Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Judicial Nationalism

No description
by

Aleena Garcia

on 25 October 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Judicial Nationalism

By: Aleena Garcia, Sam Shultz, Ben Ruskin Judicial Nationalism In the 1816 case of, Martin V. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court decided that it had the right to hear any case involving federal statutes and treaties. In this case, Denny Martin, a British subject, tried to sell land in Virginia, that he inherited from his uncle, who was a British loyalist during the war. However, Virginia law stated that no "enemy" could inherit land. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's law conflicted Jay's Treaty, which protected land belonging to Loyalists before the war. The Supreme Court ruled that Jay's Treaty overruled Virginia law, and Denny Martin was able to own, or sell his land.This court case helped to establish the Supreme Court as the nation's court of final appeal. Marbury vs. Madison Judicial Nationalism is when the supreme court made rulings to increase federal power in the United States. Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee In several important cases between 1816 and 1824, Marshall interpreted the constitution broadly to support federal power. With the case of Marbury vs. Madison the court recognized its right of judicial review. Meaning they had the power to decide which laws are constitutional and to deny those that are not. John Marshall sought to broaden the power of the national government by using the power of judicial review and interpreting the constitution as a contract. The constitution can be construed as such because the whole idea of government of the people, for the people and by the people, is one of contractual agreement. He aimed to strengthen the general government with the constitution as his guiding influence which eventually shaped the way for a more perfect union.
During more than 30 years of chief Justice, John Marshall continued to build the supreme court into a powerful, independent, branch of government. Hence, our attention is brought to Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The case gave the justice his first opportunity to state what the government, under the constitution of the United States, should do for the American people. McCulloch vs. Maryland In the 1819 Supreme Court case of McCulloch vs. Maryland the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Maryland did not have the power to tax a federal bank. This case was brought to the Supreme Court because, Maryland tried to impose a tax on the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States. However, this was a national bank, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the Constitution gave the federal government the power to collect taxes, to borrow money to regulate commerce, and to raise armies and navies. The national bank helped the federal government exercise these powers. The Supreme Court made a ruling that the state of Maryland was not allowed to impose a tax on an institution created by Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that the "necessary and proper" clause allowed the federal government to use its powers in any way not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. This case helped to establish the courts ability make a ruling that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, but is neither allowed. Gibbons vs. Ogden The dispute in Gibbons concerned competing claims of rival steamship franchises. The state of New York gave Aaron Ogden an exclusive license to operate steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York City on the Hudson River. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat operator, ran two ferries along the same route. Ogden sought an injunction (order requiring a person to do a particular act or to refrain from doing a particular act) against Gibbons in a New York state court, claiming that the state had given him exclusive rights to operate the route. In response, Gibbons claimed he had the right to operate on the route according to a 1793 act of Congress regulating coastal commerce. The New York court found for Ogden and ordered Gibbons to cease operating his steamships; on appeal, the New York Supreme Court affirmed the order. Gibbons appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1824.

Source 1 The Supreme Court declared the case unconstitutional. According to the court, Marshall stated that the state legislature went too far in granting the original monopoly. The Constitution gave the federal government control over interstate commerce, which the court implied to include all trade along the coast or on waterways dividing the states. However, that state can, regulate commerce within its own borders. Marshall defined interstate commerce in a way that went beyond the exchange of goods between states in the ruling, by granting anything crossing state boundaries came under federal control, Marshall ensured that federal law would take precedence over state law in interstate transportation.
Full transcript