JOHN MARSHALL’S GREATEST

HITS

Marbury v. Madison 1803

Fletcher v. Peck 1810

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

Gibbons v. Ogden 1824

Marbury v. Madison 1803THE FEDERALISTS V. THE REPUBLICANS

BASIC QUESTION:Does Marbury have a right to the appointment?

If Marbury does have a right to the appointment, do the laws of the country give him recourse?

Does a Writ of Mandamus, as stated in the Judicial Act of 1789, provide such recourse?

JOHN MARSHALL’S OPINION

QUESTION ONE YES QUESTION TWO YES

QUESTION THREE NO

The Judicial Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court powers not stated in the Constitution, therefore, the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED

Establishes the idea of Judicial Review

Lays the cornerstone for all future decisions

Establishes the court as the final arbiter

Fletcher v. Peck 1810 The Contracts Clause

Background to the case

Basic Question:

Could an act of the Georgia legislature invalidate the contract between Fletcher and Peck

John Marshall’s Opinion

The Constitution did not permit Bills of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Laws.

Therefore, Georgia could not take away the land or invalidate the contract

Laws annulling contracts or grants made by previous legislative acts were constitutionally impermissible

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED

First case that speaks to the Contracts Clause of the Constitution

The federal government, in the area of contracts, has supremacy over state laws

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 The Supremacy Clause

Federalists v. Republicans-Part II

Background to the case

Basic QuestionDid Congress have the authority to establish the bank?

Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with Congressional Powers?

John Marshall’s Opinion

Congress had the power to incorporate the bank.

Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED

“The Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .They control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them

Bank was emotional symbol to state power. The Republicans lost

Gibbons v. Ogden 1824The first Commerce Case

Background to the case

Basic Question Did the state of New York exercise

proper authority in granting a license to operate on New York waters or is this a power only Congress can exercise?

John Marshall’s Opinion

New York’s law was inconsistent with the Congressional Act regulating coastal trading.McCulloch established that federal laws were supreme over state laws.Congress has the power to regulate commerce, thereforeCongress’ law was supreme over New York law

PRECEDENT ESTABLISHED

Reaffirms the Supremacy Clause

Gives a clear statement to the meaning of the Commerce Clause

States clearly that in the area of Commerce, and specifically interstate commerce, the federal government can regulate trade between the states