17 Burst results for "Marshall Court"
"marshall court" Discussed on Game of Crimes
"I tell you this was a textbook perfectly secured crime scene, everything was done like a 1000% in compliance. And again, I felt that that victim had been victimized by the system. And my main motivation for getting in two police work was to protect people, kind of like that bully busta, to help people. You know, as time went on, I found myself kind of shaking my head and going, you know? I'm becoming desensitized. It's like I'm tired of getting here too late when the bodies are already here and they're dead. When the woman has been raped and violated when the elderly couple have been robbed and beaten, you know, there were times where we prevented crime. Where we were able to help people before the fact, but those came few and far between as a patrol officer, which usually was getting there to take the report and, you know, turn it over to a detective. You know, and in that lady's case, like you said, not only was she going through the physical act of right, but then she had to go through court to court proceedings. And the fact that every occupation, career path has discussed buckets. And that attorney was leading the pack down there. His defense attorney would a peace crap. Oh, I actually got called in to the captain's office because after, after the second trial, I told Marie Janice in the elevator, just me and him on the way down to the ground floor of the John Marshall courts building. I said, you know, I hope you choke on the prime rib that you buy with the dirty money you earn, defending people like him and I hope that he's never in your neighborhood some night when you're working late and your wife wants a prostitute services the same way that my victim did..
"marshall court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The supreme card under roger tawny hands down the dread scott sanford decision and with that he does a number of things first of all he says that dread scott has no right to sue and that black americans have no rights that a white man is bound to respect so he wipes out the idea of black citizenship with one hand but then he goes on to a piece of the decision that is even more spectacular at the time and that is the idea that congress has no right to legislate in the territories and what that means is that the missouri compromise of eighteen twenty which had divided the newly acquired lands in eighteen. Oh three between the southern states and the northern states was unconstitutional so it was not going to be possible to keep enslavement out of any of the territory that the north had claim since eighteen. Twenty that had not yet been admitted into the union as states but it also went on dramatically to curtail the ability of congress to do a number of things that hit it. Assumed until then it was able to do that under the marshall court is certainly would have been able to do and what this did first of all was it showed a very different side of supreme court It does a number of things first of all. It's a sign that southern enslavers recognize that they are no longer able to command a majority of voters in the country so rather than any longer trying to go ahead and sway elections with persuasion. They're simply going to entrench themselves in the supreme court and use that institution really is a partisan holding action to guarantee that they're going to get their way even though they can no longer command a majority and that's a long standing tradition. I mean if you if you go back and think about john adams and the so-called midnight judges in which he's trying to establish federal all of these positions these judicial positions the federalist party at that point around eighteen hundred. They lose that election and it's clear at that moment that they are going to be out of power for a bit that the public is not with them. They are losing elections. They are beginning to lose seats in congress. So what the federalist do again as a holding action justice as heather. Just put it. Is they grab at the courts and they grab at classrooms. They grab it education in both cases in the case of the courts. Trying to have a sort of federalist anchor of power and control regardless of where the voting is going and in the classrooms so that they can train good patriotic citizens to have the right kind of education so that they will be good. They wouldn't say good. Federalists they would say good. Americans but basically so that they will have a good capital f. federalist education in the case of the dread scott decision the effect of politicizing the supreme court and using it as a political tool becomes clear really really quickly so northerners for example horace greeley at the new york daily tribune with simply outraged and he said any slave driving editor or virginia. Barroom politician could've taken the chief justice's place on the bench and nobody would have perceived the difference and particularly at that moment in time we're in eighteen fifty seven. The slavery crisis is rising to its peak. It is everywhere. Abolitionist sir out everywhere. You have this new anti-slavery republican party being born coming into existence. We're reaching the real peak of the slavery crisis so not only..
"marshall court" Discussed on Now & Then
"The first cabinet member to be rejected by the senate in american history. So he can't be a secretary of treasury because the senate itself says come on dude. We're not going to deal with this guy. But jackson is never one to be told now right and he's very upset at this rejection right off the cuff so he again tries to get funny in this case to be an associate justice of the supreme court again. He's opposed in the senate and he does not get that seat finally third time. There's a slim margin of democratic control in the senate once again. Tani is sent forward this time to be chief justice of the united states and this time he gets confirmed. Say you're saying he gets confirmed by a slight majority in the senate. Is that what you're saying is a saying. Let's see how that's going to work out year. So the reason that we're making a big deal about tawny is because tani's emphasis in the supreme court is going to be to try and push back against the nationalism and the stronger government that the marshall court has sat up. He does this. Most obviously and famously in the dread scott v sanford decision of eighteen fifty seven and. This is the reason that i have such strong feelings about tawny and the trick to the dread scott decision is that. It's the story of an enslaved man named dread scott who was enslaved and missouri and he was owned by a man who was an army officer and the army officer took him from the slave state of missouri into i the free state of illinois and then the free territory of wisconsin scott goes ahead and he sues for his freedom on the basis of the fact that he has lived in a free state and a free territory and the supreme court had the ability at the time to do what everybody thought they would do. Which was the obvious to say that. Under missouri law there was a missouri. Law called the sojourner law which said that if you took an enslaved person into a free state and retained ownership of that person that when you return back to missouri that that because she were simply traveling if you will it would not make a difference in the legal status of the enslaved person whom you claimed as your property but the supreme court went beyond that it decided not simply to rest on the precedent of missouri law but instead to go ahead and weigh in on the issue that was at hand at the time in america and that was the question of what would happen to the territories that the united states had acquired in eighteen. Forty eight under the treaty of guadalupe. Doll go that. Is the southern enslavers especially the big enslavers. The people who had the major were determined to move their system of human enslavement into the territories and at the same time northerners many of whom were not at all concerned about the fate of their black neighbors in the american south were determined not to let the system of human enslavement. Move into the west because they believed that that system of capital and labor would shot out the little guys from the north who wanted to move into that region and shift the balance of power in the union between north and south because if in fact you permitted enslavement in those new territories should get more slave states and those slave states would eventually overawe the free states in the senate and house of representatives and of course on the electoral college. So tiny decides. He's going to go ahead and solve the question that neither the congress nor the president had been able to solve in the supreme court..
"marshall court" Discussed on Now & Then
"America obviously doesn't play out through history we end up and we're gonna be talking today about some courts it don't end up with that kind of a reputation and how exactly that happens. But maybe it'd be more fun to walk through how courts become different by starting with the first really dramatic court in american history. And that's john marshall's court. And i have the reason i guess i'm jumping ahead to. Marshall is because the story of how john marshall became the chief. Justice of the supreme court is to my mind..
"marshall court" Discussed on WTOP
"Now. 10 28 Rob Stallworth. Sina busy Wtlv Traffic Center. Oh, my goodness. Air loop in Virginia. As you come off the local and three Wayne's headed toward Eisenhower Avenue. The crashes before Eisenhower Avenue and blocking the left side with response on scene also activity on the right shoulder so delays on the inner loop as you come off the Wilson Bridge and the local and through lanes headed toward Eisenhower Avenue, with the crash, blocking the left side of the roadway in Maryland, fifth The West found Bay Bridge, all traffic temporarily stopped for the response on scene there. There was a chain reaction crash that caused that particular issue. The reversible lanes, center lanes and right wing of block westbound route 50 on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, traveling the inner loop near New Hampshire Avenue. We had reported some high standing water, so use caution there. Otherwise, no problems on to 70. You guys remain clear. Sound down Baltimore Washington Parkway before I won 95 BW I Thurgood Marshall. Court. The left lane gets by that particular crash back in Virginia Route one northbound near Mount Vernon Highway in Blackman Road. We had that crash with just the right lane, squeezing by the response on scene there. I 95 north beyond their Dale City exit. 1 56 responsible on scene of the crash that's blocking the left side of the roadway, tried talk therapy and medications and you're still struggling with treatment resistant depression. Green BROOK TMS Neural health centers can help visit green book tms dot com today. I'm Rob Stallworth. W T o p Traffic. Your forecast. Now with storm team for is Lauryn Ricketts you morning showers pushing through the area from the south to the north this morning will keep that chance as we go through the mid morning and another straight shower possible this afternoon,.
