Interpreting the US Constitution

1
Interpreting the US Constitution

• US Supreme Court before 1830

2
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Argued February 22, 1819
• Decided March 6, 1819
• Facts of the Case
• 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.
• Constitutional Question
• Does Congress have the authority to establish
  the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally
  interfere with congressional powers?

3
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Article I, Section 8
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
  proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
  Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
  Constitution in the Government of the United
  States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
• Article IV
• This Constitution, and the Laws of the
  United States which shall be made in Pursuance
  thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be
  made, under the Authority of the United States,
  shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the
  Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
  Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to
  the Contrary notwithstanding.

4
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Opinion of the Court 7-0
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Necessary and
  Proper Clause gave Congress the power to
  establish a national bank. Chief Justice John
  Marshall, in his opinion for the Court, supported
  a loose construction of the Constitution. He
  wrote that the Constitution, unlike a legal code,
  contained the broad outlines of government power,
  not every small detail.
• The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
• We must never forget that it is a constitution
  we are expounding.
• Chief justice J. Marshall
• Question
• How do the above quotes relate to Marshalls view
  of judicial review and the role of the Court in
  the US government?

5
Gibbons v. Ogden

• Argued February 4, 1824
• Decided March 2, 1824
• Facts of the Case
• A New York state law gave Gibbons the exclusive
  right to operate steamboats on waters within
  state jurisdiction. This law, and others like it
  across the Eastern US at the time, led to
  friction as some states would require foreign
  (out-of-state) boats to pay substantial fees for
  access to state water ways. In this case a rival
  steamboat owner (Ogden) who did business between
  New York and New Jersey challenged the state law
  which forced him to obtain an operating permit
  from New York to navigate on that state's waters.
• Constitutional Question
• Does the Commerce Clause deny New York state the
  right to govern interstate waterways with New
  Jersey? Are waterways commerce according to
  the Constitution?

6
Gibbons v. Ogden

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
• Congress shall have the powerTo regulate
  Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
  several States, and with the Indian Tribes
• Article IV
• This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
  States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof
  and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
  under the Authority of the United States, shall
  be the Supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in
  every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
  the Constitution or laws of any state to the
  contrary notwithstanding.

7
Gibbons v. Ogden

• Opinion of the Court 7-0
• 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. Commerce for the Chief Justice
  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 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.
• Question
• How does the above ruling affect commerce in the
  US today?

8
Chisholm v Georgia

• Argued Tuesday, February 5, 1793
• Decided Monday, February 18, 1793
• Facts of the Case
• In 1792, South Carolinas Alexander Chisholm, the
  executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar,
  brought suit against the state of Georgia in the
  United States Supreme Court. Chisholm sought
  payments due for goods that Farquhar had supplied
  Georgia during the American Revolutionary War.
• Georgia refused to appear in court, claiming that
  as a sovereign agent, a state dose not have to
  appear in Federal Court to hear a suit against it
  to which it did not consent.
• Constitutional Question
• Is a state subject to the jurisdiction of the
  Supreme Court and the Federal government? Can
  Georgia be forced to pay debts to a citizen of
  another state (Chisholm) by the US government?

9
Chisholm v Georgia

• Article III, Section 2
• The judicial power shall extend to all cases,to
  controversies between two or more states between
  a state and citizens of another state
• Article IV
• This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
  States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof
  and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
  under the Authority of the United States, shall
  be the Supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in
  every State shall be bound thereby, anything in
  the Constitution or laws of any state to the
  contrary notwithstanding.

