Barrons Vs. Baltimore: Federalism In The United States

For many centuries, the government has gradually increased its’ powers through several different ways. One main way is the elastic clause which is listed in the constitution. It grants the necessary amount of power to congress so they can pass laws that are necessary so they can carry out the listed powers in the Constitution. The state governments and the people of America are in controversy over how much power should be given to the national government. Many republicans feel that the federal government should be kept to a smaller size, and democrats often feel that the federal government should be bigger and have more control. Federalism has changed over the past couple of centuries due to the national government gaining more power from several

This case dates way back to 1833, and is incredibly controversial. John Barron worked at the harbor in Baltimore, Maryland, which was his own business. The city had passed an adjustment of water flow law which led to the water supply being cut off from the harbor and ruining his boats. At first when he sued the city, he was compensated, but it was quickly appealed by the city and taken to the supreme court. This case ultimately deals with eminent domain, which is the, “power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use” (Eminent Domain). It also includes that the fifth amendment only allows this if the government gives compensation to the owner. Unfortunately for Barron, in 1833, it was believed that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, so the ruling was in favor of Baltimore. Barron, however, argued that it was illegal for the use of eminent domain saying it was a direct violation of his rights that come from the 5th amendment. He saw it as the government should keep a citizen’s liberties and properties. Baltimore, on the other hand, thought they were in the clear to shut off the water for the greater good of the city. The overall ruling was that the 5th amendment nowhere stated that it must be followed by the state governments, and it was only to be interpreted by the national government. However, when the 14th amendment was passed, saying that states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It was only now determined that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Overall, because the Barrons v Baltimore case was 30 years before the new amendment, the case was in favor of the city, believing the Bill of Rights should not apply to the