"marshall court" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"How many times do you think he's been cited by laurie. Wells my initial instinct zero. But i don't know how much the law would be. You know littered with like originalist trying to cite people. Like in the same way that i had to Analyze this paper in the journal of controversial ideas in it cited james lindsay over and over and over like is there a lot of that like just people writing terrible work citing terrible people or if not gonna get zero so you happen to be doubly correct. There is motivated. Scholarship in academic journals particularly in law reviews. And let me be honest both left and right where you have. Unique legal theories from liberals that are being tested out in the waters of academia and there are a number of things that that sort of come to mind with respect to that in particular right the anti-corruption thesis that we've talked about right and when you have kind of trial balloons for right wing causes such as we've documented at great length the proceedings in the nineteen eighty s that began in law reviews arguing for an individual right of ownership under the second amendment that percolated all the way up to the supreme court is perfectly normal for judicial opinions to site law review articles. So you know this is one way in which ordinary decks can influence the judiciary and that is by writing a really really good law review article and getting it cited an additional opinion so yes. There is a significant amount of motivation on both sides to do that despite that motivation christopher rufo i need to tell you has been cited to fewer times in academic law review articles. Then thomas smith. You've been cited twice as part of opening arguments in various law review articles. The show has been cited. It's you appear by name if someone gets under west west live. Yes you do part of the citation all right cool. I imagine if they taba smith they get lot lots. It's another thomas. Smith doing another opening arguments. It's not impossible. You appear with be so. I'm pretty sure it's the two of us excited. Everybody so rufo's central argument you can go to his website. We linked it in the show. Last time you can read it for yourself and this has been picked up by you know. Even bigger idiots like james lindsay is that critical race theory is marxist and as we showed an episode five oh one that is preposterous because marxist is modernist and I showed you that. The critique of black activists as marsa as marxist is historically racist so go back. Listen episode five. Oh one if you haven't. That's the other thing that that we discussed is that critical legal studies pioneered techniques that are commonplace today like these narratives in law review articles and we read nine thousand nine hundred ninety five quotations from prominent judges freaking out at the idea that you would tell stories in a law review article Ed today right again. That is a technique that is commonly a displayed across the political spectrum that christopher rufo himself engages right and part of in addition to using narratives part of what critical legal studies did was challenged students to sort of you know they think about the analogy of the end of the goldfish doesn't notice the water that they're swimming right to to look at their own teaching materials coursework and say what's being taught what's not being done and we talked about how derek bell's textbook race racism in american law from nineteen seventy-three pointed out that law schools were not teaching the dread scott case to incoming lawyers. Well that's not a great way of educating the next generation of lawyers about some of the institutional problems in the law if you're just sort of pretending like the worst cases in history didn't happen a takata on chick pointed out another amazing example. That i didn't bring up that i that i want to touch briefly because it's a little bit more log eke orie and so therefore i love it but it's also an example of success story it's a case called johnson and grams lessee versus macintosh. And it's from eighteen. Twenty three and you can eight the or just well. I was gonna say you could tell. It's a delightfully old timey case because macintoshes spelled with the apostrophe instead of the sea so it's m. apostrophe in tosh but it's pronounced macintosh right interest nine oh decision. It was written by chief justice. John marshall the guy who invented judicial review that john marshall right again. One storied justices in american history. In marshall's wikipedia entry. It gets a one-sentence line. It says in the three case of johnson versus macintosh. The marshall court had established the supremacy of the federal government in dealing with native american tribes. So that's how that case cases described to the public. Here's what the case actually set so you had these two guys johnston graham and they bought land from the illinois. And the piano. sean. I apologize if i'm putting those names piano. Shot indian tribes in seventeen. Seventy three and seventeen seventy five in what is now the state of illinois and you may know. Eleanor was not one of the original thirteen colonies. It was organized as a territory in eighteen. O nine admitted as a state meeting eighteen. So you know. This was frontier wilderness. In seventeen seventy three so they bought the land from the tribes at the time illinois was one of the was the westernmost part of what was claimed by the british crown as the british province of quebec was seated to the government in the seventeen eighty three treaty of paris that ended the revolutionary war..
"marshall court" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio
"To space by Frank Black this is democracy. Now the quarantine report I'm Amy Goodman Juan. Gonzalez as we continue to look at the Republican race. To confirm president trump supreme court nominee judge amy Coney Barrett prior to election day if confirmed to fill Ruth Bader GINSBURG seat. Will Give Conservative six to three advantage on the court. It would also mean the majority of the justices on the court were selected by presidents that did not win the popular vote. We're joined now by legal scholars, Samuel Moines, who has a new piece in the new republic headlined making the. Court safe for democracy beyond packing schemes, we need to diminish the High Court's power. A professor of jurisprudence at Yale Law school professor of history at Yale University as well. Well, if you can talk about the history of the Supreme Court, you talk about as a reactionary one and US history and what needs to be done professor mine. It's nice to be with you. The you know this country was founded on majority of minority rule and the rejection of democracy and the Supreme Court has long been a part of that picture, and now that the right is on the brink of establishing control. It's it's. Dangerous Institution. And that's that's long been the case we're seeing the charade, the familiar drill in Washington. The reason it's happening is because immense power to control the future of the country has been placed in the hands of nine elected. Justices in the first place and so no wonder there's. Certain every time someone dies or retires maybe that's what we ought to think about changing. A professional I wanted to ask you in terms of the history of there there is a series of court decisions that involve the basically sanctioning. Conquest and imperial. The. Gravity of imperial territories whether it's the insular cases in the early nineteen hundreds or the under the Justice John Marshall Court a series of decisions, the Marshall Trilogy on on the relationship of native Americans to the Federal Government as wards essentially the federal government. None of this however is ever really discussed in these hearings and this is settled supposedly decisions that are clearly unjust but have never really been raised to new Supreme Court nominees. Could you expound a little bit more about this historic? Nature of the court. So, really from the beginning of the Republic the the court has been on board with the expulsion or extermination of native peoples as as you pointed out with American Empire at the. At the end of the nineteenth in the early twentieth century. The the striking legacy. Even. After the. Of Slavery which, of course, the Supreme Court also supported before the civil war was the courts complicity with the the the rule of the of the wealthy especially in the first gilded age at that site during that same later nineteenth early twentieth century and Franklin Roosevelt had to face down the court confronted precisely for the reason that it was an institution of minority rule. Thomas Jefferson actually warned at the very beginning of our republic that. His enemies were fleeing into the judiciary and treating it as a stronghold from which they could rule no matter what the people wanted, and now in our second gilded age, we've been seeing that same phenomenon for decades even before the current confirmation battle even before Mitch McConnell's hijinks even when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a justice, the court was the most business friendly court a century, and so we have to understand that as you point out that long term, a role of this course of this court in in our in our history. So in essence what you're saying is at the period, let's say of the Warren Court was really an anomaly in terms of at least a liberalism on social and racial issues. But that the court essentially has been the the trump card of the a corporate elite of America in terms of maintaining its power. That's largely right. The the Earl Warren's court was anomalous and brief, and sadly it didn't get a lot done especially. After decades of pushback and and reaction, which should also remember that some of the basic that. Cases like Brown v Board. Did was sort of undoing the Supreme Court collusion with the end of reconstruction in eighteen seventy seven in the unholy deal to let the south return to apartheid and so. It did do some some valuable work. It's not clear. We we should be depending on a high court. To do our democratic worked for us. and. So the basic rights we care about we we ultimately need to depend on convincing fellow citizens and. In, an entrenching are progressive ideals and for that only mass movements suffices not getting our friends in high places. and. The Republicans talk. Now they've already created the narrative that if Democrats come to power in the White House and the Senate, they will seek to pack the court when in reality I guess what you're saying is that. The the court has already packed. The question is an under Mitch McConnell. It's become even more packed. The question is, how can it be unpacked democratized and I'm wondering if you could talk about what you would see as the most achievable not necessarily the the the the reforms that would. That you would prefer the most which would be the ones most achievable given Democrats themselves. If they do come to power will be fighting among themselves about the best type of reform. So, progressives have a menu of options and they can order lots of things off the menu to to to press the. Democrats. Especially of Joe Biden wins and the Senate changes hands. Court packing isn't and out of the question it depends on you know what's done if you put two new liberal justices up there though you're just restoring the status quo ante, neal gorsuch, which was already intolerable. So Our proposal is that you think about ways of limiting the court's power to interfere with democratic legislation as is happening with the affordable care act once again. we shouldn't allow an institution that can mass over a decade. In cooperation with the dark money funded conservative litigants with some of our most progressive laws so. If an HR wanted past if a green new deal statute. Is is past we can do things like insulate those laws from scrutiny by the Federal Judiciary. You know if we dream big, we can do things like insist that judges can only validate that role legislation by super majority so that it we we're we're it's not up to five conservatives now, six to invalidate laws that million support at very high levels of popularity. So what if we required a seven to two or eight to one or unanimous? From the Supreme Court which would make sure it's only. A finding values in the constitution.
