Marbury V. Madison (1803-1803)

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Marbury vs. Madison Under the administrations of Washington and his successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party were allowed to be on the bench, and under the Constitution, they held office for life during "good behavior." So when the Republicans won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found out that even though they controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still had control of the judiciary. One of the first acts of the new administration was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a whole bunch of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies before the end of his term, a number of commissions had not been delivered, and one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.

State v. Marshall, 179 N.C 427 (1935). Opinion by: Stacy, C.J. Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter.

Marbury v Madison Trial Marbury v. Madison The issue before the Supreme Court was the question of the court’s own constitutional authority, and to decide whether or not to issue the writ and if this would make the court seem weak. The facts of the case that were presented in the court was that this particular case was, in fact, being thrown before the Supreme court, and there was an argument as to whether or no the court real had the jurisdiction to decide this case at all. The result of this case was that the Supreme Court decided to entitle Marbury his court order. It was the first time the Court openly declared an act of Congress unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Congress exceeded its power in the Judiciary Act of 1789 and it established its power to review acts of Congress and declare invalid those it found in conflict with the Constitution.

Before we start to take sides, we need to discuss the different point of views of Madison and Marshall. We have to understand that our political landscape during the birth of our nation was much different. The states, were not unified, and were made up of different and often conflicting interests. Along with factions fighting one another and making political progress impossible. As Madison, would describe faction as a number of citizens; whether it be a majority or minority whole, who were motivate by some common impulse of passion or of interest. This broad definition would include the interest groups who dominate the political landscape today.

Schenck v. United States (1919) The Schenck court case of 1919 developed out of opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Antiwar sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups that traditionally supported antiviolence. In response to this outlook, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and jail terms for interfering with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military.

Case Study: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Donald Clayton Budge Course: Government 2305/977 Professor: Mr. Moses Omane-Boateng Semester: Spring 2016

Olmstead v. United States (1928) Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taft Vote: 5-4 Case reached Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. Facts: The evidence in the records discloses a conspiracy of amazing magnitude to import, possess, and sell liquor unlawfully. Involved were not less than fifty employees, two sea-going vessels for transportation of the goods to British Columbia, a ranch beyond the city limits of Seattle with a large underground cache to store the liquor, and many other caches around the area of Seattle, a maintained city office with executives, secretaries, salesmen, deliverymen, dispatchers, bookkeepers, collectors, scouts, and an attorney.

Do you think its right that you should be taxed on something you do not even own? Well back In 1819 there was a man named James w. McCulloch he was a cashier at a bank where he worked, but the state thought they needed to tax the businesses, that's something Mr.McCulloch wasn't going to do so they took it to the Supreme Court. The supreme court was correct because they ruled the necessary and proper clause of article 1 section eight in the constitution. The state of Maryland didn't have enough power to tax the second bank. McCulloch gave congress broad discretionary power to implemented the enumerated powers. And it also repudiated in ringing language, the radical states rights and arguments present to Maryland.

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of