Chief Justice John Marshall
By, Merissa Butler
Marbury Vs. Madison
-The year of the event, Marbury vs. Madison occurred in (1803).
- Constitutional Principle established the principle of the Judicial review.
- The summary of the case represents that Marbury did have a right to his commission, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional Congress could not give the Supreme Court the power to issue an order granting Marbury his commission, only the Constitution could. The document had nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to issue such an order. The Supreme Court could not force Jefferson and Madison to appoint Marbury, because it did not have the power to do so. A precedent happened and is a legal decision that serves as an example in later court cases. The Chief Justice Marshall's ruling interpreted the Constitution to mean that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. If the Court found that a law was unconstitutional, it could overrule the law. Marshall stated an argument that the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and that the Supreme Court has the final say over the meaning of the Constitution.
Fletcher Vs. Peck
-Constitutional Principle of this case was Legislation.
- In 1810 The case of Fletcher Vs. Peck started when the Supreme Court ruled that a grant to a private land company was a Contract Clause and once could not be repealed. On a strict interpretation of the Contact Clause the case was marked the first time the Supreme Court stuck down a state law on the constitutional grounds. The Georgia legislature gave 35 million acres of state land, including vast tracts around the Yazoo River which is now Alabama and Mississippi, to private speculators for the price of 1.5 cents per acre. They later found out that they were bribed. John Peck bought some land that had been apart of the 1795 grant, in 1803 he sold 13,000 acres of it to Robert Fletcher for $3,000. Robert Fletcher found out the sale of the land had been voided by state law, he brought a suit against Peck for damages and stating that he had lied to him in promising that it was good titled land. Chief Justice John Marshall had then ruled that Georgia had violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution when it repealed the Grants. All in all Fletchers suit against Peck was dismissed, and Georgia's law repealing the grants was struck down.
Martin Vs. Hunter's Lesse.
-The Constitutional Principle of this case was Legislation.
- The state of Virginia enacted Legislation during the Revolutionary War, that which gave the state power to confiscate property of British Loyalists. Hunter was given a grant of land by the state, Marin had held the land under devise from Lord Thomas Fairfax. The trial court found favor of Martin, and the court of appeals reversed by his favor which held the treaty with England superseded the States statute which also remanded the case to the Virginia court appealed to enter judgment for Martin. Virginia court refused asserting that the appellate power of the U.S Supreme Court not extend to judgments from the Virginia court of appeals.
Cohens vs. Virginia
- Constitutional Principle of this case was Criminal Law Matters.
- The case was a U.S. Supreme Court decision mostly for John Marshall, the Court's assertion of its power to review state Supreme Court decisions in criminal law matters when they claim their Constitutional rights have been violated.The Cohen brothers proceeded to sell D.C lottery tickets in the Commonwealth of Virginia, violating the state law. State authorities tried and convicted the Cohens and then declared themselves to be the final arbiters of disputes between the states and the national gov. Fined 100$ in that notice the Cohens were prosecuted successfully by the state of Virginia for selling lottery tickets from the District of Columbia in Virginia, violated the state law. Larger issues the court dealt with in making their decision was that of reviewing state court cases. The Supreme Court then had claimed full appellate jurisdiction over any case tried before a state court. However, Virginia decided that this was an unacceptable and declared the decision that the Supreme Court made void, even though it had upheld the previous conviction because Virginia felt the ruling limited states rights.
Dartmouth College Vs. Woodward
- The cases Constitutional Principle of this case was Legislation.
- In New Hampshire the legislature attempted to change a privately funded institution (Dartmouth College) into a state university. The legislature had changed the school's corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to the governor. Attempt to regain authorities over the resources of Dartmouth College, old trustees filed suit against Woodward, whom had sided with the new appointees. There had been 5 votes for Dartmouth College and 1 vote for going against. In meaning of a 6-1 decision the Court had held the College's corporate charter that was qualified as a contract between the private parties, which the legislature could not intervene. The government had commissioned the charter and had not transformed the school into a civil institution. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion had emphasized the term "contract" to transactions on involving individual property rights and not to "Political relations between the government and its citizens."
McCulloch Vs. Maryland
- Constitutional Principle of this even was Federal power.
- This case had been involved by the power of Congress to chatter a bank, and which had struck the broader issue of the division of powers between state and the federal Government. Congress had established a Secondary National Bank, Maryland then set a precedent requiring taxes on all banks and not chartered by the state. 1818, the state of Maryland approved legislation to impose on taxes on the Second national Bank which was chartered by Congress. McCulloch had refused to pay the taxes imposed by the state. The state of Maryland had filed a suit against McCulloch in an effort to collect the taxes. Supreme Court made a decision that the chartering of a bank was an implied power of the Constitution under the Elastic Clause, then had which granted Congress the authority to make all the laws that which should be necessary and proper for carrying into the execution, the work of the federal Government. This case had presented a major issue that which challenged the Constitution. Court had decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal Bank including that all states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government. Chief Justice John Marshall had ruled in favor of the Federal Government and had concluded the power to "destroy".