"marshall court" Discussed on WTOP
"Lane. Maxwell is the daughter of the late British media mogul Robert Maxwell and Epstein's former girl friend and business manager. The indictment says Maxwell enticed and groomed underaged girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein as early as 1994 girls, often traveling to his homes in New York, New Mexico, and Flora, CBS news correspondent Peter King. It's rare for public opinion on social issues to change sharply and swiftly. But after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota polling shows Americans opinions on police brutality and racial injustice have changed dramatically Anew. Associated Press and Oh RC survey finds About half of American adults say police violence against the public is a very or extremely serious problem. Only about 1/3 have the same in July of 2015. It's 5 42 Even his Richmond takes down. It's Confederate statues. The ones in Charlottesville remain standing. The city is trying to change that by going to Virginia's highest court. It hasn't been successful. But Charlottesville has been trying for years to take down its statues of Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Those statues never did get removed because there was a lawsuit. That's Ha Spencer, author of the book, Summer of Hate, which investigates the 2017 deadly White nationalist Rally in Charlottesville. It was only the lawsuit. And the judge's ruling that went against the city that allowed those statues to remain standing as part of the suit. An injunction prevents Charlottesville from taking the statues down. The city wants the injunction eliminated and is now asking Virginia Supreme Court to step in. Nick in Delhi. W T O P NEWS A demonstration against the end of the moratorium on evictions put in place in Virginia due to the virus outbreak led to a courthouse window being smashed and chemical irritants released on the crowds by deputies enrichment news outlets report. The incident came after hundreds of demonstrators marched yesterday, NBC 12 reports, Richmond sheriff's deputies wrestled to protesters to the ground after they entered the John Marshall Courts building to stage a city and demonstration. Demonstrators tried to make their way into the building before deputies released the chemical irritants into the crowd on object was then thrown into the courthouse window. President Trump posted a video statement criticizing those who pulled down statues and monuments of Confederate figures. He's part of the statement. Lawlessness has been allowed to prevail. We're not gonna let it prevail any longer. I signed an executive order just a few days ago and since then it's been very calm President goes on to call the protesters who pulled down statues, anarchists, agitators and looters. Pointing to today's positive jobs report for June, which shows employers added 4.8 million jobs. The Trump Administration is shrugging off concerns. The continued spread of Corona virus will have a negative effect on the economy right now. It's not clear where the administration stands on a phase for economic relief bill and whether it would include more direct cash payments to families. Whitehouse says the numbers prove the economy is roaring back. Unemployment at nearly 15% in April was down to 11.1% in June, but a closer look shows nearly 18 million Americans are still in need of work. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin says he supports more help for businesses. He's not sure another round of checks is needed for families. I think it's too early to tell. Mnuchin notes. Congress is already injected $3 trillion into the economy. That's an extraordinary amount of money. Stephen Portnoy CBS News the White House Hours after President Trump celebrated a drop in the unemployment rate, former Vice President Joe Biden went on the offensive, the likely Democratic nominee says in a Twitter video. The nation is still in a deep job hole, and minorities are feeling the pandemics. Worst impacts, vows even acknowledged the disproportionate impact This disease is having a black brown in Native American communities. Much less done anything to address those health disparities. Underlying systemic racism. This shapes You know the answer. Course not. I require him to step up and lead would require him to put the American people ahead of his own interest. Another 1.4 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week that marks the 15th straight week of more than one million new unemployment claims. Let's hear about Wall Street's closed in light of the unemployment news from Jeff, played by the close it down was up 92 points. The S and P 500 index gained 1/2 percent money news in 10 minutes on sports at 15 and 45. Brought to you by your local Honda dealer Don't settle for less than a Honda Go to George Wallace in NFL training camps usually see 90 players well, then look like that's gonna be the case this year, according To Adam Schefter that an effort to combat the spread of the Corona virus teams likely to bring fewer than the regular 91 source, he said believed it would likely be around 81 other source said. It could be 75 players, but it's definitely not going to be 90 and we'll see if training camp does in fact, Start on time. But that is from Adam Schefter this afternoon. Also the undefeated reporting today that the NFL will play lift every voice and sing, traditionally known as the black national anthem is expected to be performed. Live or played before every week. One NFL game N BA getting set to head to Orlando 22 teams. Well, what about the other eight teams? Well, ESPN reporting this afternoon, The MBA is closing in on signing off on a second bubble in Chicago for those eight teams, enabling many training camps and games against other clubs with a target date of September. The report said. Seven of the eight teams were on the call. The New York Knicks did not participate. Nine more players testing positive today for a total of 25 in the N B. A 10 team staff members. Also testing positive rocket mortgage Classic round number one Doc.
"marshall court" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"And the custom when Marshall Becomes chief justice. Is that during these discussions. The justices may only have wine. If it's raining I assume that this was to cheer themselves. On Marshall's custom was to always ask one of his colleagues often associate justice story. You Know Brothers Story. We look out the window and tell us what the weather is. Story might say well. The Sun is going down and a clear sky marshal would say our jurisdiction is so vast by the law chances. It must be raining somewhere. The wine was served to the Marshall Court. This may explain the number of unanimous decision. I'm serious I'm serious about that. Because because there was this was a man who I mean except versus Jefferson. He really really liked almost everybody. Almost everybody liked him Justice story the first time he heard him as a lawyer. I love his laugh and I realize I've written a number of biographies. This is the first person who's a laugh was described. Wow did out in this whole like It's not that they lacked a sense of humor. But but this is the this is the first person I ever read the description of laugh and stories. I love his laugh. So that shows you you know what kind of a guy? He was one-on-one and that's how he ran his court. I mean he al- also. There was the power of his mind. There was the power of his legal reasoning. But but the first thing the sort of the first story of this personality is this this warmth this geniality this ability to get along with people and You know the expression herding cats. Well you know that that can be what what the Supreme Court is like or any any small group politics and Marshall had that ability. He had that gift and That that geniality that good fellowship was was a key part of it. Well Richard. You have an open invitation to join us at John Marshall. One time home in Washington. Dc The decor Bacon House. I've eighteenth and F- okay so you can enjoy some wine as Marshall perhaps enjoyed it With us in some other martial files okay. Great they'll take you up on that great. The book is John Marshall. The man who made the Supreme Court Richard Brooker joined us for a a wonderful interview. We encourage you to buy it All bookstores nationwide or on Amazon On the Internet Richard. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Garrett. Thanks for having me all right. This program has been brought to you by the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights in the American founding. If you'd like to learn more about the James Wilson Institute please visit James Wilson Institute Dot Org. Thanks for listening..
