John Marshall: The Greatest Chief Justice In The Supreme Court

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 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.

He was the eldest of fifteen children and was blessed with outstanding parents. His parents were Thomas Marshall and Mary Randolph Keith. His father was a planter and one of the leading men of Fauquier County, in those times a frontier county. His Mother was a clergyman's daughter that had relations with some first families of Virginia. I think that the influence of these families brought Thomas Marshall a desire and eager to educate his son. He was the most influencing person through John Marshall's early years. As he stated later as an adult, He superintended my education . . . and to his care I am indebted for anything valuable which I have acquired in my youth. (Hobson, 2)

John Marshall was a Federalist Chief Justice during Thomas Jefferson’s term and was Jefferson’s cousin. Marshall held the position of Supreme Court Justice for 34 years which allowed him to define the basic relationship of the judiciary to the federal government. He believed that the national legislature was supreme over state legislature which influenced all of his court decisions throughout his time in court. John Marshall pursued a loose interpretation of the constitution because he had to create power through the Elastic Clause to provide a just assessment of the case. The Elastic Clause allowed Congress to have power and add laws to the Constitution as necessary which gave Marshall the jurisdiction to bring justice with

“Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever,” declared by past President William Howard Taft. Dated in 1789, the Judiciary Act by signed by Congress, which was demanded by the United States Constitution. This past principal court was ruled by a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices, accordingly today we still have a Chief Justice, but we currently have eight Associate Justices. The current Supreme Court has John G. Roberts, Jr. as Chief Justice, and the following are the current Associate Justices: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas, a conservative, best known as the second

Around the 1800’s, John Marshall played an important role in the society. He was the decision maker at court, allowing him more power over the law. Many people believe that the things that Marshall did, were wrong. But according to the following documents, either he was forced to do the things he did, or people may have misinterpreted his intentions from the start. From since he was appointed by the court all they way up until he retired and died.

During the final hours of John Adams presidency, he named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices, one of them being William Marbury, for the district of Columbia under the Organic Act.This was his final attempt to let the Federalists take control of the federal Judiciary before Thomas Jefferson became president. Although Adams was able to sign the commission, his plan failed as his secretary of state at the time, John Marshall, was unable to deliver the commission before the end of Adam’s term on March 4, 1801. Soon after Thomas Jefferson took office, he ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to decline the delivery of Marbury’s commission. This caused William Marbury to go before the Supreme Court to argue his rights to be appointed justice of peace by asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct James Madison to deliver the commissions. Under the the Judiciary act of 1789 in which the Supreme Court is granted the power to issue a writ of mandamus and give orders to the

John Marshall is an American patriot who climbed to success through hard-work, determination, and a strong will to protect the constitution of The United States of America. He held many prominent places in American government as well as on front lines of the army defending freedom. John Marshall became the fourth Supreme Court justice for three whole decades, issuing major verdicts on cases that helped to develop, limit, and divide government power.

Increasing the power of the national government as well as the judicial branch made John Marshall a prominent figure of the

The Cherokees provided the best example of Native Americans who understood their rights most clearly as they demonstrated in their plight objecting the Cherokee removal and as they exhibited in the construction of a constitution strikingly similar to the United States constitution as well as those of the states, carefully outlining their rights in an organized coherent manner. Consistent with the federal and state constitutions, the Cherokee constitution reflected a profound belief in republicanism, a representative form of government in which those eligible to vote elected individuals to make laws to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Clarence Thomas is the very second African American justice to serve on the supreme court of the united states he was controversially appointed in 1991 And leans conservative.

President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as Justice of the Peace, in the District of Columbia. However, new Secretary of State, James Madison, would not deliver the documents. William Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to force James Madison to bring the papers, but the Supreme Court declined the petition. They did this because the Judiciary Act of 1789 said that people could bring cases to the Supreme Court, but it was inconsistent with the Constitution.

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

It has been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States of America that Mr. Dred Scott pleas for freedom from his slave master, Mr. Sanford. Initially Mr. Scott was owned by Dr. Emerson until Mr. Emerson’s death when Scott was sold to Mr. Sanford. Under intense scrutiny and discernment it has been decided by the Supreme Court that Mr. Dred Scott has the inalienable right to be a free citizen of the United States of America. Scott is a slave, owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson since 1836. Scott currently resides in St. Louis, Missouri as of 1830. Mr. Dred Scott has presided residence in both Illinois and Wisconsin Territory, accompanied by his slaveholder. The Illinois and Wisconsin Territories are free, meaning that no man nor woman can be private property of another. Because of this, Mr. Emerson has no control nor jurisdiction over Scott. Mr. Scott resided in free territory for several years, therefore, he must leave this courtroom as a free man. Although slavery is not abolished in the South, it is abolished in both of the territories that Scott visited during his involvement with Mr. Emerson, making it his right to be free. It is of the slaveholder’s duty to not enter the territories of Illinois and Wisconsin expecting his slave to maintain in his possession. The responsibility is left on Mr. Emerson and it is due to his ignorance that his slave will gain freedom today. Slavery is prohibited in both territories, making it unreasonable that a man should remain a

Born September 24, 1755 near Germantown, Virginia and went to the College of William and Mary. He served as an officer in the Continental army during the revolutionary war. He was the Chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 34 years. His Court opinions helped lay the basis for constitutional law. John Marshall married Mary Willis Ambler in 1782. They had 10 children, only six lived to full age. He studied law for only six weeks. In 1799, he served in the U.S. House of representatives for a brief period after being appointed the secretary of state under President John Adams. Marshall presided over ‘the Burr Trial’ of former vice president Aaron Burr who was charged with ‘treason’ and ‘high misdemeanor’. The jury acquitted the defendant,