Download Abstract

Cierra Fauber-Ferrier, Jess Halasz, Tyler Bendler, Travis Smiley
Mr. Terry
AP US History
14 November 2008
Marbury vs. Madison
Abstract: William Marbury sued Secretary Madison in a case dealing with judicial authority
reigning over federal legislation. The Court ruled in favor of Madison meaning that it was the
Judiciary’s power to determine constitutionality.
Date: February, 1803
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court of the United States of America has the power, under
Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, to interpret the constitutionality of a law or statute
passed by Congress.
Background: William Marbury sued Secretary of State Madison to force delivery of his
commission as a justice of the peace in the federal district; Marshall would not rule on it, because
he said the law that gave the Supreme Court power to rule over such matter was unconstitutional
Decision: The Court decided that Marbury’s request for a writ of mandamus was based on a
law passed by Congress that the Court held to be unconstitutional. The Court decided
unanimously that the federal law contradicted the Constitution, and since the Constitution is the
Supreme Law of the Land, it must reign supreme. Through this case, Chief Justice John Marshall
established the power of judicial review: the power of the Court not only to interpret the
constitutionality of a law or statute but to carry out the process and enforce its decision.
Impact: The case of Marbury vs. Madison established to policy of judicial review over federal
legislation. This case was the precedent of the Supreme Court’s power to rule on the
constitutionality of federal laws.
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/marbury.html
Fletcher vs. Peck
Abstract: Georgia granted a land grant to the Yazoo Land Company. In 1976, the new
legislature revoked the sale due to corruption, fraud, and bribery influencing the original sale.
John Peck purchased land from the original company and resold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher
demanded that the contract became null and void and his money be returned.
Date: 1810
Issue: Whether or not a contract entered by Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Peck regarding the ability of
a state citizen to sue a state could be invalidated by the 11th Amendment.
Background: The Georgia legislature issued extensive land grants to Yazoo Land Company;
afterwards, it was considered corrupt, so there was a legislative session that repealed the action
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the original land grant was
valid contract despite the fact that it was corruptly passed by the Georgia legislature. The Court
held that the new Georgia legislature could not annul the land sale ex post facto. Marshall
concluded that in spite of the profits reaped by the dishonesty of the land speculators; both
general principles and the U.S. Constitution prevented a state legislature from rendering a
contract null and void.
Impact: The states are prohibited by the Constitution from passing any laws that would make
a constitutional law null and void.
The Oyez Project, Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1810/1810_0/>
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward
Abstract: Dartmouth College was established in 1769 under a charter from the King of
England. After the US was formed, King George III agreed to grant the charter to the state of
New Hampshire. In 1816, New Hampshire amended the charter, making Dartmouth a state
university, increasing the number of trustees and changing the educational purpose of the school.
The trustees protested to the Supreme Court claiming the King’s charter was still valid.
Date: March, 1818 through February, 1819
Issue: Did the New Hampshire legislature unconstitutionally interfere with Dartmouth
College's rights under the Contract Clause?
Background: In 1816, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth
College--a privately funded institution--into a state university. The legislature changed the
school's corporate charter by transferring the control of trustee appointments to the governor. In
an attempt to regain authority over the resources of Dartmouth College, the old trustees filed suit
against William H. Woodward, who sided with the new appointees.
Decision: In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the College's corporate charter qualified as
a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could not interfere. The fact that the
government had commissioned the charter did not transform the school into a civil institution.
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions
involving individual property rights, not to "the political relations between the government and
its citizens."
Impact: A king’s grant cannot affect a contract protected by the Constitution
The Oyez Project, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1818/1818_0/>
McCulloch vs. Maryland
Abstract: The state of Maryland brought an action against James William McCulloch, a
cashier in the Maryland branch of the Bank of the United States, for not paying a tax the state
had imposed on the United States Bank.
Date: February, 1819 through March, 1819
Issue: The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the
bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Background: In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818,
the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the
cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate
the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in
the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that
Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall
also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "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."
Impact: Declared that the state had no right to control an agency of the federal government
The Oyez Project, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0/>
Gibbons vs. Ogden
Abstract: Robert Livingston secured from the New York Legislature an exclusive 20 year
grant to navigate the rivers and other waters of the State. The grant further provided that no one
should be allowed to navigate New York waters by steam without a license from Livingston and
his partner, Robert Fulton, and any unlicensed vessel should be forfeited to them. Ogden had
secured a license for steam navigation from Fulton and Livingston. Gibbons had originally been
partners with Ogden but was now his rival. Gibbons was operating steamboats between New
York and New Jersey under the authority of a license obtained from the United States. Ogden
petitioned the New York court and obtained an injunction ordering Gibbons to stop ordering his
boats in New York waters.
Date: February, 1824 through March, 1824
Issue: Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to
Congress, namely, the regulation of interstate commerce?
Background: A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate
steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. Laws like this one were duplicated elsewhere
which led to friction as some states would require foreign (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial
fees for navigation privileges. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New
York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to
obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.
Decision: The Court found that New York's licensing requirement for out-of-state operators
was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was
invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall developed a
clear definition of the word commerce, which included navigation on interstate waterways. He
also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause. Marshall's
was one of the earliest and most influential opinions concerning this important 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.
Impact: The immediate impact of Gibbons v. Ogden was to open up the field for a wide range
of steamship companies, and, consequently, to promote nationwide steamship travel and
commerce in the United States. However, the ruling had even more far-reaching implications.
For example, when railroads, telegraphs, telephones, oil and gas pipelines, and airplanes were
developed, they relied upon the protection of Gibbons v. Ogden to operate across state borders.
Even today, when questions of interstate commerce come before the Court, the case of Gibbons
v. Ogden helps to shape the Court's decisions.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13617/Gibbons-v-Ogden.html
www.lectlaw.com/files/case16.htm
www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar12.html
Additional Works Cited
(Used on all cases)
www.tourolaw.edu/patch/CaseSummary.asp
http://www.course-notes.org/