"marshall court" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"He he is president much right to decide on the constitutionality of laws as did the Supreme Court and did Congress. He was implying a tripartite responsibility now later on his his chief justice his attorney general at the time later. Chief Justice Roger Tawny explained in a letter that the Jackson was not was not proposing to say that he as president could overturn a decision based on a law that he had the president the Congress had passed a president of signed and the Supreme Court has interpreted. This was this was tawny. You know trying to back off a little bit and I think he he was doing it partly because he was chief justice than at the time but anyway Jackson had said that Lincoln races this very question in his first inaugural address and here. He's he's got dread Scott and mine and there he said that well of course the Supreme Court's decision as always binding on the parties before it. So for instance in the case of dread Scott they decided He's gotta stay a slave all right. Lincoln Lincoln is willing to accept that as far as dread Scott goes button said Lincoln. Does this mean this is a president that vines and all other cases and Lincoln goes on to say well. There are two kinds of Supreme Court decisions. There settled ones and their eroneous swats. So what's what's in? Aronie has decision and he asked a number of criteria which are rather startling He says you know if it has an obvious political bias that makes it around S. He says if it's not unanimous that makes it eroneous well that that gets rid of a lot of remorse ask like almost all of them even in the Marshall Court which had a very high percentage of unanimous decisions not not even there are all the great cases in animus Dartmouth Woodward is is one. That isn't so and yet you know. Neither Jackson nor Lincoln proposed any sort of law based on these speculations of theirs or any constitutional amendment based on these speculations. There's There was a senator in. Marshall's Lifetime Richard Mentor. Johnson of Kentucky Later Plan Bureau Vice President he posted a number of constitutional amendments which would Curb the pretensions. What he felt were the pretensions of the Supreme Court and one would give the Senate A sort of a veto power over Spring Court decisions. They could be appealed to the seven Others Limited the tenure justices others made them all other amendments made them electable. He had a series of these. Nothing came of them. They never they never even got out of Congress but at least he was trying to He was trying to Change the constitutional constitutional structure so But again as I said before Marshall Marshall and his court were there to rule on cases so and that's potentially leaves some questions at the margins right because not not everything not everything is a case in fact most things. The government does are not cases. There are laws are passed presidents sees it. The laws are properly executed All sorts of policies are considered and follow. That don't take shape of legal cases. So so yeah there's there. There is Room for dispute and The disputes full. Just go on. I don't see any I don't see any way of resolving it out you know that's just my opinion as a as a recent Marshall biographer. I'm sure other legal minds will tussle over that for a long time shirt. Numerous occasions in which You have judges who are just absolutely distraught because they feel like the case that's brought before them at least the litigants in the case they've only been set up by two warring legal interests. Who want the court to take up a larger question that the two leading that the two named litigants just have such a small stake in but Really it's these profound questions that have to be that that have yet to be settled. And so you'll read these opinions. Which the judges they. They certainly pulled no punches in saying that against where perhaps some guided into this whole process by interests that Gobi could go far beyond their own. That's that's no surprise Well one of one of the great martial court cases Fletcher versus pack was clearly an arranged case This had to do with that. That land sale on state of Georgia and Both Robert Fletcher and John Peck. They were both land speculators Out there the suit that they engaged in Fletcher suit pack It it was designed to settle every question at issue and Marshall himself commented on this when the case I fear before the court in Eighteen zero nine. He was overheard to say well. The just tastes seems designed to to settle every every point It's still. It's still unclear about this Georgia. Land sale well. You know people have been doing this for a long time. Well we regretfully brought plus versus because that case was a fine example of what we would consider Jurisprudence of Natural Law on Marshall's part and so actually the opportunity that you and I I had a chance to meet was when I asked a question at one of your book talks on the role that natural law plated informing the work of Marshall on the court for our listeners. If you might expound upon that don't k- sure well Where Marshall seems most often to to raise natural laws and contract cases He does this in this case we were just talking about Fletcher versus pack and eighteen. Ten He does it again. A bit in dirt must be Woodward in eighteen nineteen. This is another question of a dispute over a contract. Which which he says is what. The Charter of Dartmouth College is Dartmouth was was granted a charter in seventeen sixty nine It said there should be twelve trustees at a president the trustees could pick the president and they pick their successors so it was a self perpetuating organism and then after the war of eighteen twelve For political reasons. The State of New Hampshire passes a law Which which adds new trustees picked by the state and adds the board of overseers Abounds the trustees and they changed the name of the College Dartmouth University and the reason they do. This is that Dartmouth College was was a bigoted political organization They were all calvin. We're all federalists and the Republican Party. Which now controls the state of New Hampshire Thinks this is a terrible thing? They WANNA open education to all points of view. Now who could disagree with that That sounds like a wonderful thing. So they write this law to change the structure of Dartmouth College. The problem is that the the old regime at Dartmouth they say. Well no you know. We don't want to have a college open to all points of view. We want our college to be opened. Our of view and in our charter gives us that that power to do that. So so they sue for the you know the seal of the college and the original Charter of the college and so on so it becomes a case goes to the Supreme Court now and Marshall a rules in their favor such his respect for contract now a marshal seems to be so he seems to me to be so concerned about this based on his experience of life between Independence and the ratification of the constitution. From seventeen seventy five. Seventy six on the states are now independent. The colonies are now states. They're independent. They don't have to answer to royal governors or London anymore. They're on their own. And some marshals point of view there was just chaos of lawmaking and he was a state state legislator during this period so he saw it firsthand. And you had legislatures that practiced rotation term limits. You'd get a new crop of people every time there wasn't election they'd undo laws. The last crop passed or they changed them. It was just going back and forth and back and forth and Marshall's phrase was that destroyed confidence between man and man what he meant by. That is people. People didn't know where they stood. They couldn't count on anything. They couldn't plan on anything. Because if you you know if you made some sort of deal Or arrangement with an eye to what the law was at that moment is going to change you know and there you were and so you were either afraid the wall was GonNa Change or maybe you hope you could get a change to benefit yourself. You know to get you off the hook somehow at team to Marshall that everything was see this was this was one of his main reasons for For wanting a new constitution something that would reign in this reckless lawmaking on the part of the states and he calls Article One section ten which includes the contract but says it's forbids the states from impairing the obligation of contracts and says he call set and Fletcher Versus Beck and I thought this was so audacious. He calls this bill of rights for the people say Now you know we think of the bill of Rights. We think of the first ten amendments and we think of freedom of speech freedom of the press no establishment of religion Right to keep and bear arms. You know now. Unreasonable searches and seizures. We think of those as that's what we think of as the bill of rights and what the average person would say is the bill right but Marshall is saying no before these amendments passed. There was already a bill of rights and the Constitution and one of its provisions was the contract clause forbidding the states from comparing the obligation of contracts in other words. If you sign your name to it if you put it out in black and white there it is and you have to.
