Madison sticks to Jeffersonian ideals when he opposed the International Improvement Bill of 1817, because the power to regulate commerce is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. In the message he wrote to Congress, He illustrates that this authority belongs to the states, which is an act of strict interpretation of the constitution. It also indicated the problem of sovereignty between states and the federal government. In fact, this action directly opposed that of the previous president Thomas Jefferson in regards to the Embargo Acts. Jefferson uses loose interpretation to say that the federal government does have the power to regulate commerce, while Madison complies with his party's beliefs of strict constructionism.
Taney’s opinion, on the other hand, would differ greatly from a Marshal opinion. Taney supports the dual federalism perspective, which holds that the state and national governments are equal in power, and places much emphasis on the Tenth Amendment. From Taney's opinion in Scott v. Sandford, it is evident that Taney holds an enclave view of the Tenth Amendment, meaning that there are areas of delegation specifically reserved to the states and the the federal government cannot intrude on. In the Scott v. Sandford ruling, Taney stated that Congress was out of line and had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. This court opinion invalidated the already repealed Missouri Compromise, demonstrating Taney’s support of the states overturning federal legislation that impeded on state sovereignty.
Colonists during the 1700’s were controlled by England without representation in Parliament. King George III passed multiple acts in order to pay debts from the French and Indian War. There were laws that placed taxes on daily items and required stamps on any legal documents in the American colonies. England felt they could tax their colonies and create a monopoly on trade, however, the colonists felt this violated the rights they had. In order to gain rights, the colonies wanted to be recognized as independent.
The U.S Supreme Court reversed the state court decision on Dartmouth College V. Woodward case in 1819 regarding a violation of the contract clause. The college trustees claimed the state of New Hampshire passed legislative acts which favored Republicans giving them control over the college, ultimately turning Dartmouth College into a public institution. The college trustees argued this was a violation of the original contract created by King George III the founder of Dartmouth College. According to Mason and Stephenson, Jr (2012), “The U. S Supreme Court questioned; (1) Is this contract protected by the constitution of the United States?
Clay, borrowing a line from Hamilton, argued the road was a national issue and cited the necessary and proper clause. Jackson argued that even if the Maysville Road was a national issue he would still have vetoed the bill because “the treasury was now exhausted and the road could not be built without an increase in the national debt” . In the views of Jackson, the national debt prevented true independence. His main goal was to reduce and repay the debt. As president he made
This was the first error the delegates at the Constitutional Convention hoped to fix with the Constitution. In JAmes MAdison’s Federalist Paper #51, he explains that the power the people of the nation grants its government be divided into two separate government's, meaning state and federal, to ensure a “double security” on the people’s rights. This idea was referred to as federalism (Doc A). This division of power was set up in a way that both governments had specific powers that the other had no control over, which prevented either one form gaining all power. Tyranny was further prevented by both state and central governments sharing some powers, keeping each other in
James Madison’s early idea of a self controlled government while controlling the governed influenced the creation of checks and balances in the Constitution, where the government is separated into three branches— Judicial, Legislative, and Executive. The branches have power over and are restrained by each other in order to keep power balanced between them. According to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, the Executive has the power to veto laws from both houses, but can be overrun by the Legislative if it receives ⅔ majority vote. The Judicial branch, however, can propose treaties or laws proposed by Congress as unconstitutional. This is also known as the judicial review, implemented as the Judiciary Act of 1789 in the U.S Constitution.
During the civil war era the nullification and secession in the South was perfectly constitutional. According to the Compact theory, the federal government is only powerful due to the power of the states, therefore, the state’s have a say in the federal government and their rights. The South failed even though secession and nullification was constitutional only because the North had a more powerful army than the South and were able to overpower them. Nullification is a legal theory that a state has the right to invalidate any federal law in which that state deems as unconstitutional. Courts at the state and federal level have rejected this theory due to the Supremacy Clause which stipulates that in the case of a conflict against federal and
Both parties had America’s best interest at heart, however Hamilton and the Federalists’ ideas concerning the economy, interpretation of the Constitution, and the future of American society made them more fit for governing the United States. Hamilton’s understanding of a successful economy allowed him to make decisions that would benefit the country. As discussed in source one, Alexander Hamilton created a uniform currency and an economic plan that would assume state debts and make them federal debts. From there on, he created a national bank; in source three Hamilton states, “...[The Democratic Republicans] were determined to oppose the banking system, which would ruin the credit and honor of the Nation”, as he clearly has the nation’s best interest at heart. The Democratic Republican feared corruption, but they overlooked that their rights are protected in the Constitution and that their
The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause explicitly opposes to encourage any form of racial discrimination as the Bill of Rights does not possess equal protection clause. Therefore, in a case revolving around segregation in the area of Washington, D.C. that come under federal law, it has been determined that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause function against the federal government and the states respectively. The Due Process Clause is strongly connected with apprehension of fair procedures. Moreover, it follows the Magna Carta of Great Britain which resolutions were applied to ensure the noblemen that the king would make his decisions in accordance with procedures of law. Then the 17th century American colonies put an emphasis on preserving legal order.