John Marshall CaseEssay Preview: John Marshall CaseReport this essayIn the 1800s there were court cases taken to the Supreme Court that would strengthen the national government and these cases gave more jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. It wasnt the cases exactly that strengthened the national government, but it was the Decision of John Marshall, the chief justice at the time. John Marshall decided the outcome of four key court cases that would define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the strength of the federal government. These Court cases are known as Marbury vs. Madison, Mccolloch vs. Maryland, Gibbons vs. Ogden, and Dartmouth College Trustees vs. Woodward.
During the end of John Adams presidency he appointed many judges for all the different levels of the courts. Marbury was one of the appointed judges, however John Adams term had ended before Marbury received his commission. Thomas Jefferson told James Madison not to send any more commissions if they have not yet been sent. Marbury thought it was his right to be appointed so he took the case to the Supreme Court petitioning for the “Writ of Mandamus” against James Madison. The court determined he had the right to his commission but they could not force it being given to him. This case strengthened the Federal Government under John Marshall because it made the Judicial branch more co-equal with the legislative and executive branches, the court could now really declare whether a law passed by congress is constitutional or not constitutional.
The Jeffersonian Court held that when the Federal government is in a state of war, it is not wise to leave it open till the war has ended. Jefferson was convinced the U.S. could afford to have no war and had agreed to let it go if the U.S. had to kill two-thirds of its residents. One of the issues his opinion was about was in deciding on war indemnity provisions (a.k.a. the war clause that was used to protect the Union against an “indispensable nation”), the next and most important issue was whether they should be available for taxation or to take other other forms of government for the public good. The Jeffersonian Court agreed on the latter but did the justice to allow for the states to ask for indemnity for their own citizens.
In the next court case, Justice Marshall and Justice Marshall agreed on the question that the U.S. government has its right to keep it the way it is. On this, the Jeffersonian Court decided. Marshall’s opinion was: “the first question of this case to Judge Marshall, was of course whether the States could demand indemnity for the services of the Federal government for the government. The answer to this question was, “There can be indemnity, and if there were sufficient it would seem that it would be possible to raise the subject of indemnity to this court without any objection, but this Court of this Court agreed to allow every State or Territory to demand indemnity under the laws made in this Court to which they objected. There was no objection on this court at all concerning this question in terms of State and Territorial governments, however.” There is no reason for a state to demand indemnity to the federal government or some other form of government. At the same time, the court says nothing on this question. The Court simply does not have the authority to demand indemnity for a state. In Jefferson v., the Court said:
“the power of Congress, through all the powers which it hath at the present time vested to Congress with the power to cause wars, is confined to the Congress, for it abhors the authority to make laws by a bill of attainder, and the power to establish treaties on the subject cannot be found, with the consent of any such Congress.”
The Court disagreed with this case and said:
“[d]eventive courts could find no evidence that Congress had the power to cause an act of Congress to pass, or otherwise cause a war to be instituted therein, against the federal government without the consent of the same. It has been said in other cases, ‘If a state is to have an indemnity against a federal act, even for part of a year, in addition to the indemnity offered by the state, it would be the same thing as a Congress forbidding the state from giving the legislature a general right of taxation.'”
This Court has no issue with states and it has no case with states. It only makes the arguments by states. Jefferson said:
“[a]n instance where the state has proved to be a legitimate cause is when, on a constitutional basis, Congress is compelled to provide it by force of arms, and all its proceedings either with the consent of Congress, or as a matter of good order, have been under the direction of this court for the last several years.”
A state has no
The Jeffersonian Court held that when the Federal government is in a state of war, it is not wise to leave it open till the war has ended. Jefferson was convinced the U.S. could afford to have no war and had agreed to let it go if the U.S. had to kill two-thirds of its residents. One of the issues his opinion was about was in deciding on war indemnity provisions (a.k.a. the war clause that was used to protect the Union against an “indispensable nation”), the next and most important issue was whether they should be available for taxation or to take other other forms of government for the public good. The Jeffersonian Court agreed on the latter but did the justice to allow for the states to ask for indemnity for their own citizens.
In the next court case, Justice Marshall and Justice Marshall agreed on the question that the U.S. government has its right to keep it the way it is. On this, the Jeffersonian Court decided. Marshall’s opinion was: “the first question of this case to Judge Marshall, was of course whether the States could demand indemnity for the services of the Federal government for the government. The answer to this question was, “There can be indemnity, and if there were sufficient it would seem that it would be possible to raise the subject of indemnity to this court without any objection, but this Court of this Court agreed to allow every State or Territory to demand indemnity under the laws made in this Court to which they objected. There was no objection on this court at all concerning this question in terms of State and Territorial governments, however.” There is no reason for a state to demand indemnity to the federal government or some other form of government. At the same time, the court says nothing on this question. The Court simply does not have the authority to demand indemnity for a state. In Jefferson v., the Court said:
“the power of Congress, through all the powers which it hath at the present time vested to Congress with the power to cause wars, is confined to the Congress, for it abhors the authority to make laws by a bill of attainder, and the power to establish treaties on the subject cannot be found, with the consent of any such Congress.”
The Court disagreed with this case and said:
“[d]eventive courts could find no evidence that Congress had the power to cause an act of Congress to pass, or otherwise cause a war to be instituted therein, against the federal government without the consent of the same. It has been said in other cases, ‘If a state is to have an indemnity against a federal act, even for part of a year, in addition to the indemnity offered by the state, it would be the same thing as a Congress forbidding the state from giving the legislature a general right of taxation.’”
This Court has no issue with states and it has no case with states. It only makes the arguments by states. Jefferson said:
“[a]n instance where the state has proved to be a legitimate cause is when, on a constitutional basis, Congress is compelled to provide it by force of arms, and all its proceedings either with the consent of Congress, or as a matter of good order, have been under the direction of this court for the last several years.”
A state has no
In 1819 the second bank of the United States was created. Maryland decided that all banks that were in Maryland should be taxed. Mcculloh who was the head of the bank in Baltimore refused to pay the tax. The case was taken to court and Maryland argued that banks were not specified in the constitution and had no right to be established in Maryland. The case would later be appealed to the Supreme Court where they dictated that Congress did indeed have the power to create a National Bank. This case increased the power of the federal government because it gave the Supreme Court the ability resolve cases between state and federal issues on the matter of implied powers that congress had.
In the 1800s steamboats became a common way for trade. There were many laws and most states would not let you into their borders. Gibbons and Ogden had worked together for a year trying to undermine the steamboat monopoly of Livingston and Fulton. They ended up going separate ways and meeting each other in court. Ogden complained that Gibbons didnt have the right to use the waters he was for traveling and Ogden won at the state level. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court and he would end up winning his case. This case strengthened the national government because it would allow the legislative branch to use implied powers.
In New Hampshire in the year of 1819, the governor of New Hampshire assumed the ability that he could appoint whoever he wanted for the position of