Why Is John Marshall Important

John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who supported loose construction of the Constitution and enforcing economic provisions in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decisions did not extend federal power too much because the states needed to stay the same. Marshall’s leadership skills helped strengthen the federal government and he believed in all things good for the government. It is not appropriate that someone who was not elected should have such tremendous power to shape the government and law because the president and people should have the ability to elect a person to have a government position. John Marshall was a powerful government official who made the government strong, but he should not have had so much power

Woodrow Wilson once referred to the Supreme Court as “a constant constitutional convention in continuous session”, due to the role they have played in interpreting the constitution as it is written. Due to the ambiguity found in much of the phrasing in the constitution, judicial interpretation of the constitution can be considered both necessary and inevitable (Comer, Gruhl et al., 2001). The courts have the power to declare unconstitutional the actions of the other branches and units of the government in what is known as judicial review (Tannahil, 2002). The first case in which the court elaborated on the principle of judicial review was that of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and put forward that in the case of conflict between the constitution and a statute, it is “the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (Smith, 1975). Following this, the case of Fletcher v Peck (1810) is of equal importance as it was the first case in which a state law was declared by the court to be unconstitutional. Both of these cases go to show that judicial interpretation allows some flexibility into the constitution. It allows things that are not expressly stated in the constitution to be made

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States of America and James Madison was Vice President. In the case Marbury vs. Madison, President Jefferson commanded Madison to fire Judge William Marbury, whom was previously appointed by President John Adams as he was leaving office, along with several other judges. Marbury later sued Madison citing the Judiciary Act of 1798. This act allowed the supreme court to review cases brought against a federal official. William Marbury was a federalist which meant he was in the same political party as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

So Marshall denied the petition and refused to issue the writ. In section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 it notes that writs can indeed be issued, but that particular section of the act was not consistent with the Constitution, making it invalid. I believe that John Marshall implemented this final decision because it was first of all highly appropriate, as well as it more or less was a good solution for both parties. Yes, Marbury deserved to have his commission but the lawsuit was not necessarily an appropriate way to go about receiving it. Marshall knew that if he were going to protect the power of the Supreme Court then he would have to declare the act

The case of Marbury v. Madison will always be considered one of the most important cases ever decide by the Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling has been discussed and examined by many law scholars throughout the world. This essay summarizes the case and explains the implications of it regarding the powers of the Judicial Branch.

Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

The Supreme Court priorities from the time period of 1790 to 1865 were establishing the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was instrumental in founding the Federal Court System. The framers believed that establishing a National Judiciary was an urgent and important task. After the installation of Chief Justice John Marshall who “used his dominance to strengthen the court 's position and advance the policies he favored” (Baum 20). However, in the decision of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 was an example of the power he exuded “in which the Court struck down a Federal statute for the first time” (Baum 20). This created some internal conflict between Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson, however Marshall was able to diffuse this with

Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time was Chief Justice John Marshall, and he declared that this whole process of delivering commissions for judges, the Judiciary Act, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared this act illegal, because it gave the Supreme Court a power that they were forbidden to have. This is when the first law was declared unconstitutional and judicial review came into

Over the year’s federalism has taken on many forms within our federal system. The distribution of powers within these many forms of federal systems has had to adapt to each of these forms in order to keep up with the times. The federal system initially was set up to serve the 13 original colonies and was able to maintain their own powers given by the powers vested in each colonies individual constitutions. Federalism or the split of power between colonies and the federal or nation governing body was simply to form agreements among one another in regards to laws. The state governments possessed the powers given to them by their state constitutions which was known as reserved powers and concurrent powers were state and federal government

The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities. The text also alluded to previous court cases, such as Marshall vs. Court and the National Back, where Congress was declared to having unconstitutional implementations, that were based on a loose structure.

He very well deserved his position and the law did grant and abided by Marbury’s reasoning. He had a right to his documents being submitted. John Marshall, cousin of Marbury later became Chief of justice of the Supreme Court, and he was a huge factor in this case. I believe that though this case is solely about Marbury getting his commission, John Marshall being related to Marbury was somewhat another clear light for Marbury. In efforts to have Marbury appointed as Justice of Peace, Marshall tried his best to help the courts see that it was his cousin’s right to have his documents taken in, without expressing their family relationship with in the

John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened. Marshall, being a strong federalist, ruled that state given monopolies were unconstitutional and believed that competition was healthy for business.

In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland. In response to this, “The Maryland legislature responded to this action by levying a tax on all branches of banks “not chartered by the legislature”—a move aimed at destroying the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States."1James McCulloch who was a banker at the branch in Baltimore refused to pay the annual tax. He was convicted by Maryland state court and fined a total of 2,500 dollars. Losing at the state

The judicial review process is an important aspect of the US Court system. The process involves the use of powers by the Federal Courts to void the congress' acts that direct conflict with the Constitution. The Marbury v. Madison is arguably the landmark case that relates to Judicial Review. The Marbury v. Madison case was written in the year 1803 by the Chief Justice at that time named John Marshall. Thomas Jefferson won an election on the Democratic - Republican Party that had just been formed creating a panicky political atmosphere having defeated John Adams of the previous ruling party. Adams had appointed several justices for the District of Columbia prior to being defeated. The senate had approved the commissions and the commissions signed by the president as well as being affixed with the government's official seal. However, the commissions were not delivered, and when Jefferson took office, he instructed James Madison the Secretary of States not to deliver them. William Marbury who was on the list of appointees petitioned the Supreme Court for a legal order compelling Madison to explain why he was not to receive the commission (Clinton 1994).

John Marshall had a significant impact on strengthening the national government during his term as Chief Justice from 1800-1830. Marshall achieved this goal by strengthening the power of the Supreme Court in three main court cases. In Marbury v. Madison Marshall established the practice of judicial review, then in McCulloch v. Maryland he weakened the central government and Gibbons v. Ogden provided the federal government with the ability to regulate interstate commerce.