Transcript Chief Justice John Marshall

Strengthening the Judicial Branch
SOL: VUS.5e





Born in Midland, Virginia
1755.
Veteran of the Revolutionary
War.
He endured the harsh winter
at Valley Forge, Pa in 1777.
Because of the lack of power
and money in the Congress
during that difficult time, this
influenced his sentiment for a
stronger central government.
He was considered a
Federalist.


When we are learning
about Supreme Court
Cases in class our focus
is on the precedent that
is set by the case
decision.
So in other words, what
standard was put in
place as a result of the
decision.

Example:
 If Johnny is late to class 4
times and as a result of this
his punishment is a day in
ISS, what is the standard
for which all other students
who are late 4 times?
 So when we learn about
supreme court cases don’t
get caught up in the facts
of the case but look for the
precedent that was set by
the decision.

We are going to learn
about 3 very important
cases which set a
precedent that
strengthened the
Supreme Court in the
Judicial Branch of our
government.

The three cases were
all decided by Chief
Justice John Marshall
 Marbury v. Madison
(1803)
 McCulloch v. Maryland
(1820)
 Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Case briefing:
John Adams on his last day as President appoints
William Marbury to justice of the peace in D.C. The
new President, Thomas Jefferson, tells his Sec. of
State, James Madison, not to deliver the
appointment.
 Marbury asks the Supreme Court to issue a writ
(mandate) making Madison deliver the appointment.
 Chief Justice John Marshall declares that the Judiciary
Act of 1801, which gave the court the power to issue
the writ, was unconstitutional and so he couldn’t
make Madison deliver the appointment.


Sounds like he was taking power away from the
court….right?
 Wrong!
 By declaring the Judiciary Act of 1801
unconstitutional John Marshall set the precedent
that when there is a law passed by congress and
it is in conflict with the Constitution it is the right
of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not
the law is constitutional or not…aka. JUDICIAL
REVIEW!




Case briefing
The state of Maryland created a law that said
that all banks within its borders that were not
chartered by the state had to pay a fee/tax to
print paper currency with the state stamp on
them.
The Second Bank of the United States was
operating in the state of Maryland. When the
branch manager, McCulloch, did not pay the tax
the state of Maryland sued the bank for not
abiding by the state law.

The issues to consider:
 Was the Bank of the United States constitutional?
 Did the state of Maryland have the right to tax a
federal institution which was created to carry out
duties of Congress?

The decision:
 Congress has “Implied Powers” (not stated specifically in
the Constitution) to pass laws that are “Necessary and
Proper” to carry out its duties.
▪ The federal government can do whatever is “necessary and proper”
to carry out its duties…print money, manage debt, tax, etc. To do
this the government has the implied power to establish a national
bank.
 The states cannot tax a federal institution because it is
interfering with the government carrying out its duties
given by the Constitution.

The precedent of “implied powers” and the
“necessary and proper” clauses greatly expands the
power of the Federal Government.
The state of New York granted Ogden a
monopoly on all steamboat travel (trade and
commerce) on New York waters and some on the
border of New York and New Jersey.
 Gibbons goes against this monopoly by using his
steamboats on the waterways.
 Ogden sues Gibbons in the New York Supreme
Court stating that his exclusive right to
steamboat travel have been violated.
 Gibbons then appeals and the case goes to the
Supreme Court.


Issues before the court:
 Does the state of New York have the right to give
exclusive rights (a monopoly) on interstate
commerce to a private individual company?
 Does the state of New York have the right to
enforce the exclusive rights to a private company
on interstate commerce?
 Does the state of New York have the right to
regulate interstate commerce on its borders?

The Decision
 States do not have the power to grant exclusive rights of
interstate commerce to private businesses.
 States do not have the power to enforce interstate commerce.
 States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce
on its borders between states.
The precedent that is established is that the states cannot
regulate interstate commerce between their borders.
 The “Commerce Clause” in article 1 of the Constitution
gives the right to regulate trade and commerce to
Congress of the Federal Government even within states
borders.


American Continents
(North, Middle, South)
are not to be
considered for future
colonization or
influence by any
European nations.

Any attempt by a
European government
to spread into the
western hemisphere
will be seen as a direct
threat to the peace
and safety of the
United States.

Similar to a restraining
order

The United States will
stay out of European
affairs if all nations in
Europe stay out of the
western hemisphere.

We’ll leave you alone if
you leave us alone

Acknowledges that
nations in the western
hemisphere are
naturally different than
in the eastern.
Western = republics,
democracy, freedom
 Eastern = monarchs,
dictators, communism
