glorious Revolution of 1688 ends judicial review in Glorious Revolution of 1688 ends judicial review in

England and Parliament declared itself supremeEngland and Parliament declared itself supreme• Included in several state constitutionsIncluded in several state constitutions• Ware v. Hylton Ware v. Hylton (1796) A state constitutional provision (1796) A state constitutional provision

inconsistent with a federal treaty is voidinconsistent with a federal treaty is void• “…“…no scholar to date has identified even one no scholar to date has identified even one

participant in the ratification fight who argued that the participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes.” Prakash and Yoo (2003) in Federal statutes.” Prakash and Yoo (2003) in The The Origins of Judicial ReviewOrigins of Judicial Review

Who was the only Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to be impeached?

• Became a staunch Federalist. • Appointed Associate Justice in 1796• Tried Jefferson supporters for violations of Alien & Sedition Acts• “Ought the seditious…attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?“ --Jefferson letter to Congressman• Impeached by House• Dem-Rep majority Senate (25—9) fails to convict Chase• Serves until death in 1811

Associate Justice Samuel Chase

Key Players: Chase ImpeachmentKey Players: Chase Impeachment

Samuel ChaseSamuel Chase

Thomas JeffersonThomas Jefferson

John MarshallJohn Marshall

Aaron BurrAaron Burr

Luther MartinLuther Martin

Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)

• In 1768, George III chartered Dartmouth In 1768, George III chartered Dartmouth CollegeCollege

• In 1815, the NH legislature tried to alter the In 1815, the NH legislature tried to alter the charter & reinstate the deposed president, charter & reinstate the deposed president, converting it from private to publicconverting it from private to public

• Daniel Webster argued for the CollegeDaniel Webster argued for the College• The Court’s decision invalidated the state’s The Court’s decision invalidated the state’s

action and limited the power of the States to action and limited the power of the States to interfere with private charters and contractsinterfere with private charters and contracts

Mc Culloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Does Congress have the Does Congress have the constitutional power to charter constitutional power to charter a national bank?a national bank?

• Did Maryland have the Did Maryland have the constitutional power to tax a constitutional power to tax a national bank chartered by national bank chartered by Congress?Congress?

-YES!

-NO!

Mc Culloch v. Maryland (1819)Mc Culloch v. Maryland (1819)

““(The Constitution is) (The Constitution is)

intended to endure for intended to endure for

ages to come, and ages to come, and

consequently, to be consequently, to be

adapted to the various adapted to the various

crises of human affairs.”crises of human affairs.”

--John Marshall in Mc Culloch v. Maryland (1819)--John Marshall in Mc Culloch v. Maryland (1819)

Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)(1824)

New York State gave Ogden New York State gave Ogden a monopoly to operate a monopoly to operate steam-boats between New steam-boats between New York and neighboring states. York and neighboring states.

Gibbons had a federal license to operate Gibbons had a federal license to operate between New York and New Jersey. between New York and New Jersey. Ogden went to a New York court seeking Ogden went to a New York court seeking to shut down Gibbons. to shut down Gibbons.

Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)(1824)

““the Congress shall have the the Congress shall have the

power …to regulate Commerce power …to regulate Commerce

with foreign nations, and among with foreign nations, and among

the several states, and with the the several states, and with the

Indian tribes.”Indian tribes.” Chief Justice John MarshallChief Justice John Marshall

--Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8,--Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8,

U.S. Constitution U.S. Constitution

Gibbons v. Ogden: DecisionGibbons v. Ogden: Decision

Gibbons wins. “Commerce” Gibbons wins. “Commerce”

includes navigation and includes navigation and

although Gibbons carried although Gibbons carried

passengers, not goods, it still passengers, not goods, it still

involved “commerce.” The federal government involved “commerce.” The federal government could regulate any good unless it was entirely could regulate any good unless it was entirely made, sold and used in a single state. States made, sold and used in a single state. States cannot share the power to regulate interstate cannot share the power to regulate interstate commerce.commerce.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

• Worcester and other missionaries violated a Worcester and other missionaries violated a GA law that required any person living in GA law that required any person living in Indian territory to have a state license. If Indian territory to have a state license. If they had applied for a license it would have they had applied for a license it would have been denied, for they were helping the been denied, for they were helping the Indians to resist removal. They were Indians to resist removal. They were convicted and sentenced to four years of convicted and sentenced to four years of hard labor. They appealed their conviction hard labor. They appealed their conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.that the law was unconstitutional.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

The Decision:The Decision:• The relationship between the U.S. and The relationship between the U.S. and

Indian nations is that of nationsIndian nations is that of nations• U.S. inherited the sole right of dealing U.S. inherited the sole right of dealing

with Indians from the Britishwith Indians from the British• Only the national government, and not Only the national government, and not

states, have authority involving Indians states, have authority involving Indians and Indian territoryand Indian territory

Treaty of Hopewell (1775)““The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United States, in Congress assembled, give peace to all States, in Congress assembled, give peace to all the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor the Cherokees, and receive them into the favor and protection of the United States of America, on and protection of the United States of America, on the following conditions: the following conditions:

ARTICLE 9. ARTICLE 9. For the benefit and comfort of the For the benefit and comfort of the Indians, and for the prevention of injuries or Indians, and for the prevention of injuries or oppressions on the part of the citizens or Indians, oppressions on the part of the citizens or Indians, the United States in Congress assembled shall the United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the trade with the Indians, and managing all their trade with the Indians, and managing all their affairs in such manner as they think proper.affairs in such manner as they think proper.

Policy of Indian RemovalPolicy of Indian Removal

The goal of U.S. policy from President The goal of U.S. policy from President Jefferson to President Jackson was Indian Jefferson to President Jackson was Indian RemovalRemoval

Jefferson’s letter to HarrisonJefferson’s letter to Harrison

Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Worcester v. Georgia Worcester v. Georgia decisiondecision

Marshall Court Era: ConclusionMarshall Court Era: Conclusion

Although Washington (sidedAlthough Washington (sided

With Federalists) and AdamsWith Federalists) and Adams

were the only Federalistwere the only Federalist

Presidents, the Federalists’ Presidents, the Federalists’

belief in establishing a strongbelief in establishing a strong

central government was extended until 1835 central government was extended until 1835 through Adams’ appointment of Chief Justice through Adams’ appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall. John Marshall.

John Marshall

Marshall Court Era: ConclusionMarshall Court Era: Conclusion

The Marshall Court decisions The Marshall Court decisions

asserted the power of judicialasserted the power of judicial

review & clearly established the review & clearly established the

supremacy of the national supremacy of the national

government over the statesgovernment over the states• Commerce (Commerce (Gibbons v. OgdenGibbons v. Ogden))

• Banking (Banking (Mc McCullough v. MarylandMc McCullough v. Maryland))

• Contracts (Dartmouth College case)Contracts (Dartmouth College case)

• Indian affairs (Indian affairs (Worcester v. GeorgiaWorcester v. Georgia

John Marshall