"marshall court" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"Of a an account of the story and so two but to make this visit to the reader to me. I decided to for each one of these cases to go back however far that would be to catch the story at the beginning of it. And sometimes this not going back to colonial times The obvious examples Dartmouth Woodward and this is a case decided in eighteen nineteen. It's a fight over the governance of the college but The story begins Before the revolution when Dartmouth I gets its charter from George. The third and and the case will be decided based on the language of that charter and the structure that it set up at Marshall's decision that this this was a contract and therefore Something that the constitution prevents the states from impairing under Article One section ten. But but so I take it back to the very beginning and then carry the story up and similarly with you know with all the other cases the Cherokee cases where we have to start with what were the relations of the of the Cherokees With the United States Up to the point they get in legal trouble Gibbons Viagra and the steamboat case or or why did we have steamboats in the United States? Who invented them? When and how How did this monopoly? That's being challenged in the case got established in the first place and You know it it makes the story more queer. A lot of fun Sometimes they're real characters involved in these cases Some of the some of the back story is pretty jaw-dropping Fletcher versus pack cited by the Court and eighteen ten. This is This is a another contract case. Really the first important one and that begins begins the crooked land deal in the state of Georgia in seventeen ninety five. The state of Georgia is broke They sell thirty five million acres of land for a penny and a half an acre for land companies which were formed for the purpose of taking advantage of this sale and it turned out that every single member of the Georgia legislature that approved. This was bribed. The going rate for their vote was a thousand dollars and one guy took only six hundred dollars and he said well. I wasn't greedy. That's why they helped on my extra four hundred dollars. I mean it's it's it's it's entertaining you know and then you should be entertaining should I hope it does entertain the reader. But but these are also you know these. Are It also shows how porno these cases are because people? Don't go to court over nothing. You know. People would rather not do that most of them they go to court either because they really want something or they're really afraid of something you know. They're afraid of being cheated there or they're afraid of going to jail cases Aaron burr his treason trial. He would have been an act that you know if he'd lost that was the penalty for treason so he was fearful of his life and You know on the other hand people people want money Jefferson thought burner was a trader. He wanted him punished So so they're they're they're powerful motives On either side and I wanted to be able to capture not only the entertainment but the drama every one of these cases. Well we envisioned this conversation jumping around the book a little bit and I hope we get to talk about Some of those cases and the figures and the drama as well. But as this is the James Wilson Institute podcast and we have a nice robust constituency of lawyers judges and clerks judges among among them. We thought we would first focus on the most general question of how Marshall approached his role as a judge he approached it. I think I'll use the word conservative late. You know. Not Trying to invoke either side in in either current political debates or the political debates of his time. I mean this literally in the sense that as a judge you deal with cases. That's all you deal with. It was interesting to me before Marshall even get on the court in the decade or so that the Supreme Court existed before he got the job of chief justice there were several instances where the president or Congress s Supreme Court to do other things. You know asked for advice on Some PD question or asked to supervise tension. Requests of revolutionary war veterans. There were several instances. And then all those instances the court said now you know. We're not going to be Jack of all trades. Our job here is to be the Supreme Court for cases that arise before the federal judiciary. That's what we do. That's all we do at that informs marshalls behavior. He you know. He sits there with his colleagues five of them. At first and later they become sixth court increases from six to seven justices and they wait to see what lands and their laps. Now you know. They're not. They're not blindfolded here. They they are aware of what's happening in the legal universe. And they're certainly aware of the politics that that swirls around them but they he added they are there to decide cases now the the innovation that he's often credited with and this is in his. You know his first monumental case Marlboro versus Madison at eighteen now. Three this is the first time that the court strikes down. A portion of a law passed by Congress And this is Yeah this is rightly considered a landmark decision. I wonder if it isn't a little over emphasized because Marshall wasn't making the doctrine of judicial review out of whole cloth in eighteen. O three right. This is already a concept that people understood. It was already out there Alexander Hamilton had written about it and the last of the federalist papers where he covers the judiciary at the end of the series Marshall himself had spoken about it at the Virginia ratifying convention in the summer of seventeen eighty eight. He was one of the delegates to that convention which was going to approve or disapprove the key the new constitution for the state of Virginia. And he he was pro-constitution then he gives a speech one of the speeches. He gives us on the judiciary and in the course of that speech. He does expert on the principle of judicial review and There was even before Marshall even gets on the court the there was a case in the seventeen ninety s involving the constitutionality of a tax on carriages Now it turned out of the court decided to this tax was okay but they were certainly in a position. Since the question came up to go on the other way so the que- the constitutionality of a law had appeared. Ask a question before the court before Marshall even gets on the court so yes margarite is is. It is an important decision. It is First Time it's done and then it's very rarely done there after I mean the the most famous time it's done as dreads Scotney. Seven this is this is decades after Marshall is has died and a A A judge pointed to me after my book came out. There were a couple of cases with the Marshall Court decided in the eighteen twenties having to do with WHO owned It was either the shoreline or the islands and Mobile Bay. Was it still the federal government or was state of Alabama? This is after. It's become a state and the court There had been a law passed by Congress implying that the federal government could still dispose of these lamps and then the court set now. He can't do that. It's now state Alabama's now state therefore it has control over these lands so the point is there was another. There was another instance of the court. overruling a portion of a law passed by Congress much less famous or notorious and dread Scott but But my only point is. This wasn't happening a lot but It was a principal that was that was already understood and and Marbury famous. Because it's the first time it's actually made real. Yeah I see it as as twofold one. You Misunderstood more being twofold. Fold one as you articulate the misunderstanding that the case established judicial review merely articulated. How it was always They're in the constitution under our constitutional scheme but the second is this strange misunderstanding. That judicial review means judicial supremacy. And how when the court decides Case it is binding as a constitutional amendment is passed through the power and logic of the supremacy of the Supreme Court within our judicial system. If you can talk a little bit about why what why there exists that confusion well Certainly other branches Have have challenged that notion that you just articulated marshals on lifetime. Andrew Jackson.
