Name of Case (w/ Year):
Background (Original Conflict):
Primary Issue / Central Question:
The Court’s Decision & Reasoning:
Why It Matters (Impact): Important Terms / Vocabulary / Ideas:
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Thomas Jefferson won Election of 1800. Before he took office, President John Adams (who was a different political party) appointed dozens of new federal judges of his own party. Because it was last minute, however, he was unable to get all of the paperwork delivered. Jefferson and his new Sec. of State - James Madison - decided to toss them instead. William Marbury, one of the appointees, wanted his Justice of the Peace gig and took his case to the Court in hopes they’d force Madison to hand it over.
writ of mandamus - a court order to do something that’s already part of their job but they’re not doing for some reason
jurisdiction - a court’s actual authority over any given issue or situation
judicial review - the power of the Supreme Court to declare any law or government action unconstitutional, thus invalidating it
Does Marbury have a right to the job Pres. Adams appointed him to? If so, does the Supreme Court have the power to force Pres. Jefferson and Sec. of State Adams to give it to him?
Marbury DID have a right to the position, but the Supreme Court did NOT have JURISDICTION. The Judiciary Act of 1789 which suggested they did (on which Marbury was relying for his case) was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Congress does not have the power to modify the Constitution in this way and the Constitution didn’t give the Court that sort of role or power.
The details of Marbury’s original complaint aren’t really important. What matters in this case is the idea of JUDICIAL REVIEW which was clearly established - the power of the Supreme Court to declare laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Name of Case (w/ Year):
Background (Original Conflict):
Primary Issue / Central Question:
The Court’s Decision & Reasoning:
Why It Matters (Impact): Important Terms / Vocabulary / Ideas:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
In 1816, Congress chartered the SECOND Bank of the United States, with multiple locations - including one in Maryland. Maryland banks considered them unfair competition, and many didn’t like the whole idea of a “national bank” to begin with. The State of Maryland passed a law taxing the bank, which James McCulloch - representing the bank - refused to pay.
Is a National Bank constitutional? If so, does Maryland have the right to tax the National Bank?
The bank IS constitutional under the Necessary & Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8). Besides, this was the SECOND National Bank - the FIRST had been around for over 20 years and these same arguments had been resolved then. Maryland can NOT tax the bank because of the Supremacy Clause - “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” and states can’t destroy something federal.
This case further confirmed the authority of the national government over the states. It also helped expand Congress’s powers under the Necessary & Proper Clause and helped stabilize and strengthen the U.S. economy as a result.
National Bank - bank run by the federal government and used to deposit taxes, pay debts, and serve other federal functions
“Necessary & Proper Clause” - From Article I, Section 8 - after a detailed list of Congressional powers, this clause says Congress can also pass laws to do things which reasonably support those powers. This is often referred to as the “Elastic Clause.”
Name of Case (w/ Year):
Background (Original Conflict):
Primary Issue / Central Question:
The Court’s Decision & Reasoning:
Why It Matters (Impact): Important Terms / Vocabulary / Ideas:
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
“Commerce Clause” - from Article I, Section 8 - gives Congress authority over interstate commerce
Supremacy Clause - from Article VI - when federal and state laws conflict, federal law wins
The State of New York gave Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly over steamboat travel within the state. Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons were competitors who secured a federal license to control steamboat travel along the entire river (which crossed state lines into New Jersey and such).
Does the Commerce Clause give Congress EXCLUSIVE control over interstate commerce, or can states regulate stuff happening inside their borders? And is ALL steamboat travel “interstate commerce”?
The Commerce Clause DOES give Congress control over interstate commerce, which includes trade goods, passengers, and pretty much everything else. While states have SOME authority to regulate what happens inside their borders, in any conflict between state rules and federal rules (as with the licenses), the federal rules always win.
Federal control over trade and trade regulations is a large part of why the U.S. economy was able to grow so rapidly in the 19th century. This case confirmed the intent and scope of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) which has turned out to be one of the two most important Congressional powers.
www.bluecerealeducation.com