| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Supreme Justice: John Marshall and Judicial Activism

Page history last edited by Mr. Hengsterman 2 years, 4 months ago

 

Supreme Justice: John Marshall and Judicial Activism - Part I [1801-1803] 

Chief Justice John Marshall uses the bench to promote many of Hamilton's ideas -
including supremacy of the federal government and an independent judiciary to interpret laws of the young nation.

 

 

 

 

A brief biography of John Marshall 

 

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4798337/midnight-appointments

 

Theory Of Separation Of Powers -

SOURCE: Benjamin Rush “Address to the People of the United States”, American Museum, January 1787. 

"There is nothing more common than to confound the terms of the American Revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of this great drama is closed."

 

 

 

SOURCE: "The Judiciary Department", Federalist No. 78 was published May 28, 1788  

 

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

 

 

 

 

PBS LEARNING MEDIA - THE MARSHALL COURT

 

 

 

The "Dead Clutch" of the Judiciary

 In order for the Federalists to keep any control they had to dominate the only remaining branch – the Judiciary.  Federalist Congress then passed a new law Judiciary Act of 1801. This reduced the number of Supreme Court Justices. 

 

In 1800 the Federalists and their candidate, President John Adams, lost the election to Thomas Jefferson.  Early in 1801 the lame-duck Federalist Congress enacted a controversial Judiciary Act that created 58 new judgeships, including 42 justiceships of the peace

 

Created new judgeships – including Justice of the Peace.  Some of the last commission were signed at midnight prior to Jefferson’s Inauguration “Midnight Judges”

 

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 

#1 Judiciary Act of 1800 Reduces the number of justices from six to five. Federalists wanted to prevent Jefferson from choosing a Republican to replace an aging justice. Also creates 26 new positions in the federal district and circuit courts to relieve the burden of Supreme court justices of riding the “circuit” Creates 42 justice of the peace positions. This was a minor position with a minimal salary

 

#2 Key Players - Outgoing President John Adam spent considerable time picking and confirming new district and circuit court judges before Jefferson took office. 

 

 

Facing a March 3 deadline (midnight) the commissions were sent to Secretary of State John Marshall, signed, and stacked on his desk, undelivered.

 

March 4, 1801 James Madison is sworn in as Secretary of State and sat behind a desk of undelivered commissions.  Jefferson order Madison to deliver 25 of the 42 commissions, perhaps to cut costs on the salaries. Of the 17 slighted judges only 4 (including William Marbury) filed suit in the Supreme Court asking for a writ of mandamus against Secretary of State James Madison.

 

What is a writ of mandamus?   A writ of mandamus is a court order which compels someone to execute a duty which he or she is legally compelled to complete.

 

 

 

 

 

#3 Key questions before the Supreme Court

 

Question #1 Was Marbury entitle to his commission?  YES
Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to create federal offices. Marbury was duly nominated for the post and duly confirmed by the senate, and his commission was duly signed by the Secretary of State as the law provided

 

Question #2 Did the law provide a remedy for Madison’s refusal to deliver his commission?   YES The answer comes from the maxim “Every wrong provides a remedy,” otherwise courts have no power or purpose.

 

Question #3 Was the writ of mandamus the appropriate remedy in Marbury’s suit? YES, but.... Crafty maneuver on Marshall’s part – Congress had authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, but Article III of the Constitution limited the Court’s “original jurisdiction” to cases involving ambassadors, foreign consuls, and states. In all other cases, the Court only had “appellate jurisdiction” over lower courts both state and federal.

 

William Marbury made a fatal mistake when he filed his suit in the Supreme Court assuming that section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 would be used to decide his claim. Marshall concluded that the jurisdiction “must be appellate, not original.”   Only Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was declared unconstitutional

 

Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the Constitution specifically listed the types of cases the Supreme Court is allowed to hear under original jurisdiction in Article III, Section 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Veterans Day through the eyes of a child

 

 

Legacy of JM 

 

Donald Trump's Supreme Court vacancy agenda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPoZuKaLjo

 

 

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.