"marshall court" Discussed on James Wilson Institute Podcast
"Hello my name is Garrett's networker. Welcome to the James Wilson podcast. Today we're joined by Richard Brooke. Eiser Richard is the author of many biographies of the American founders. Most recently he has written a biography of the great chief justice. John Marshall the man who made the Supreme Court from Basic Books Richard. It's a pleasure to be speaking with you. I'm joined by one of our interns for the James Wilson Institute Josh Hero and were just overjoyed to be able to speak with you before we dive into our questions. We noted that in your acknowledgment section. You mentioned one of the close friends of our founder and director. Happy arcus as one of the influences that you're writing a book Michael Woman and so before we get into the book itself. We were hoping you can tell us a little more about how our DEA friend Michael was a helped you writing the book well. He was very helpful. He steered me towards The best the Marshall Scholarship I never even watched to law school so I was coming to this from the outside and that that's an obvious disadvantage. I think it's an advantage because it means that I am looking at everything crash and I have to make sure that I understand it myself. Which helps me in explaining it to most of my readers who are also going to becoming to it as non-lawyers on Kamla professors about But that means I need some helpful Indians to Just guide me through the Marshall. Scholarship and Michael Uelmen was was certainly very helpful. steered me towards The best box Marsha books out there which is one of the reasons I decided to do. He seemed to be relatively under done considering his importance. And there are excellent books on him. But it's not like someone who's been president for instance or war Benjamin Franklin or Alexander Hamilton. Even before the musical there there was just a lot more about all these guys and relatively little for the great chief justice so So that will seem like free field and Michael UELMEN was one of the Expert Helpers who gave me a map of that before I punched him excellent. I think your your book is very clearly written to an audience. That is familiar with Marshall. But you don't really take for granted the reader's knowledge. Would you be able to tell us a little bit about the narrative framing process that you employ in the book and why you specifically made decisions to focus on Marshall and his relationships and what is it exactly about his personal connections that served as a backdrop for discussing Marshall's understanding of law and politics overall? Well I thought to personal relationships which were most important to his public career were first his early contact and his almost boundless admiration for George Washington. And that's second his lifelong animosity with his second cousin. Once removed Thomas Jefferson which was returned in spades by Jefferson. Marshall volunteered at the age of nineteen for the Virginia militia. In seventeen seventy five this as soon as the news of of Lexington and concord it spread throughout the colony and then the following year. He joined the continental army and he was in free. Battles Washington demanded it Brandy Wine Germantown in the fall. Seventeen seventy seven monmouth courthouse. In the summer. Seventy eight and between Germantown and MONMOUTH. He was at the Winter Encampment Valley forge where Washington was also in command show. He saw the commander in chief and victory. He saw them defeat and he saw him in this very trying winter and his conclusions from these firsthand. Experiences was that Washington was the man who had guided us through the revolution. He was the man who saw through. Who who made it a success and he never forgot that it was imprinted upon him when Washington at the end of the war returns this commission. Congress in December. Seventeen eighty three Captain Marshall Rights as old school. Fellow James Monroe and he called Washington the greatest man on earth and that was an opinion he would never change and he would follow. Washington's lead throughout the rest of his life When when it becomes a question whether we need a new constitution in seventeen eighty seven? Eighty Eight He is one of the lesser followers of Washington pushing for the ratification of the new constitution. decade later WASHINGTON summons him to Mount Vernon to basically ordered him to run for Congress when our first two party system has already developed federalists of of Washington and Adams Hamilton versus the first Republican Party of Jefferson amount and again Marshall follows Washington. He is a federalist and he agrees After some persuading To RUN FOR CONGRESS. And He is the congressman who tells Congress a year later that Washington has died and he calls him first in war first in peace. I in the hearts of this country and this is an attitude that he would keep for the rest of his life. The only book ever rights as a five volume biography of Washington the policy preferences that he has as chief justice are those of the federalist. Party He believes In a federal government in which in crucial respects the federal government has supremacy over the state governments He believes in the Commercial Revolution The Hamilton Vision A lot of a lot of that. The hammel Tony and vision is sustained by Supreme Court decisions that Marshall Issues so this is the lifelong fact of his encounter with George Washington. Now the the other important man is his cousin. Thomas Jefferson and the animosity. The animosity begins in the Washington Administration when when Jefferson is Washington's secretary of State It it exists. Swin Jefferson is struggling with Hamilton over Hamilton's financial program. Jefferson is very skeptical of it He he is skeptical of it. On the merits he also thinks unconstitutional. They have such thing as a bank of the United States Hamilton argues brilliantly. That this is an implied power under the constitution and the reasoning that Marshall Himself Will Echo in eighteen nineteen when he decides McCall versus Maryland which relates to the second bank the United States. But what really turned him against his cousin is Jeffersons attitude to the French Revolution Like the other members of Jefferson's party Jefferson believes this isn't on alloyed. Good thing he never turned against the French Revolution. Even through the reign of terror. The only point at which he finally abandoned says faith and that is what Napoleon takes over but for that first decade of the French revolution from seventeen eighty nine To to the end of the century Jefferson Madison his Bernie. They are all in for the French revolution and they seem to Marshall to be as patriotic towards France as they are towards the United States. If not more so and this is Tha Marshall Unacceptable He believes that the Jefferson is lacking in proper patriotism. Any also feels he's been disloyal secretary of state president want because although he terry's out Washington's neutrality policy officially he's also trying to undermine on the side and These are unforgivable offensive to Marshall. Both because he's a patriot and kneels during the revolution and he is such an admire of Washington so after the seventeen ninety four him. Thomas Jefferson is permanently in his in his black letcher. There is no possibility that Jefferson can ever come back for him. So those were the you know. Those are the personal relationships that I Ramified through Marshall's life now the other the other structural decision I made I mean writing a biography is. There's something very easy about it because they all have a similar shape. I mean there's a person who's born and then he does stuff and he dies right the structure you don't you don't get away from it. But the the one modification for this particular book is that in Marshall's most important career which is chief justice. This is the last More than a third of his life thirty four years from eighteen eighteen thirty five where he is chief justice that careers memorable largely because of a number of landmark decisions that he hands out and that his court agrees with so these cases are very important and each one of them. I realized is a short story They only come to the Supreme Court at the end of their course. That's when they've you know who the parties have been fighting about. Whatever it is they go to court. It comes through the lower courts finally at arrives at the Supreme Court and the Marshall Court decides what it decides bad and the justices are interested in that they are interested in the arguments that are presented to them. Now of course there's also politics swirling around a Lotta these cases. They're also aware of that but they come in at the climax.
"marshall court" Discussed on WDRC
"Back to the LARs Larson show. It is a pleasure to be with you and a special pleasure to speak with Richard Brooke is from national review, the author of many other biographies that you should read. But the one most late the most most recent one is John Marshall the man who made the supreme court. So here's John Marshall appointed to the supreme court as chief Justice by the lame duck president John Adams as he's leaving office and Thomas Jefferson is coming in. What was he real as reluctant to take on that post as he had been to take on running for congress at the behest of George Washington, his hero. Well, you know, I think he saw he saw the importance of the political moment. But the federalist party had just been shellacked. The election of eighteen hundred was a Blue Wave Jefferson and his party. They had taken the White House. They had flipped both houses of congress. The. The only branch of the federal government in which federalists still prevailed was the judiciary. Because that's who all the judges were. They'd all been appointed by Washington or Adams, so Marshall saw this as a very important job to have politically. And he's also, you know, he's been a lawyer all his adult life, and I think he's confident in his legal abilities and legal opinions. So I think he he probably took the on in the spirit of the soldier. He had been during the revolution. Here's my. Here's my new set of orders. Let me go. Do this job. Now, he did he see in the supreme court something that truly would be made into something. Great. And not as John J side is this this place with no dignity, and no wait and no consequence because these days, you know, how Americans view this the announcement of a new supreme court decision on virtually anything is is viewed as as extraordinarily consequential. And and something that is effectively lifelong meaning when they make a decision because of starry decisive. You're you're probably going to be stuck with that decision in that interpretation of the constitution for at least several decades before it will be looked at again these days. Right. Well, one change that Marshall makes mmediately in the first ten or eleven years. So the supreme court justices gave their opinions on a case one after another call Syria. Oh, the first Justice would read his opinion on the second would read his you'd go through the