United States Supreme Court and the Constitution - Essay Example

Lourdes Martin GPL 311.6 YM Lacy Shaw Final Examination The Supreme Court and the Constitution 1 United States Supreme Court The Marshall Court McCloskey points out that the government as well as society was at first adamantly opposed to the Supreme Court. He points out that Americans had a predisposition on how the Supreme Court would function; "their most persistent argument was that the Supreme Court was an institution guided by positions on issues and political ideologies other than clear-cut mandates of fundamental law"(McCloskey 16) He goes on to say, "for many Americans the court is the echo of the constitution when it agrees with them and the voice of subjective prejudice when it does not"(McCloskey 16). McCloskeys' thesis is that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court lean congruently with popular American opinion. Some historians have put forth the administrative argument that Chief Justice John Marshall was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, albeit belies the historical facts. (John Jay from New York was appointed by George Washingron as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of February 15, 1790. Chief Justice Jay was not pleased that he was required to ride circuit and subsequently resigned after a little more than one year (March 5, 1791). The second Chief Justice was also appointed by George Washington, was John Rutledge of South Carolina. Rutledge was tapped to fill the vacancy created by John Jay's resignation and this appointment occurred during a Congressional recess. When the nomination of Rutledge was presented to the newly convened Congress, they rejected Rutledge's nomination, primarily based on his pro- 2 slavery positions taken during the Philadelphia Constitutional convention. The third Chief Justice of official record, also nominated by George Washington, was Elliott Ellsworth of Connecticut. Albeit Chief Justice Ellsworth was one of the delegates at the convention in Philadelphia, after he served for four years, he was concerned about the transient court which had no permanent address and the courts image.) The United States Supreme Court did not attain permanence and prestige until the position was assumed by the fourth Chief Justice John Marshall, who truly personified the constitutional concept of permanence and stability, as he sat on the bench from 1801 -1835. During the Marshall era, the Supreme Court was declared the supreme arbiter of the constitution. The first case heard by the court was Marbury v. Madison. In this case Marbury was being denied his commission as the Secretary of the Treasure and he petitioned the Marshall court to grant a writ of mandamus. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Marshall said that while Marbury was entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court did not have the power to issue a writ of mandamus. This was because the Judiciary Act of 1789, the act written by Congress which authorized the Supreme Court to issue such writs, was unconstitutional. Thus, the court gave up the power to issue writs, but affirmed their power of judicial review, saying that, "if a law written by the legislature conflicts with the constitution, the law is "null and void". (Marbury v Madison) In this case the Marshall court consummated the system of checks and balances. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Marshall court reached a unanimous decision that upheld the authority of Congress to establish a national bank. Chief Justice Marshall 3 in the majority opinion (Chief Justice Marshall instituted the practice of one majority opinion), Chief Justice Marshall admitted that the constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the right to establish a national bank, but noted that the "necessary and proper" clause of the constitution gives Congress the authority to do what is required to exercise its enumerated powers". (McCulloch v. Maryland 1819). Thus, the court affirmed the existence of implied powers. Albeit, the Taney court would later abolish the Bank of the United States, the reasoning put forth by Chief Justice Marshall prevails ad infinitum: "the power to tax involves the power to destroyif the states may tax one instrument [of the Federal Government] they may tax any and every instrumentthe mailthe mintpatent rightsthis was not intended by the American people. They did not designed to make their government dependent on the states". Furthermore, he said, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme, they control the constitution and laws of the respective states and cannot be controlled by them". (McCulloch v. Maryland) McCloskey argues that the strength of the court has always been in its sensitivity to the changing political scene as well as its reluctance to stray too far from main currents of public sentiments or constitutional constraints. In yet another precedent setting case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the Marshall court again touched upon implied conditions of the constitution as the court accepted the argument of Gibbons and said, "the concept of commerce included not only the exchange of products, but also navigation and commercial intercourse generally. Since navigation on interstate water ways came under Congress; not the states, power to regulate the New York monopoly was illegal" (Gibbons v. Ogden) Chief Justice Marshall essentially 4 expanded the meaning of commerce and asserted Congress' power over it. In fact, the commerce power now extends to almost every kind of movement of persons, things, ideas, and communication, for commercial purposes. To be sure, the strength of federal power became obvious and felt during the tenure of chief Justice John Marshall, but it was not without its challenges and reality checks; in Martin v. Hunters' Lessee, the limits of federal power was reflected. Clearly, the U. S. Supreme Court is superior to a Virginia state court, however, the U. S. Supreme Court did not then and still cannot enforce a judgment under any circumstances. And the mood in Virginia surrounding Martin v. Hunters Lessee, was hostile. The federalist central government court of Chief Justice John Marshall claimed strong authority over the states by driving home its right to overturn states laws. Chief Justice John Marshall constructed the entire foundation of United States Constitutional law. Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney was United States Supreme Court Justice during a period in Americas' history when the institution of slavery was under continuous scrutiny; precipitating an all out assault against the continued perpetration or expansion of the institution within the colonies. On May 30, 1854, the Congress passed the Kansas- Nebraska Act, and the controversy over slavery in the territories was re-opened. Congress tried repeatedly to organize a single territory for the area west of Missouri and Iowa, but was unsuccessful. The issue was so diverse until it was issued a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. This was one of the decisions which 5 McCloskey was referring when he said, "most supreme court decisions could not be solved by simply using the rule of thumb" (McCloskey 30). The concept of "popular sovereignty", though not coined by Chief Justice Taney, it was totally in line with all of his previous rulings, as he firmly exhibited a leaning toward greater local control. This ideological stance ran totally counter to the spirit and intent of the United States constitution. On the same Supreme Court calendar, the court of Justice Taney had agreed to hear the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Scott (An African), petitioned the court claiming he should be free, based on the diversity of state citizenship. There was considerable debate and anticipation surrounding the cases of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fred Scott case. The then presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln maintained the position that America could not continually exist as half-slave, half-free. In view of the Missouri Compromise, many in the legal community were confident that the court of Chief Justice Taney would judiciously follow the inherent reasonableness of the constitution, thereby upholding the Missouri compromise and following the reasonable construct of the constitution, the court would provide a favorable opinion in the Dred Scott case. The Taney court reached a 7 - 2 decision in the Dred Scott case, and Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion, which has in some quarters been labeled as the most bone headed decision in the annals of jurisprudence. Taney's majority opinion said, "Scott was not a citizen and thus had no right to sue in federal court". On this premise, Taney made three points: (1) He observed that Africans - slave or free were not included in the category of 6 "citizen" as the word was used in the U. S. constitution for the purpose of suing in the federal courts. (2) Scott had become free by virtue of his residence in a territory covered by the Missouri compromise, and since that legislation was unconstitutional it was not valid. (3) Whatever may have been the temporary effect of Scott's sojourn into Illinois, he ultimately returned to Missouri, where his status depended on Missouri law. In point #2, the majority opinion of Chief Justice Taney indicates the nullification of the Missouri compromise. Was this the point of the Court in hearing the Dred Scott case Historically, the Taney courts nullification of the Missouri compromise, coupled with its denial to protect the rights of Dred Scott, prompted Harriett Beecher Stowe to publish Uncle Tom's Cabin, where she describes the unenviable plight of women in colonial America, and also details the in-humane conditions of African slaves. The book had the distinction of being one of the largest publications of the era and served as a topic of discussion and debate in the parlors of Beacon Hill in Boston, to the sun filled porches on the Battery of Charleston. The popularity of the book was pointed out by Abraham Lincoln when he had the occasion to meet Miss Stowe in 1861 he quipped, "So you are the one responsible for starting the civil war" Prohibition The 18th Amendment that brought about prohibition only banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages, not their consumption. Most Americans in the 1920's willingly became lawbreakers. The allure of putting one over on the establishment was as inebriating as the alcohol to many of the participants. The greed 7 and unfettered ruthlessness of the manufacturers, transporters and distributors, fostered a state of irresponsible and careless actions which needed to be placed in check. Americans who were a part of the speakeasy scene were embedded in a world of lawlessness and immoral activities. Something had to be done to curb this escalating anti- social activity. Additionally, without any regulation on the manufacture, transport and distribution, serious health, safety and questionable business practices permeated the illegal industry. Some parallels can be drawn with today's banning of tobacco and marijuana, and the rising interest over quick amendments to the constitution vis--vis balanced budgets and school prayer. The Dry Crusade looks at the conservative Kansas Protestant push for banning alcohol. The issue of women's suffrage became intertwined with the push for temperance. The Roaring Twenties explores the decadence of speakeasies, rum running and loopholes in the prohibition ban along with comments from former Ziegfield Follies girls about life at that time. Violations for breaking the law were few, and distillers like Hiram Walker flaunted the law. There were many fortunes made by rum running (e.g., Bill McCoy, the Kennedy's, et al.). The road to repeal contain some grizzly photos of gang violence (St. Valentines day massacre), provide an assessment of Al Capone and his empire, and raises the sobering question about how secure any freedom or amendment is in the U. S. constitution. Eye On the Prize An extraordinary grass roots history of the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 8 60's in America. This documentary added a core of strength to my existence, because it was against all odds that African Americans went up against the system and fought tooth and nail to achieve their basic human rights. It made me realize that the emancipation from slavery was not a granting of freedom; it was merely a situation where the slave owners agreed to allow Africans to roam free of physical chains, but the vestiges of bondage continued to exist. It impacted me to the extent that I am not so prone to take those basic things so much for granted anymore. It made me realize that freedom is tangible; one can feel it, taste it, smell it and touch it. I have emerged from my cocoon and know I know there is a real of possibilities - the sky or even the stratosphere is the limit, and all I have to do is want it and make up my mind to pursue it. I was aware of the struggle prior to viewing the documentary, however I now know that the coined phrase "struggle" was no misnomer, it was indeed some very touching times. It brought a new realization to my minds eye, one that makes it clearer to me the phases of existence which the African American has endured in attempting to become a viable part of the American melting pot. It impacted me to the point that I may no longer be complainant about some of the trivial matters which I might face from time to time. I am thoroughly convinced now that losers whine and complain and winners find solution and do. As the United States Supreme Court rendered an unpopular decision in Martin v. Hunters Lessee, and was unable to enforce its decision in a hostile environment, I learned that the Warren court became a social platform to dismantle dual school systems, to erase odious signs of discrimination, and to promote the policy of righting past wrongs. Works Cited Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+) Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U. S. 393 (1856) Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U. S. 22 U. S. 1 (1824) Marbury v. Madison 5 U. S. 137 (1803) Martin v. Hunter's Lessee 14 U. S. 304 (1816) McCloskey, Robert G. The American Supreme Court 3rd Edition, The University of Chicago Press 1960 McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U. S. 316 (1819) Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U. S. 537 Read More