1 / 13

JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATEST HITS

JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATEST HITS. Marbury v. Madison 1803 Fletcher v. Peck 1810 McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 Gibbons v. Ogden 1824. Marbury v. Madison 1803 THE FEDERALISTS V. THE REPUBLICANS. BASIC QUESTION: Does Marbury have a right to the appointment?

mandel
Download Presentation

JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATEST HITS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATEST HITS • Marbury v. Madison 1803 • Fletcher v. Peck 1810 • McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 • Gibbons v. Ogden 1824

  2. Marbury v. Madison 1803THE FEDERALISTS V. THE REPUBLICANS • BASIC QUESTION: • Does Marbury have a right to the appointment? • If Marbury does have a right to the appointment, do the laws of the country give him recourse? • Does a Writ of Mandamus, as stated in the Judicial Act of 1789, provide such recourse?

  3. JOHN MARSHALL’S OPINION QUESTION ONE YES QUESTION TWO YES QUESTION THREE NO The Judicial Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court powers not stated in the Constitution, therefore, the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional

  4. PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED • Establishes the idea of Judicial Review • Lays the cornerstone for all future decisions • Establishes the court as the final arbiter

  5. Fletcher v. Peck 1810The Contracts Clause • Background to the case • Basic Question: Could an act of the Georgia legislature invalidate the contract between Fletcher and Peck

  6. John Marshall’s Opinion • The Constitution did not permit Bills of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Laws. • Therefore, Georgia could not take away the land or invalidate the contract • Laws annulling contracts or grants made by previous legislative acts were constitutionally impermissible

  7. PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED • First case that speaks to the Contracts Clause of the Constitution • The federal government, in the area of contracts, has supremacy over state laws

  8. McCulloch v. Maryland 1819The Supremacy Clause Federalists v. Republicans-Part II • Background to the case • Basic Question • Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? • Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with Congressional Powers?

  9. John Marshall’s Opinion • Congress had the power to incorporate the bank. • Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers

  10. PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED • “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 • Bank was emotional symbol to state power. The Republicans lost

  11. Gibbons v. Ogden 1824The first Commerce Case • Background to the case • Basic Question Did the state of New York exercise proper authority in granting a license to operate on New York waters or is this a power only Congress can exercise?

  12. John Marshall’s Opinion • New York’s law was inconsistent with the Congressional Act regulating coastal trading. • McCulloch established that federal laws were supreme over state laws. • Congress has the power to regulate commerce, therefore • Congress’ law was supreme over New York law

  13. PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED • Reaffirms the Supremacy Clause • Gives a clear statement to the meaning of the Commerce Clause • States clearly that in the area of Commerce, and specifically interstate commerce, the federal government can regulate trade between the states

More Related