10
Chisholm v Georgia

• Opinion of the Court 4-1
• In a 4-to-1 decision, the Court held that "the
  people of the United States" intended to govern
  the states through the legislative powers of the
  national government.
• The Court held that supreme or sovereign power
  was retained by citizens themselves, not by the
  "artificial person" or individual states
  (Georgia).
• The Constitution also clearly expresses that
  controversies between individual states and
  citizens of other states is under the
  jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was
  subject to judicial review.
• Question
• How does this case relate to the 11th Amendment
  to the Constitution
• Amendment XI
• The judicial power of the United States shall
  not be construed to extend to any suit in law or
  equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of
  the United States by citizens of another state,
  or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

11
Dartmouth College v Woodward

• Argued Tuesday, March 10, 1818
• Decided Tuesday, February 2, 1819
• Facts of the Case
• New Hampshires newly elected Jeffersonian
  Republican governor sought to convert the private
  college into a public university and replace its
  mainly Federalist trustees with publicly
  elected/Republican board. The state legislature
  then revoked the schools charter dating from
  1769 and turned the college into publicly
  controlled university.
• Constitutional Question
• Is the royal charter a contract, and if so, can a
  state legislature violate a private contract?

12
Dartmouth College v Woodward

• Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance,
  or confederation grant letters of marque and
  reprisal coin money emit bills of credit make
  anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
  payment of debts pass any bill of attainder, ex
  post facto law, or law impairing the obligation
  of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

13
Dartmouth College v Woodward

• Opinion of the Court 5-1
• Justice Marshall authored opinion for the court
• The Court ruled that the colleges charter was a
  contract and must be honored. The Contract
  Clause prevents the states from impairing the
  original agreement between the college and the
  state (charter originating from a royal grant and
  transferred to the colonial government).
• Justice Marshall also ruled that private entities
  (the privately run college) are protected by the
  Commerce Clause.
• Question
• Did the framers intend to include private
  property in the Contract Clause of the
  Constitution as Marshall ruled in this case?

14
Fletcher v Peck

• Argued Thursday, February 15, 1810
• Decided Friday, March 16, 1810
• Facts of the Case
• In 1795, the Georgia state legislature passed a
  bill selling land in the Yazoo River country to
  private speculators. The sale was then exposed
  in scandal as investors were chosen in return for
  bribes. Voters rejected most of the incumbents in
  the next election and the new legislature,
  reacting to the public outcry, repealed the law
  and voided transactions made under it.
• John Peck had purchased land that had previously
  been sold under the 1795 act. Peck then sold this
  land to Robert Fletcher who was stripped of the
  newly bought land by the outcome of the scandal
  and the new Georgia legislature. In 1803,
  Fletcher brought suit against Peck, claiming that
  he did not have clear title to the land when he
  sold it.
• Constitutional Question
• Is the private sale of land a contract and can
  a state pass a law violating a private agreement
  or sale?

15
Fletcher v Peck

• Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance,
  or confederation grant letters of marque and
  reprisal coin money emit bills of credit make
  anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
  payment of debts pass any bill of attainder, ex
  post facto law, or law impairing the obligation
  of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

16
Fletcher v Peck

• Opinion of the Court 7-0
• In a unanimous decision, Justice Marshall ruled
  that the state legislature's repeal of the law
  was unconstitutional. The opinion argued that the
  sale was a binding contract, which according to
  the Contract Clause of the Constitution cannot be
  invalidated, even if illegally secured
• It is, then, the unanimous opinion of the court,
  that, in this case, the estate having passed into
  the hands of a purchaser for a valuable
  consideration, without notice, the state of
  Georgia was restrained, either by general
  principles, which are common to our free
  institutions, or by the particular provisions of
  the constitution of the United States, from
  passing a law whereby the estate of the plaintiff
  in the premises so purchased could be
  constitutionally and legally impaired and
  rendered null and void.
• Question
• What are the limits of protecting private
  property and the right to conduct private
  business transactions in light of the Court
  support of the Contract Clause?

17
Worcester v Georgia

• DecidedSaturday, March 3, 1832
• Facts of the Case
• In September 1831, the grand jurors for the
  county of Gwinnett in the state of Georgia,
  indicted Samuel A. Worcester, and several
  others, white persons of said county, with the
  offence of 'residing within the limits of the
  Cherokee nation without a license. This was in
  violation of a state preventing non-natives from
  living on the reservation without a permit.
• Constitutional Question
• Does the state of Georgia have the power to
  regulate trade with the Cherokee Nation on the
  reservation?