whole court. The Marshall court began to give opinions of the court usually read by the chief Justice sometimes read by other justices, and these were often unanimous opinions now justices were perfectly free to give either currencies or descents that could currencies when they agree with the majority opinion, but they've got a slightly different take. So they you know, they they give a concurrence or if they disagree with it. They they give a descent, and so those still happened -cational. But for the most part, you're getting unanimous opinions many in some delivered by the chief Justice himself, and this imparts a kind of a wait to the whole court. It's not just a collect. It's makes it seem like it's not just a collection of individuals. It's a unified body. Giving a collective opinion on the law. The other justices object to this particular method of doing it. They realized that it would give their opinions more weight. There was one Jefferson appointee. William Johnson who who is kind of uneasy with this for many years, and at the end of of the end of his life. Marshall flight he begins to descend more frequently. But for the bulk of his time on the court. He goes along with this. And he has an interesting correspondence with Thomas Jefferson in the early eighteen twenty s this is almost twenty years into his own time on the court, and he explains to Jefferson how this process worked. He said when I first got on the court. I thought I'd give my own opinion. But then I just got lectures from all the other judges telling me, you know, if we were sniping at each other this this makes all of us, look bad. You know, you shouldn't do this. How accurate is this description? I mean, he's telling it to Jefferson who doesn't like the court periods. So maybe he's trying to tailor it to please his correspondent. But you know, certainly he had felt pressure to go along with his brother justices, and for the most part he done it. So. And I think this is a result of of Marshall's great skill and what you might call small P politics. You know, how to manage your colleagues how how to lead your colleagues, and he does it by being genial? I mean, that's just who he is. He everybody seems to like this guy, Thomas Jefferson, and he likes everybody. He does it by being deferential. If if there's some Justice who's more expert in a particular field of law. He will let that man do the decision let that now take the lead. And then of course, when you do that you get deference in return, then the third thing assistance quality of his mind, this intelligence that he had and it just impressed. His fellow justices. That impressed the lawyers who argued before him, and you know, you put all that together. And then you add in the fact that he just stays there year after year and. It it builds up this internal mystique of the court, which which is also public mystique people begin to to see it as this impressive body that we have to pay attention to the book. I'm speaking Richard Brooke Heiser, it's author about is John Marshall demand who made the supreme court. So Marshall is on the court for thirty years. This is a four thirty four still a record for chief Justice. It is an and well with longer lifetimes, these days view, suppose, we'll ever see that record eclipsed. Well, John roberts's pretty young. There have been a couple justices who've been on the court longer than Marshall. But but no chief Justice of all the cases he held you described them as dramatic cases England included involving businessman in scoundrels, a native Americans and slaves. What was the one that stood out to you? Well, they were so many of them were were interesting one that was both interesting back story and very consequential. What's your veep tack? In eighteen ten and this was a case about a land sale by the state of Georgia, Georgia sold off thirty million acres for a penny and a half an acre. This is what's now. The states of Alabama Mississippi Georgia was very poor state was the only way they could raise money. Now, the problem is every single legislator in the Georgia legislature had been bribed to make this sale happen. The going price was a thousand dollars a vote one guy took only six hundred dollars and he explained I wasn't greedy. You know, the people of Georgia got upset about this and elected a whole new crop of representatives. And then they passed a repeal act saying, Nope, we take this sale back, and we're going to forbid it from ever coming before. Georgia court anyone in a court in this state who treats this actors having been real will be fine two thousand dollars. So they're repealing it and squelching litigation in Georgia. You can read the history of all of it in John Marshall, the man who made the supreme court is author is Richard Brooke Heiser, Mr. is have been more than generous with your time. And thank you so much for this. And for all that you do for national review as well. Thank you for the time today. Okay. Thank you for having. It is a pleasure to have you on. You're listening to the LARs Larson show. Laursen show. This is FOX on Justice. There are five justices.
"marshall court" Discussed on 850 WFTL
"Federal government over the state courts. This is a fight that, you know, the powers of the federal government and the sovereignty of the states is something that has been for generation after generation right into our lifetimes. There are still some governors. Some state legislators who thinks think the states are sovereign and they're not the constitution made the federal government sovereign and John Marshall was the first declare that in a court case in US. The Peter as you said the next extension comes right after this. This is the case and that is about contracts also critical. What is the what are the issues there? Well. What happened was was a huge land scandal in in in Georgia where they bribed the whole legislation. Every member of the legislature has got a better price than the Louisiana purchase. I didn't think was possible to land scandal. Those of you read history with no with no that. But the entire legislature was was broad one of the one of the speculators was on named John Pecos sold. Some land to Robert Fletcher. And when the legislature was thrown out, everything they had done was declared illegal, so pack didn't have the right to to have this land. No and Pletcher sued him saying, hey, I bought this land from you, you you've got you've gotta by this contract. And it went up to the supreme court. Never supreme court said, yes. Hey, sorry about the corruption. But the the in voiding the law that canceling those sales it was a violation of article one of the constitution that prohibits states from passing any law. Impairing the obligation of contracts and contract law is in the constitution you sign a contract. You bite you own it. Let's go to eighteen nineteen the war between the war with Britain is over John Marshall is a critical player through all these years. There's lots of passion at the White House, but we come to the Dartmouth College versus Woodward. Eighteen nineteen this is again, John Marshall's court, and the issue here is does the state have the right to take land. Don't we live without today? Mahala we certainly do and states those a big case couple of years ago in which. State to see some land private land in new London, Connecticut for for private development, and the supreme court then up upheld a state, which kind of reverses this great Dartmouth College the Woodward state Dartmouth College was a private college, by the way, the the lawyer who fought and won this case was the famous Daniel Webster, and who was a graduate of Dartmouth alumnus when he took the case and the state had seized Dartmouth College turn to to make it into a state institution. Dartmouth so sued and and and one and. The famous line of Daniel Webster has allegedly had everybody. Cheers was it's it's a small college. But there are some of us as I said who love it. A dramatic. Hey said that he won one other in eighteen nineteen this is McCullough versus Maryland. And again, this comes to that famous phrase the supreme law of the land. The supreme court continues are the key is Marshall still creating this atmosphere around him. Yeah. This is this is probably with Marburg with Marbury v Madison. I think the most important.
"marshall court" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Thank you Lindsey for that introduction. Thank you all for coming out. I'm always glad to be speaking of the union league club because I was married here. Thirty eight years ago. Stole married. Same wife. I just wanna thank one person. That's the man tomb the book is dedicated Lewis Lehrman I met him in one thousand nine hundred eighty two covering him for national review when he was running for governor against Mario Cuomo. He lost that race. And we're still New York is still suffering from that onto the second generation but America has benefited because Liu was freed by that defeat to pursue his great love American history. And what he has done for American history over the years is is stellar with the Gilder Lehrman institute with the exhibition at the New York historical society in two thousand four and Alexander Hamilton we were for Hamilton before he was cool. So it was a great honor for me to be able to dedicate this book to him. Now, I'm sorry. The supreme court has been so out of the news in the last few months, but I'll try and make this talk relevant anyway. And the reason that it is in the news is alternately the fourth chief Justice, John Marshall. He was the man who made the federal judiciary the peer of the legislative the executive and says this morning, I just want to say a few things about him. Personally. I wanna talk about how he led the core. I wanna look at one of his important cases. And then I wanna talk about some of his critics both in his lifetime and afterwards. The most important thing to say about John Marshall is that even though he spent most of his adult life in Richmond. One month a year in Washington DC when the court was in session. Several years in Philadelphia, six months in Paris, but all his life. He was a country. Boy, he was born in faquir county Virginia the first house. He lived in was a log cabin. The second house was a frame house. The third house had glass in the windows. So this isn't it isn't quite Daniel Boone. It's not being on the frontier, but it was definitely a life in the country. And he retained his country habits and attitude all his life the word that people use over and over again to describe him is simple people meeting him for the first time people who knew him for years. They describe him a simple. He didn't care how he dressed when he was riding circuit in Raleigh, North Carolina. At one time. He forgot to pack a pair of pants. When he arrived, the local tailors were unable to supply, the lack. So he had to cover himself with his judicial robe all the time. He was there. He has hair was cut by his wife, if his wife hadn't cut it who knows what he would have looked like he had very simple attitudes towards drinking. He liked. He liked it a lot. When he became