Examples Of Federalism Under The Marshall Court

New Federalism is an attempt in the 70's and 80's to restore some powers to the states from the Government. When a state court is deciding whether a case is constitutional, it must apply standards at least equal to those of the federal level. Moreover, if the states own constitutional or statutory standards are more demanding than those in the federal system, then the state may apply its own standards, giving greater protection than demanded by the U.S. Constitution. It is derived from the rule that state court decisions based on adequate and independent state grounds are immune from federal review. Examples of new federalism in action are gun laws and regulations and states not legalizing marijuana and/or gay marriages.

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

Marshall believed in loose construction; believing that the constitution needed to be adapted to the time and period

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

Marshall complained that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court ultimately has the final say so when it comes to evaluating the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall states, “ lt is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” To present Marshall’s initial plea at hand, Marshall argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. In Marshall 's perspective, Congress could not present the Supreme Court with the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission. Only the Constitution could do so, and the document said nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. Thus, the Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so.

In Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Marshall overturned an act of congress for the first time that conflicted with the constitution. It was a daring step for a politically vulnerable court and Marshall crafted the opinion in such a way that Thomas Jefferson could not reject it. John Marshall had strong views that made him dominate the court from 1801 to 1835 and personally responsible for evaluating it in person of real authority. Marshall, also shared his power with other follow Justices that often curved his opinions in order to arrive at consensus decisions. Marshall established a model that all future Chief Justices would be measured to. The United States Supreme Court used the Necessary and Proper Clause in the McCulloch v. Maryland case. McCulloch v. Maryland case debated that if congress have the power to charter a bank. In 1791, the first charted bank; the First Bank of the United States was created, but the

Looking into the old governmental policies that helped shape our amazing Constitutional Republic today, I've noticed quite a few policies that are still in use today, and for the most part, remain unchanged. Inside The Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, are a great way to locate the old governmental policies that are still the same today in America.

In the decision regarding Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall ruled that a state can't grant a monopoly when it is related to interstate commerce. This gave supremacy to the national government in issues regarding interstate commerce. Through his interpretation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, John Marshall successfully increased the power of the national government.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

The Marshall Court has left numerous legacies in place in order to help establish this great nation. Chief Justice Marshall was a man that had many impacts on our Government from strengthening the authority of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, which gave the courts judicial review, to Gibbons v. Ogden, which gave the national government undeniable power over interstate commerce by ruling a New York steamboat monopoly invalid. There were many other cases as well that were important to the government’s growth; such as Fletcher v. Peck that made it where a state law can never overthrow anything that came against the Federal Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall presided over many cases and ruled over such cases in a way that he felt would benefit the ever growing American nation. Through it all he helped establish three legacies; helping to make the federal government supreme over all things that would control the economy, he also helped to open the pathway where there’s an increased federal part to be played in economic growth, and finally in an effort to further any and all new industrial capitalist economy, he helped to make permanent protection for corporations and private businesses so that the states couldn’t interfere. These legacies helped to establish a better American nation in more ways that we can know. A key part of all of this

Established in 1789, the Supreme Court was created to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to use that interpretation to declare any actions of the Legislative or Executive Branches unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was capable of also acquiring more functions as evidence of the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case dealt with President John Adams appointing sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Colombia. Adams appointed these justices so that his political party would have more justices than the rival party. Problematically, the appointment letters were not delivered by the end of his term. By that basis, President Thomas Jefferson annulled the appointments because he retained the right to appoint the justices during his time of jurisdiction. Consequently, this aggravated the appointed justice and therefore one of the justices named William Marbury filed a case in the Supreme Court over the commissions that they were promised (Goldstone). The Court ruled that Marbury did have a right to commission and also with it made a statement that enacted the doctrine of Judicial Review. This meant that the court had the "right to review, and possibly nullify, laws and governmental acts that violate the constitution. Judicial Review is a means of assuring that politicians and various other leaders adhere to the constitution and do not use powers granted to them by

If Marshall’s actions were iconic, then after the Marbury v. Madison case, he would have been credited with the creation of judicial review. In reality, Marshall’s decision of allowing the courts to review the decisions of the legislative and executive branches was seen “as only a step in the continuous clarification of the theory of judicial function”(Clinton 117). So this supposed creator of a pivotal Judicial component was only seen as a stepping stone. Through the remainder of Marshall’s career as Chief Justice, no one revisited his thoughts on the Marbury v. Madison case, until his successor, Roger Taney, did in Dred Scott v. Sanford. Roger Taney seemed to have the same viewpoints as Marshall, always trying to keep the checks and balances intact and equal. He kept this dedication through the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, using judicial review to rule the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Strangely, “Marbury’s importance as a precedent for judicial review of legislation was never mentioned by the Court”(Clinton 119). If Marbury v. Madison was such a pivotal case, then it would

Federalism was an inevitable and paramount mechanism to creation the of the Union. Therefore, it is acceptable that its governing principles would define and refine a majority of the nation’s history. Shaping the government, laws, and politics of the current and future generations during the creation of the Constitution, federalism permanently altered the life of every American. Federalism and the Constitution were derived from a similar ideal: endurance of free society had to be preserved by a sense of unity that acted as a safeguard against prevalent dangers, advanced the common good while still maintaining responsiveness to the diversity of the nation (Wechsler, 1954). The Constitution established a central government that possessed the capacity to interpret its