Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Madison
1803 1810 1819 1819
1821 1824 1832
Fletcher v. peck
Dartmouth v. Woodward
McCulloch v. Maryland
Cohens v. Virginia
Gibbons v. Ogden
Worchester v. Georgia
Cause: In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a land grant. However, in
1796, Georgia voided the law and declared all rights and claims under it to be
invalid. In 1800, John Peck acquired land that was under the original land
grant. He sold the land to Robert Fletcher in 1799, claiming that past sales of
the land were legitimate. Fletcher argued that since the original sale of the
land had been declared invalid, Peck had no legal right to sell the land.
Importance: This was the first supreme court case in which the supreme court
ruled a state law unconstitutional, and created a growing precedent for the
sanctity of legal contracts as well as hinted that Native Americans did not
hold title to their own lands.
Ruling: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that since the estate had been
legally "passed into the hands of a purchaser for a valuable consideration,"
the Georgia legislature could not take away the land or invalidate the
contract.
Cause: In 1816, the US Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. Two years
later in 1818, the Maryland legislation issued a law allowing them to impose taxes on the bank.
McCulloch, the main cashier of the Baltimore region of the bank refused to pay the tax.
Importance: This case established that the government of individual states cannot impose laws
on the functioning of the federal government.
Ruling: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the
bank and that Maryland could not tax parts working for the national government employed in
the execution of constitutional powers. It also established that federal laws are more supreme
than state laws, and states cannot be controlled by them, through state legislation, only
federal legislation.
Importance: This case showed how the Supreme Court has the power
to review state court cases if necessary
Importance: This case established that the federal government has exclusive
power over issues dealing with interstate commerce.
Ruling: The unanimous Court found that NYs licensing requirement for out-of-
state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the
coasting trade. The NY law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause.
Marshall defined commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways.
He also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce
Clause. He concluded that regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and
others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to
and exercised by the Congress.
Cause: Samuel A. Worcester, a non-Native American, was indicted in the supreme court for the of
Georgia for "residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license" and "without having
taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia." He was
indicted under an 1830 act of the Georgia legislature entitled "an act to prevent the exercise of
assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians."
Worcester argued that the state could not maintain the prosecution because the statute violated the
Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation, and an act of Congress
entitled "an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes." Worcester was convicted
and sentenced to "hard labor for four years."
Importance: This case found that the Georgia legislature lacked the authority to regulate the
intercourse between citizens of the state and members of Native American territories.
Ruling: In an opinion delivered Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which
Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting
that the "treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely
separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on
exclusively by the government of the union," He also argued that, "the Cherokee nation, then, is a
distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The
whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested
in the government of the United States." The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government's
authority and was decided to be unconstitutional.
To what extent did the Supreme Court under John Marshall act as a force for nationalism
during this time period?
John Marshall showed a strong sense of American nationalism during this time
period through his strong commitment to judicial power and by a strong belief in that
national judicial power has supremacy over state legislature. This is primarily shown in the
cases of Marbury v. Madison and Gibbons v. Ogden. John Marshall often quoted individual
clauses when delivering the court verdict, and was a strong believer in a strict interpretation
of the Constitution and has clauses amended several times to prevent court cases from
recurring themes to happen again. He often asserted that federal power is more supreme
than state legislation, especially in the case of Fletcher v. Peck, when he declared a state
law unconstitutional, as well as in Cohen v. Virginia with the upholding of the Courts ability
to review state criminal cases. Overall, Chief Justice John Marshall led to many of the
trends seen in the Supreme Court and the United States judicial system today.