John Marshall Research Paper

The overall influence of the Supreme Court under John Marshall can be understood through the five main court cases over which he presided; Marbury v. Madison (1803), Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The first significant case Marshall was faced with was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the last few days of his presidency, John Adams appointed members of the Federalist Party to the new offices he created within the judicial branch. When Thomas Jefferson took office he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the unsent commissions to some of the “midnight appointments”, one of who was William Marbury. He appealed to the Supreme Court, asking for a court order that would require Madison to send out the commission, which was part of his job. The Judiciary Act of 1789 supported Marbury’s demands because it authorized the Supreme Court to order

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.

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.

Marbury, one of the “midnight judges” of 1801, was named a justice of peace for the District of Columbia, but he soon learned that his commission was being put off by James Madison. So, he sued. Marshall realized that the executive branch, completely controlled by Jeffersonians, could easily reject his ruling for his Federalist friend and lessen the power of the Judicial branch at the same time. He dismissed Marbury’s case, but also said that the basis of Marbury’s argument –the Judiciary Act of 1789 –was unconstitutional, thus establishing the establishing the principle of judiciary review, the principle by which courts can declare acts of either the executive branch or the legislative branch

Thurgood Marshall was born on July 2,1908 in Baltimore,Maryland. His parents were William and Norma Marshall and his brother was William A. Marshall. His mother was a schoolteacher and his father was a railroad porter. His parents pushed him and his brother to get their education. His father was fascinated with trials and took Thurgood to as many public trials as he could. “Marshall’s exposure to the law and the Constitution was unusually early”(Thurgood Marshall)

McCulloch v Maryland (1819): He declared the bank constitutional, helped strengthen the the central authority, and denied Maryland the right to tax the bank.

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

Chief Justice John Marshall ushered in very important changes to the power structure in the federal government. As a federalist, Marshall believed having a strong federal government would provide the nation with the proper organization to withstand the many obstacles the future may hold. With Marshalls Court introducing the concept of judicial review, it permanently anchored Marshall’s federalist ideals to the federal government. Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison and the establishment of judicial review were hallmark accomplishments strengthening the Marshall Court and expanding its’ federalist views even into the current federal system.

John Marshall, considered by many to be the greatest Chief Justice in the Supreme Court, has copious achievements under his name. The ones that gave him the most fame were his involvement with establishing the power of the court and placing it equal among the executive and legislative branch, his important decisions in court cases that strengthened federal power, and instituting judicial review as a national power given to the judicial branch. However, these are not the only things John Marshall should be known for during his lifespan.

Fear is a very powerful thing. It can be used to manipulate, or in other words shape the identities of others. Someone who used this ability to his advantage was Marshall Herf Applewhite.Marshall Herf Applewhite utilized fear to shape the identities of his followers by forcing belief under false pretences, forcing a way of life, and forcing suicide.

Who is Marshall Applewhite? Applewhite was an American cult leader who founded what became known as heaven's gate religious group and organized his mass suicide in 1997. In 1972, applewhite met a woman who's name was Bonnie Lu Nettles, later they would decide that they were “the two” mentioned in the book of revelation, and they were on special spiritual mission.

The court case of McCulloch v Maryland (1819) derived from Congress chartering The Second Bank of the United States in 1816. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch who was the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, felt as if he did not have to pay the tax. With the conflict, the case went to the Supreme Court, where it became one of the most famous cases concerning federal power. When the case went to trial, it became apparent that Congress has implied powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress the power to establish a national bank.

Chief Justice Marshall then looked into the matter and found that in the Judiciary Act of 1789 it discusses the writ of mandamus. The writ of mandamus is a mandate given to a higher executive power by the Supreme Court that states a demand that the Supreme Court deems necessary. The writ of mandamus in this case stated that Marbury deserves the position of Justice of the Peace. However, this was later considered unconstitutional because the writ of mandamus was a part of an expansion of the constitution created by Congress, so it should not be treated as a part of the constitution. Marshall then decides that the Supreme Court needs a new way of handling cases similar to this, so he creates Judicial Review in order to give the Supreme Court the right to decide whether something is unconstitutional or

The Aboriginals, non-aboriginals fishing industry, and government officials were in a position where they were apart in the Marshall case that resulted in tension and conflict in fishing areas where the Mi’ kmaq has a traditional claim. Aboriginals were affirmed a right given that they can fish when they wanted without a license. But then non-Aboriginals fishing industry argued that their ability to protect fish stock was seriously limited by the decision. Also, non-Aboriginals argued that to shut down their fishing industry meant a new occupation and lifestyle. The government officials were in a position where aboriginals and non-aboriginals both had reasons and disagreements. This led the government to be unprepared to recognize Aboriginal

We have received many applies from many companies. We considered the product should have some characteristics. We selected five products as potential item for our award.