Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Background
The President of the United States has the power to appoint judges to the federal courts. Usually, the President appoints individuals who are members of his political party or who share his ideas about politics.
In 1800, John Adams was President. There was an election that year. Thomas Jefferson, who belonged to another political party, got elected. There were many positions in the federal government that were empty. Before he left office, President Adams tried to fill these positions with people who shared his ideas.
President Adams appointed 58 new people. He asked his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to deliver the paperwork to these people so they could start their new jobs. Marshall delivered most of the papers. He was in a hurry, so he left some of the papers for the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver. When he came into office, President Thomas Jefferson told Madison not to deliver the papers to some of the people Adams had appointed.
One of the individuals who didn't receive his papers was William Marbury. He sued James Madison and tried to get the Supreme Court of the United States to issue a writ of mandamus. A writ is a court order that forces an official to do something.
The Case
Marbury argued that a law passed by Congress (the Judiciary Act of 1789) gave the Supreme Court of the United States the power to issue this writ. If the Court issued the writ, Madison would have to deliver the papers. Then Marbury would become a justice of the peace.
The Supreme Court of the United States had to decide the case. The new Chief Justice of the United States was John Marshall. He was the same person who had been unable to deliver the paperwork in the first place!
The Decision
The Court decided not to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that according to the Constitution, the Court did not have the authority to require Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury in this case. They found that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution because it gave the Supreme Court more authority than it was given under the Constitution. Declaring the Constitution “superior, paramount law,” the Supreme Court ruled that when ordinary laws conflict with the Constitution, they must be struck down.
Furthermore, it is the job of judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, to interpret laws and determine when they conflict with the Constitution. According to the Court, the Constitution gives the judicial branch the power to strike down laws passed by Congress, the legislative branch. This is the principle of judicial review.
Primary Source
“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten…
…consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void...
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial [branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each...
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty...”
—John Marshall, Chief Justice
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Background
In 1791, the U.S. government created the first national bank. At this time, a national bank was controversial. Some people believed that the national government had the power to create a national bank. Others believed that the national government did not have this power. When Thomas Jefferson was president, he did not renew the national bank's charter. Jefferson believed in placing greater limits on the power of the national government. However, when James Madison became president he asked Congress to create a Second Bank of the United States in 1816.
Many branches of the Bank of the United States were opened throughout the country. Some states did not like these branches. The national banks competed with state banks and people thought that the national banks were corrupt. In addition, states were worried about the increasing power of the national government.
The State of Maryland tried to close a branch of the Bank of the United States by making that branch pay $15,000 in taxes. James McCulloch, who worked at the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, did not pay the tax. The State of Maryland took him to court.
The Case
The State of Maryland argued that if the national government could regulate state banks, the state could make rules for the national bank. The State of Maryland also said that there was no permission in the Constitution for the national government to create a national bank. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress. It says nothing about creating a national bank.
On the other hand, McCulloch's attorney argued that the power to create a national bank was a "necessary and proper" power of Congress. It is true that there is nothing in the Constitution about a national bank; however, there are many things that the government must do that would be helped by a national bank. Therefore, creating a national bank is an implied power of Congress.
McCulloch was convicted of violating Maryland's tax law. McCulloch then appealed the lower court's decision to the Maryland Court of Appeals. After the Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court's decision, McCulloch appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was led by Chief Justice John Marshall.
Supreme Court Decision
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of McCulloch and against the state of Maryland. Instead of listing every power of Congress, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make “all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for exercising the powers that are specifically enumerated. This means that Congress has the authority to pass any law that is “necessary and proper” to exercise its power as specified in the Constitution, even if the Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to pass that specific law or to regulate that specific matter. Therefore, Congress does have the authority to establish a national bank.
Did the state of Maryland have the authority to tax a branch of the national bank? The Court said it did not. If the United States Congress passed a law within its authority under the Constitution, a state legislature could not pass a law to interfere with that action. The law passed by the Maryland state legislature imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States “is unconstitutional and void.”
Primary Source
“Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word ‘bank’ or ‘incorporation,’ we find the great powers, to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. . . But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. . .”
And—
“the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.”
—John Marshall, Chief Justice
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Background
One conflict has been over which level of government, state or national should control interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is the buying and selling of goods from state to state. Who had power over interstate commerce, the states or the national government?
