Chief Justice John Marshalland James Monroe’s Doctrine

Strengthening the Judicial BranchSOL: VUS.5e

Who was John Marshall? Born in Midland, Virginia

1755. Veteran of the Revolutionary

War. He endured the harsh winter

at Valley Forge, Pa in 1777. Because of the lack of

power and money in the Congress during that difficult time, this influenced his sentiment for a stronger central government.

He was considered a Federalist.

Supreme Court Cases When we are learning

about Supreme Court Cases in class our focus is on the precedent that is set by the case decision.

So in other words, what standard was put in place as a result of the decision.

Example: If Johnny is late to class 4

times and as a result of this his punishment is a day in ISS, what is the standard for which all other students who are late 4 times?

So when we learn about supreme court cases don’t get caught up in the facts of the case but look for the precedent that was set by the decision.

Supreme Court Decisions by John Marshall We are going to

learn about 3 very important cases which set a precedent that strengthened the Supreme Court in the Judicial Branch of our government.

The three cases were all decided by Chief Justice John Marshall Marbury v. Madison

(1803) McCulloch v.

Maryland (1820) Gibbons v. Ogden

(1824)

Case #1: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Case briefing: John Adams on his last day as President appoints

William Marbury to justice of the peace in D.C. The new President, Thomas Jefferson, tells his Sec. of State, James Madison, not to deliver the appointment.

Marbury asks the Supreme Court to issue a writ (mandate) making Madison deliver the appointment.

Chief Justice John Marshall declares that the Judiciary Act of 1801, which gave the court the power to issue the writ, was unconstitutional and so he couldn’t make Madison deliver the appointment.

Marbury v. Madison continued… Sounds like he was taking power away from

the court….right? Wrong! By declaring the Judiciary Act of 1801

unconstitutional John Marshall set the precedent that when there is a law passed by congress and it is in conflict with the Constitution it is the right of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the law is constitutional or not…aka. JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Marbury v. Madison

Case #2: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Case briefing The state of Maryland created a law that said

that all banks within its borders that were not chartered by the state had to pay a fee/tax to print paper currency with the state stamp on them.

The Second Bank of the United States was operating in the state of Maryland. When the branch manager, McCulloch, did not pay the tax the state of Maryland sued the bank for not abiding by the state law.

McCulloch v. Maryland continued.. The issues to consider:

Was the Bank of the United States constitutional?

Did the state of Maryland have the right to tax a federal institution which was created to carry out duties of Congress?

McCulloch v. Maryland continued… The decision:

Congress has “Implied Powers” (not stated specifically in the Constitution) to pass laws that are “Necessary and Proper” to carry out its duties.▪ The federal government can do whatever is “necessary and

proper” to carry out its duties…print money, manage debt, tax, etc. To do this the government has the implied power to establish a national bank.

The states cannot tax a federal institution because it is interfering with the government carrying out its duties given by the Constitution.

The precedent of “implied powers” and the “necessary and proper” clauses greatly expands the power of the Federal Government.

McCulloch v. Maryland

Case #3: Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) The state of New York granted Ogden a

monopoly on all steamboat travel (trade and commerce) on New York waters and some on the border of New York and New Jersey.

Gibbons goes against this monopoly by using his steamboats on the waterways.

Ogden sues Gibbons in the New York Supreme Court stating that his exclusive right to steamboat travel have been violated.

Gibbons then appeals and the case goes to the Supreme Court.

Gibbons v. Ogden continued..

Issues before the court: Does the state of New York have the

right to give exclusive rights (a monopoly) on interstate commerce to a private individual company?

Does the state of New York have the right to enforce the exclusive rights to a private company on interstate commerce?

Does the state of New York have the right to regulate interstate commerce on its borders?

Gibbons v. Ogden continued… The Decision

States do not have the power to grant exclusive rights of interstate commerce to private businesses.

States do not have the power to enforce interstate commerce. States do not have the power to regulate interstate

commerce on its borders between states. The precedent that is established is that the states

cannot regulate interstate commerce between their borders.

The “Commerce Clause” in article 1 of the Constitution gives the right to regulate trade and commerce to Congress of the Federal Government even within states borders.

Gibbons v. Ogden

President James Monroe

Provision #1

American Continents (North, Middle, South) are not to be considered for future colonization or influence by any European nations.

Provision #2 Any attempt by a

European government to spread into the western hemisphere will be seen as a direct threat to the peace and safety of the United States.

Similar to a restraining order

Provision #3

The United States will stay out of European affairs if all nations in Europe stay out of the western hemisphere.

We’ll leave you alone if you leave us alone

Provision #4 Acknowledges that

nations in the western hemisphere are naturally different than in the eastern.

Western = republics, democracy, freedom

Eastern = monarchs, dictators, communism