The Great Chief Justice : John Marshall And The Rule Of Law

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

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)

The views of Scalia and Brennan of our common law judicial system are very oppositional. Justice Brennan is what is considered a non-orginalist and Scalia would be a considered the opposite which is, an orginalist. Both of them agree that interpreting the constitution is so crucial to our democratic system and to making laws. However, Scalia believes that judges shouldn’t have the power to interpret the constitution into common laws because it allows for too much bias in our court system. He believes it gives the courts too much power and that they don’t have the historical knowledge base to interpret the original intent of constitution properly. Scalia thinks that this job of interpretation of important amendments would be better left to historians then to lawyers. He does not think that judges should be allowed to create laws because they don’t know how to interpret the original intent of the constitution. Justice Brennan believes that the interpretation of the constitution into common law is for a federal judge, obligatory. And that it is the job of the judges to look at the cases presented to them and use their best unbiased judgment to interpret what outcome would be best for the public good. Justice Brennan says himself that when the justices interpret the constitution they don’t speak for themselves, they speak for the public. Scalia and Brennan basically disagree on how the text should be read and about what should be considered legitimate interpretation. There

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.

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

Fortas’ main obstacle with the Gideon case was proving that counsel was necessary to Justices Frankfurter and Black who symbolically represented two differing judicial philosophies. Justice Frankfurter was often associated with the phrase “Judicial self restraint”. His ideology preferred judicial matters to be solved within congress and the states. Frankfurter believed that relying too much on judges would hinder the freedoms of the people and corrupt the nation’s concept of democracy. Justice John Marshall

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

Currie, D. (1992), the Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1988, Pges152-155 (Univ. of Chicago).

Alexander Hamilton’s essay is mainly about the importance of having an independent judiciary branch and its ability to strike down laws passed by Congress which are believed to be “contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution.” The rest of the essay, for the most part, deals with structure of federal courts, their jurisdiction and powers, the methods used in appointing judges and other related issues.

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

John Marshall, who had almost no formal schooling and studied law for only six weeks, nevertheless remains the only judge in American history whose distinction as a statesman derived almost entirely from his judicial career. John Marshall became the fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1801. He is largely responsible for establishing the Supreme Court's role in federal government. Under Marshall, the Supreme Court adopted the practice of handing down a single opinion of the Court, allowing it to present a clear rule. John Marshall’s principles established legal precedents and formed the cornerstone of the government and altered the economy for the better.

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

“That’s when my first direct thought occurred: I want to kill them all” (Patterson 18). Private Games is set in London, England at the Private Investigations London office. The 2012 Olympic games in London are about to happen and a Games organizing committee chair was ruthlessly murdered. The man that claims to have killed organizing committee chair, Sir Denton Marshall, sends a letter to reporter Karen Pope who is working the games as a sports reporter. The man calls himself Cronus promising to bring the games back to their Ancient Glory. The main investigator on this case for Private Investigations is Peter Knight. Peter has close ties to this case due to the fact that Sir Denton Marshall was his mother’s fiancé. Pope and Knight will have

I think that I possess a number of qualities that a Chief Justice should have. A Chief Justice should be able to eloquently express themselves clearly, concisely, and grammatically through speech. Over the summer, I went to Stanford for a speech and debate camp, where I learned how to write and deliver speeches. I also have an extensive range of vocabulary words at my disposal. Moreover, I have gone to numerous high school interviews, so I know how to remain composed, think on my feet, and express myself. Candidates for an appellate position must also have superior writing skills. The last Supreme Court case we did, I built a strong and thorough argument and my team won the case. I also have experience moderating and asking