In 1808, Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston had a monopoly to operate steamboats on the waterways of New York state. This meant that only their steamboats could operate on the waterways of New York. This monopoly was given to them by the New York state government. This monopoly was very important because steamboats carried both people and goods and was very profitable.
Aaron Ogden had a Fulton-Livingston license to operate steamboats under this monopoly. He operated steamboats between New Jersey and New York. However, another man named Thomas Gibbons competed with Aaron Ogden on this same route. Gibbons did not have a Fulton-Livingston license, but instead had a federal (national) coasting license, granted under a 1793 act of Congress.
The problem was that the waterway between New Jersey and New York was an interstate waterway. The business on this waterway was interstate commerce. The question was who had the right to issue a license to operate boats on this interstate waterway, the state of New York or Congress (the national government)?
The Case
Aaron Ogden was upset about the competition and asked the New Yorkcourt to stop Gibbons from operating his boats. Ogden said that New York should have control over this interstate waterway.
Gibbons disagreed. He said that the United States Constitution gave the national government, Congress, the only power over interstate commerce. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States." Gibbons said that if each state made laws regarding interstate commerce, there would be chaos.
The New York court found in favor of Ogden and ordered Gibbons to stop his boats. Gibbons appealed the case to the New York appeals court, which agreed with the lower court's decision. Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Supreme Court Decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. The justices agreed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate the operation of steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Therefore, the license issued to Gibbons by Congress to operate a coast ferry service superseded the monopoly license to operate a ferry service issued to Ogden by the state of New York.Writing the opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall interpreted the meaning of the Commerce Clause to give Congress broad power over commercial activity and reduced that of the states.
Primary Source
“We do not find, in the history of the formation and adoption of the constitution, that any man speaks of a general concurrent power, in the regulation of foreign and domestic trade, as still residing in the States. The very object intended, more than any other, was to take away such power. If it had not so provided, the constitution would not have been worth accepting.
. . .What is it that is to be regulated? Not the commerce of the several States, respectively, but the commerce of the United States. Henceforth, the commerce of the States was to be an unit; and the system by which it was to exist and be governed, must necessarily be complete, entire, and uniform. Its character was to be described in the flag which waved over it, E PLURIBUS UNUM.”
—John Marshall, Chief Justice
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Worcester v. Georgia (1832)
Background
In December 1829, President Andrew Jackson announced his Indian removal proposal in an address to the U.S. Congress. In 1830 Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the president to grant the Indians unsettled lands west of the Mississippi River in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders. The U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall addressed the Indian lands question in two cases: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in 1831 and Worcester v. Georgia in 1832. Both cases developed out of Georgia’s attempt to assert its jurisdiction over Cherokee land within the state that was protected by federal treaty. In the first case, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the Cherokee request to prevent Georgia’s attempt. The Court determined that the Cherokees were “a domestic, dependent nation” (in other words, a ward of the United States), rather than “a sovereign nation.” By refusing to hear the case, the Court left the Cherokees at the mercy of the state of Georgia.
The GeorgiaLegislature meanwhile had passed a law requiring anyone other than Cherokees who lived on Indian territory to obtain a license from the state. Samuel Worcester and several other non-Cherokee missionaries settled and established a mission on Cherokee land at the request of the Cherokees and with permission of the U.S. government.
The Case
The state of Georgia charged Worcester and the other missionaries with “residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license.” They were tried, convicted, and sentenced to four years of hard labor. Worcester and the other missionaries appealed their convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Decision
Does a state have the power to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian nations? The Supreme Courtruled in favor of Worcester and the Cherokees. The Court reasoned that the Cherokee nation was “a distinct community” with “self-government” in which the laws of Georgia had no force. Marshall explains that the government of the United States inherited from Great Britain the powers that that nation formerly held, including the sole power to deal with the Indian nations.Marshall goes on to write that the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter Cherokee land without the permission of the Cherokee people.
Primary Source
“From the commencement of our government, Congress has passed acts to regulate trade … with the Indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. All these acts … manifestly consider the several Indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States …”
And—
“The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States.”
Therefore—
“The acts of Georgia are repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.”
—John Marshall, Chief Justice
Worcester v. Georgia (1832)