18
Worcester v Georgia

• Article I, Section 10 - Contract Clause
• No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance,
  or confederation grant letters of marque and
  reprisal coin money emit bills of credit make
  anything but gold and silver coin a tender in
  payment of debts pass any bill of attainder, ex
  post facto law, or law impairing the obligation
  of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
• Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - Commerce Clause
• Congress shall have the powerTo regulate
  Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
  several States, and with the Indian Tribes

19
Worcester v Georgia

• Opinion of the Court
• In Worcester v. Georgia, the court struck down
  Georgia's extension laws. In the majority opinion
  Marshall wrote that the Indian nations were
  "distinct, independent political communities
  retaining their original natural rights" and that
  the United States had acknowledged as much in
  several treaties with the Cherokees. Although it
  had surrendered sovereign powers in those
  treaties with the United States, he wrote, the
  Cherokee Nation remained a separate, sovereign
  nation with a legitimate title to its national
  territory.
• "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct
  community occupying its own territory in which
  the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole
  intercourse between the United States and this
  nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested
  in the government of the United States."
  --Chief Justice Marshall
• Question
• How does this case attempt change the stance of
  the US government toward Indian tribes in light
  of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the
  actions of President Jackson?

20
Cohens v Virginia

• Argued Tuesday, February 13, 1821
• Decided Saturday, March 3, 1821
• Facts of the Case
• Philip and Mendes Cohen sold lottery tickets in
  Virginia under the authority of an act of
  Congress which created a lottery for the District
  of Columbia. The Cohens appealed their conviction
  for violating a Virginia state statute, which had
  banned such lotteries. Virginia asserted that the
  Eleventh Amendment precluded the Supreme Court
  from hearing the case and that section 25 of the
  Judiciary Act of 1789 did not apply.
• Constitutional Question
• Does the Court have the right to rule on a matter
  involving state law in which the state is a named
  appellee?

21
Cohens v Virginia

• 11th Amendment
• The Judicial power of the United States shall not
  be construed to extend to any suit in law or
  equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of
  the United States by Citizens of another State,
  or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
• The Judiciary Act of 1789 sec. 25
• And be it further enacted, That a final judgment
  or decree in any suit, in the highest court of
  law or equity of a State in which a decision in
  the suit could be had, where is drawn in question
  the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an
  authority exercised under the United States, and
  the decision is against their validity or where
  is drawn in question the validity of a statute
  of, or an authority exercised under any State, on
  the ground of their being repugnant to the
  constitution, treaties or laws of the United
  States, and the decision is in favour of such
  their validity, or where is drawn in question the
  construction of any clause of the constitution,
  or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held
  under the United States, and the decision is
  against the title, right, privilege or exemption
  specially set up or claimed by either party,
  under such clause of the said Constitution,
  treaty, statute or commission, may be re-examined
  and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of
  the United States

22
Cohens v Virginia

• Opinion of the Court 6-0
• The Cohens case reflected the effort by several
  states, including Virginia, to challenge John
  Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland
  (1819). Marshall used Cohens as chance to
  reemphasize federal judicial power. He asserted
  that the Constitution made the Union supreme and
  that the federal judiciary was the ultimate
  constitutional arbiter. While the states could
  interpret their own laws, any federal question
  must ultimately be resolved only by the federal
  courts (sec. 25, Judiciary Act of 1789 ).
  According to the Court, the Eleventh Amendment
  did not prevent federal courts from deciding
  properly a legitimate federal question, even
  where a state was the appellee.
• Marshall avoided Virginias noncompliance by
  upholding the convictions after asserting the
  power of the Federal bench.
• Question
• How can you use the 11th Amendment to side with
  or against the Court? What aspects of the 11th
  Amendment are central to Marshalls argument?

23
Sources

• Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to
  American Law. Oxford Oxford University Press,
  2002.
• Hartman, Gary, R., Roy M. Mersky, and Cindy L.
  Tate. Landmark Supreme Court Cases. New York,
  Facts on File, Inc., 2004.
• The Oyez Project, www.Oyez.org, 2007.