Notes

★ CASE STUDY 1 Marbury v. Madison, 1803
1. The Marbury v. Madison case established the right of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws.
2. It provided a way to check the powers
of Congress and the president, and thus more effectively balanced the powers of all three branches of the federal government.
3. On the one hand, Marshall declared the Judiciary Act unconstitutional because the power for Congress to pass such an act was not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet at the same time he believed the Supreme Court had the power to declare a law unconstitutional, even though this power was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
4. Answers will vary. Students who favor the Court’s power may say that it provides a check on Congress and more equally balances the power of the three branches of government. Students who oppose
the Court’s power may say that since Congressional representatives are elected, they represent the will of the people, so the laws passed by Congress should stand and not be subjected to a review by a Court of appointed judges.
5. Answers will vary. Students who think the influence of personal politics on Court rulings is improper may say that legal opin- ions should be based on a legal interpreta- tion of the Constitution law and not on politics. Students who accept political influence on Court rulings as proper may say that it often reflects the will of the majority.
★ CASE STUDY 2 McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
1. The McCulloch case established the princi- ple that Congress has implied powers not specifically stated in the Constitution.
2. The “necessary and proper” clause gives Congress the authority to make any laws that are required to carry out its enumer- ated tasks.
3. The Court ruled that the United States Bank was immune to the Maryland tax because as an arm of the federal govern- ment it is not required to pay state taxes.
4. Federalists believed in a strong national government, and the McCulloch decision reflects that point of view in that it lim- ited the power of the states to tax any part of the federal government.
5. The McCulloch decision greatly enlarged the powers of the federal government by stating that it is “supreme within its sphere of action,” and has powers that are not specifically set forth in the Constitution.
★ CASE STUDY 3
Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819
1. Dartmouth College remained a private institution and was protected under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution from interference by the state. The trustees were reinstated to administer the college, and the college records, the cor- porate seal, and other corporate property were returned to the trustees by the state treasurer.
2. Chief Justice Marshall explained that if a state or other sovereign—here the British crown—granted a charter of incorpora- tion, the charter has “every ingredient of a complete and legitimate contract.”
3. The Dartmouth case established that a corporate charter granted by the state comes under the protection of the con- tract clause that prohibits states from making any laws which impair the oblig- ation of a contract. Therefore, businesses could flourish without being subjected to interference by the state.
4. If states wanted to provide higher educa- tion, they had to provide publicly funded institutions because the Dartmouth deci- sion prohibited the states from taking over private institutions.
5. The Dartmouth decision weakened the power of the states by ruling that even though states have the power to charter corporations, corporations are protected from interference by the states because they are protected under the contract clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits states from making any laws that impair the obliga- tions of a contract.
★ CASE STUDY 4 Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
1. A trucking company operating between San Francisco and Portland would be regulated by both federal and state govern- ments. Each state, for example, could impose taxes on the company’s purely in- state business, but the federal government could set safety standards for vehicles using the interstate highway system.
2. Unless he defined navigation as a part of commerce, he would not have been able to deal with the question of interstate commerce in the United States.
3. Jackson said Marshall expanded federal power over commerce to a breadth never exceeded, because the Gibbons decision opened the way for Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which now consti- tutes the great bulk of commerce in this country. Marshall also laid the ground- work for regulating activities that are indirectly, as well as directly, involved in interstate commerce.
4. Both cases gave the federal government powers than are not spelled out literally in the Constitution; thus both decisions
diminished states’ powers and increased those of the federal government.
5. Answers will vary. Students agreeing with the Gibbons decision may say that the fed- eral government is needed as a power greater than the states to make decisions about issues involving more than one state. Students opposed to the Gibbons decision may say a state has the right to regulate business within its boundaries, so the fed- eral government should not have interfered with New York’s right to assign an exclusive ferryboat license for a New York port.
★ CASE STUDY 5 Worcester v. Georgia, 1832
1. Treaties between the U.S. government and the Cherokee Nation suggested the Nation was a separate nation with the right to its own courts and laws. Worcester and the other missionaries believed Georgia had no authority over the Cherokee Nation, with no right to force whites to obtain state permits to be on Cherokee land.
2. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court declined to rule on Georgia laws that sought to dissolve Cherokee government. Justice Marshall said Native Americans, as “dependent nations,” did not have the right to appeal in federal courts. In Worcester, however, Justice Marshall ruled that the laws of Georgia did not apply to the Cherokee Nation, as the Nation was a “distinct com- munity occupying its own territory.” The Court ruled Georgia’s act violated both the United States Constitution and treaty obligations toward the Cherokee.
3. Some students may agree with Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion that Native American groups such as the Cherokee are sovereign nations. Others may agree with Justice Baldwin’s position that by accepting the Hopewell Treaty, the Cherokee Nation gave up their right to claim sovereignty.
4. Answers will vary. Students may describe the injustice of removing the Cherokee from their traditional lands. The Court’s decision might have encouraged Cherokee resistance to forced relocation. However, Andrew Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Court’s decision meant that the Cherokee were forced to leave anyway.
5. The Worcester decision failed to prevent the removal of the Cherokee from their lands. However, it is important because it spelled out the relationship between Native Americans, the federal govern- ment, and individual states. Later, Court decisions used arguments presented during the Worcester case to argue cases regarding Native American land owner- ship and jurisdiction over natural resources. The Worcester case eventually provided Native Americans with a powerful legal weapon to protect their rights against further encroachment.