In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
...titutional. The opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Black, he states: “there is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us -- it sets up a religious test which was designed to, and, if valid, does, bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. The power and authority of the State of Maryland thus is put on the side of one particular sort of believers -- those who are willing to say they believe in "the existence of God.”
John Marshall established supremacy of the Supreme Court over Congress and the judicial courts. In the case Marbury v. Madison, Marshall’s decision separated the Supreme Court, Congress, and the judicial courts. Marshall set for the notion that the Supreme Court was superior
Including banking, the stock exchanges, and the workplace. In the last half of the twentieth century federalism was the central issue in both black and women’s civil rights. It was at the heart of a redefinition of criminal justice by the Warren Court .The liberal interpretation of it by this court in turn became the target of a conservative attempt to diminish congressional power under the doctrine of “original intent” and to use the federal judiciary to return more authority to state and local government. At the beginni...
Aaron Ogden, a captain of a ship passing through New York State to trade with other states, was stopped one evening by Thomas Gibbons. He addressed Ogden to cede his ship over to New York officials. Ogden, Gibbons argued, had not a license that permitted him to sail through these particular waters. Therefore, he had a right to seize Ogden’s ship. Ogden, on the other hand, claimed he had a federally approved license to navigate any waters in the United States. Gibbons declared the supremacy of the New York Steamboat Act, while Ogden stated the Federal Coasting Law as the rule. The stage had been set for the Supreme Court.
...s on the Government’s power. It is the supreme law and any act that is inconsistent with it is null. The respondent’s argument that the Act “exceeds the authority of Congress” is a weak argument, which can be disproved by the Constitution, itself. Congress must be able to exercise stretching its powers in order to insure the safety of the economy.
Federal supremacy was also finally solidified by this case. New York said that the Federal Coasting license that Thomas Gibbons had was useless in New York waters. Thus this sets-up the great issue of the day state gov't v. federal gov't. But as New York and the rest of the United States finally gets into it's head that the Constitution is the law of the land and that in Article IV, it states that "federal laws supersedes state laws"
The McCulloch v. Maryland case set the tone for the power of the new Constitution. The Constitution was still young, and had yet to be tested. The country lacked financially stability. The War of 1812 tested the economy, and many banks collapsed. The surviving banks, chartered by the states did not have sufficient credit to kick-start the economy again. In 1816, a charter was given by Congress to create a second national bank. At this time, people feared that the national government was becoming too powerful by established the bank. The national bank was established in Maryland. Maryland believed the bank was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution did it say that the government had the power to create one. Also,
1) Aaron Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York requesting the restraining order against Thomas Gibbons from operating in waters they were the license to operate. Ogden's lawyer argued that states passed laws on issues regarding domestic matters and that states should have fully concurrent power with Congress on issues concerning interstate commerce.
New York said that the Federal Coasting permit that Thomas Gibbons had was futile in New York waters. Hence this sets-up the extraordinary issue of the day state gov't v. national gov't. As New York and whatever is left of the United States at last gets into its head that the Constitution is the tradition that must be adhered to and that in Article IV, it expresses that "government laws supersedes state laws". So of course, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gibbons. He had a federal permit which is greater than the state one Ogden was arguing
New York required that steamships operating in its water had a license to do so, and so a monopoly on issuing such licenses was awarded to Robert Livingston and Robert Fulton in response to their rewarding innovations in steam engines. Aaron Ogden (P), the governor of New Jersey, persuaded the New Jersey legislator to grant him a similar “monopoly”. His aim was to cut into Livingston’s steamer business between New York City and New Jersey. Ogden’s New Jersey monopoly was then repealed so, he crossed the border to New York City where he asked the heirs of deceased Fulton and Livingston to grant him a license to run ships between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons (D), Ogden’s former business partner, started up a ferry business on an unscheduled route between Elizabethtown, New Jersey and New York City. Ogden sought an injunction, in the New York courts, against Gibbons, and won the basis that he had a New York state license for steam boating. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court on the fact that he had a government granted steamboat license.
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
Around 1824 New York allowed a monopoly over the boats crossing waters near the state. Aaron Ogden got his steamboat licence under this monopoly and was allowed access to the water between New York and New Jersey to trade. Thomas Gibbons, Ogdens competitor, also had a boating licence only his was given to him an act of congress. Ogden filed a court complaint asking to have Gibbon’s licence revoked. His main claim was that the monopoly was completely legal and was able to control the water because New York's governor gave them permission (findlaw).
The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped when he took charge. Marbury was one of Adams’ appointees for justice of the peace. Marbury brought a case before the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the appointment.