The Rise Of 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 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

The Supreme Court was established in 1789, with its powers stated in Article III of the newly-ratified United States Constitution. In the years leading up to the Marshall era, the Court was little more than a shadow of its future self. It lacked both the prestige and authority of the latter 19th century. John Jay–and his successors, Rutledge and Ellsworth–oversaw few cases, and ever fewer significant ones. Often cited as an example of the early Court’s inefficiency, their most

The establishment of one of the most influential powers of the Supreme Court--the power of judicial review-- and the development of the judicial branch can be attributed to Marshall’s insightful interpretation of the Constitution ("The Marshall Court”).

The tall, thin, aggressive Chief Justice John Marshall continues to dominate our high tribunal. His recent decision- perhaps the most famous- strengthen the power of the federal government at the state's expense. The remarkable case of McCulloch v. Maryland involved an attempt by the State of Maryland to destroy a branch of the Bank of the United States by enforcing a tax on its notes. Marshall, on behalf of the court, declared the bank constitutional. At the same time, he bolstered federal authority and slapped at state infringements, denying the right of Maryland to tax the bank. Chief Marshall affirmed: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy, that a power to create implies a power to

Two years prior, President John Adams had hastily appointed Marbury to the Supreme Court on his last night in office, in order to secure the Supreme Court for the Federalists. However, when Adams was replaced with Republican Thomas Jefferson, the new president dismissed these so-called midnight judges (Schweikart & Allen, 2004). Marbury was one of the dismissed, and he came to Justice Marshall demanding that he be reappointed to the Supreme Court. While Marshall could not order the president to have the Secretary of State, James Madison reinstate Marbury, he invented a check that ensured the House of Representatives would never wield unfettered power. Marshall assumed for the Supreme Court the power to declare laws passed by the other branches unconstitutional. By doing this, Marshall made the Supreme Court far more powerful and influential than before (“John Marshall”, 2016). Marbury vs. Madison was the first step in inventing this momentous check and creating more balance between the three branches of

Throughout the history of the United States, the decisions made by leaders of the past have become precedents for the rest of us throughout history and even now in the present. The United States in its most juvenile state was vulnerable to both the outside world and its own internal obstacles. The fourth Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall stood as a paradigm to the rest of the nation setting new precedents for the nation that would hold their power throughout history thus far. Chief Justice John Marshall existed as one of the most pivotal characters in history because his Supreme Court rulings developed new standards involving national supremacy over state’s rights, the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress, and the Constitutional roots

Since the Constitution was ratified by nine states in 1788, new legislations, acts, and amendments were passed by the Congress and improved governmental power of the United States. However, some of these legislations and acts were doubted the constitutionality of the power or restriction granted to the nation. But it wasn’t clear who to determine the constitutionality of the bills being proposed until the case of Marbury v. Madison result in the establishment of “judicial review”. As many scholars describe the case of Marbury v. Madison as epochal, I agree with their perspective because it was one of the crucial historical turns in the United States.

Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the Federalist Papers are a collection of essays that were created in order to defend the Constitution against claims that stated it threatened the freedom and liberty of individuals, and gave too much power to the national government. The 78th essay of the Federalist Papers was written by Alexander Hamilton in efforts to address one of these concerns, that anti-federalists feared the independence of the Judiciary. In this paper, Hamilton recognized and acknowledged the concerns that the anti-federalists had with the Judiciary and defends it by stating why it is necessary for our government and why the people should not fear it for being undemocratic. He creates his argument by explaining how judges are appointed, making clear its purpose and detailing how it’s the least dangerous branch. These ideas that he expressed and argued for can be most clearly seen implemented into Article III of the Constitution, which covers the Judiciary.

Every Supreme Case that has taken place within the United States Judicial System has revolved around one crucial theme: the interpretation of Constitutional text; the very reason why the Judicial Branch exists is to interpret the Constitution that was written centuries ago. More specifically, Schechter v. United States, Yakus v.United States, and Mistretta v. United States focused mainly on the constitutional doctrine of the non-delegation of legislative

In the beginning years of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court was a struggling institution due to the lack of effectiveness of the Chief Justices and was not highly regarded by the executive and legislative branches of the government. The third Chief Justice in only twelve years, John Marshall put an end to the Supreme Court’s lack of influence after his appointment by President John Adams in 1801. John Marshall was the most influential Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he was the first to make it a just and effective establishment that was equal to the two other branches of government by his court rulings and policies.

He focuses on the opinions to “highlight the contradictions inherent in the courts,”(24). Haney Lopez can improve his argument by analyzing if the court was powerful by implementing their decisions as recent scholars suggests that the Supreme Court has historically been unable to implement their decisions alone. In one of the first major Supreme cases, Worchester v. Georgia (1832), President Jackson comments, “Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it, ” the decision is not implemented as it lacks the support of other political branches (Bruyneel). In Re Brown v. The Board of Education (1954), often referred to as “crown jewels,” is not enforced until Congress assists with its implementation (Rosenberg). Historically, the Supreme Court could not enforce their decisions alone prior to or after the prerequisites cases (1878-1909) suggesting that the court does not have any legitimacy or impact alone. While it was not Haney Lopez’s intention to study the impact of the court, it is necessary for the author to consider the Supreme Court’s power to avoid overstating the importance of a decision and centering his argument to an inappropriate degree on just two Supreme Court cases that may or may not be of

The President is given the power to veto or restrain Congress and the authority to appoint members of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this system the role of the Supreme Court has not yet been defined. Therefore it fell to a strong Chief Justice like Marshall to complete the checks and balances. Making the principle of judicial review. No other was unconstitutional until the Dred Scott case back in 1857. The Supreme Court invalidated the Federal and the state laws to the Constitution was never seriously challenged. Woodrow Wilson said “That the constitution of the United States was not made to fit like a strait jacket it is elasticity lies it is chief

Suggesting that even when the Courts decided to review Constitutionality of certain state laws the decisions would generally only conform to national public mood. And when the court’s decision did not conform to the national publics mood Congress would step in to make its out policy outcomes which would more please the majoritarian preferences by reversing the more unpopular Court decisions with reversal legislation. Although there may be some legitimacy to Dahl’s argument, Casper is still able to convey that by excluding interpretation of federal statutes and review of constitutional issues arising from state and local laws and practices only weakens Dahl’s argument being that these activities seem highly relevant to determining the court’s role in national policymaking. When they are considered, the courts role appears substantially more influential than Dahl would like to

Supreme Court reflected and reinforced nationalism during the post-Ghent years, despite the ominous setbacks concerning slavery.