chief Justice, the court had a custom already that the justices when they deliberated they would hear cases during the day, then they would go to the boarding house. They were staying in disgust them over dinner, and after dinner the courts, custom was they could only have wine at these discussions, if it was raining outside my -ssume that was to cheer themselves up so Marshall when he became chief Justice. He would always ask one of his colleagues usually associate Justice story to look out the window and tell them what the weather was then brother story would say, well, this guy's perfectly clear and Marshall would say our jurisdiction is so vast by the law of chances it must be raining somewhere. So wine was always served to the Marshall court. Martial loved simple, exercise and simple games. He walked several miles before breakfast every day of his life. Until he simply became too feeble to do it anymore. His nickname in the army was silver heels that was partly because his mother sewed him socks with white patches in the heels. But it was also because he could jump over a bar resting on the heads of two, man. His favorite game was quite s-, which is like horseshoes only played with metal rings rather than horseshoes. And the point is to pitch them over a post called called a Meg and people who saw Marshall playing this game said that he would devote as much attention to deciding who's quite was closer to the MAG as as he would on his great supreme court decisions. The other important thing about him was who he most admired. One of the men was certainly his father Thomas Marshall, Thomas Marshall, home schooled him. Dedicated him to being a lawyer. But the other man that he admired was the father of his country. George Washington Marshall volunteered when he was nineteen years old to join the Virginia militia in seventeen seventy five and then the following year. He joined the continental army. He was in the revolution up till seventeen. Eighty one almost the entire length of it. He fought seven battles in three of them commanded by Washington. Brandy wine Germantown and Monmouth he also spent the winter at Valley Forge where Washington again was in command. So Marshall saw has commander in chief in defeat. He saw him in victory, and he saw them at this terrible winter encampment when the army was unclothed on fed an unpaid and Marshall's conclusion from these experiences was that Washington was the rock on which the revolu. Arrested. He was the man who who saw the project through who brought it to success when Washington returned his commission to congress at the end of the war in seventeen eighty three Marshall wrote a letter a few days later to an all friend of his and he said at length than the military career of the greatest man on earth is closed may happiness attend him wherever he goes whenever I think of that superior man my full heart overflows with gratitude. This is not a trivial feeling a martial followed Washington again after the war when it when Washington and other leaders decided that the American form of government needed to be changed the articles of confederation. Under which we declared our independence were not a sufficient to carry out the tasks that a government had to do. So we needed a new constitution. Washington presided over the constitutional convention in seventeen eighty seven then a year later, John Marshall was a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention where he took a strong pro-constitution sands. Stand Richard grew Kaiser from last November at an event hosted by the national review his book John Marshall, then he followed Washington again in seventeen ninety eight the first two party system had arisen the federalists versus the Republicans. The first Republican party is the ancestor of today's Democrats that was the party of Jefferson and Madison the federalists were the party of Washington Adams Alexander Hamilton. And Marshall was a federalist and in seventeen ninety eight Washington summoned him to mount Vernon and told him he had to run for congress. The federalist party was weak in Virginia and Washington thought it needed new younger blood Marshall didn't want to run because he was a lawyer in private practice is making good money. He had a growing family. He was buying land. He needed the income. So he kept refusing and then he decided I can't keep saying no to the greatest man on earth. I just have to get up at the crack of dawn and get out of here. But Washington had gotten up first and he put on his old uniform so Marshall as he put it he exceeded to this representation, he ran for congress. He won. And then it was from congress that president John Adams picked him to be secretary of state after he had a cabinet shakeup. And then at the end of Adams. Term Adams loses the election of eighteen hundred to Thomas Jefferson's their rematch Adams had beaten him narrowly in seventeen ninety six but eighteen hundred was Blue Wave. Jefferson won the White House and Jefferson's party took both houses of congress from the federalists. So in this lame duck period Adams and his secretary of state are trying to fill the federal judiciary with federalists. And then Adams gets a letter from the then current chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth Ellsworth said he had gout has health was bad. So he was leaving the job and Adams had to fill this post. So the Namie center the Senate was that of the first man to be chief Justice of the United States. John Jay, the great spymaster diplomat. Federalists paper, author j had been chief Justice from seventeen eighty nine to seventeen ninety five and then he'd left to be governor of New York so Adams Santa's name to the Senate on the Senate confirmed him, then Adam Scott, a letter from j saying he wasn't going to take the job Jay said, the federal judiciary lacks, energy, weight and dignity. He wasn't going to be chief Justice again. So we have to imagine Adams and John Marshall sitting in Adams's office in the still unfinished White House the exterior shell is done. But the the interior is a construction site and Adams says to Marshall who shall I nominate now in Marshall said, I don't know, sir. Now Adams thought for a minute said, I believe all nominate you so this is how John Marshall gets the job in February eighteen o one. The other man who's very important in Marshall's life is the winner of the election of eighteen hundred Thomas Jefferson Marshall, second cousin once removed Marshall detests him and Jefferson hates him. In return Marshall, didn't hate many people Jefferson hated a fair number of people. But Marshall was always high on his list in Jefferson's mine. Marshall was a so I he would twist anything to a predetermined legal conclusion Marshall Jefferson warned Joseph story before he got on court that you must never give a direct answer to any question that Marshall asks you if he asked me if the sun were shining. I would say, I don't know, sir. I cannot tell Marshall thought that Jefferson was a demagogue that he talked a great game about letting congress run things, but he was secretly. Directing it behind the scenes and riding waves of popular sentiment to serve his own popularity. He also thought that Jefferson had been disloyal secretary of state serving George Washington's foreign policies with one hand while undermining them with another. So in March eighteen o one the one cousin. The new chief Justice swears in the other cousin the new president. Now Marshall comes onto a court. They're only six justices in those days. There are all federalists. They've all been appointed by Washington or Adams. But in only eleven years after Jefferson's administration and James Madison's, the partisan balance of the court has changed from two federalists to five Republicans Congress's increase the size of the court to seven so federalists had died or retired and they had all been replaced by Republican judges. And yet all these Republican justices followed Marshall's lead. So how did he do that? I think the first reason was the simplicity I talked about his genial Maddox. He liked his colleagues his colleagues liked with like being with him. And this is the irreducible basis of success in any political field. Marshall also practice deference if there were colleagues who were more expert in areas of law than he was he would let them take the lead. If it was admiralty law would be just a story if it was the land titles. It would be Justice Todd then when you show deference you get difference in return. So it's not just the right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do. A third factor. Was that Marshall was always the smartest man in the room. And many of his colleagues were brilliant jurists themselves, but they all acknowledged his superiority his mind was not quick it took him a while to get going..
"marshall court" Discussed on KOA 850 AM
"Radio three seventeen taking questions about. Well for the mayor, and then what you stink at history. It's very simple people. There's two things on deck. Make use of both of them. Kevin you're on KOA NewsRadio. Hey mandate. I got a question for mayor Hancock, Denver sanctuary city. And does he really believe that the majority of Denver residents support that infuriates me when elected officials decide they're gonna flaunt the law and try to tell everybody that it makes makes the city safer, which is a crock. Question. Okay. Thank you, very much, sir. Three zero three seven one three eighty five eighty five. Hi, doug. Hey, how's it going? I just doing a show. Great where I love your show. Thank you say when you talk to the mayor. I would like to ask him what his opinion of the new governor's. Incredibly radical. Way that he's going to possibly bring us into the complete green energy and renewable energy by twenty twenty six. I believe. Yeah. And how in the heck is that going to be possible? And why the hell why would you even do that mostly well, and by the way, I think that Jared police's plan is kicked out to twenty forty? So it's not that. It's it's aggressive and ridiculous. But it's not overly aggressive and ridiculous. Just somewhat overly aggressive and ridiculous. But I will be sure and ask about renewable energy because for a city like Denver that needs that power to go. I can have a very big impact on people's power bills and things like that. So yeah, I think that's a really good a good question. Doug. Okay. Thank you, my friend. Yes. And you were on KOA NewsRadio. Well, my first comment was you're not getting more history things because you don't know what you don't know. Correct. No. But I like John the Marshall court. I knew what it was. But I don't know anything about John Marshall, you know. So it's like I have just enough knowledge to know. I don't know anything whether used to be a show on PBS probably twenty five thirty years ago. I think it was called connections would take one one thread, and and then drag it out as to how it affected history throughout the world. And it would say a sled in Germany that caused the rice crop to crash made them explorer, and they discovered chemicals in South American Chile, and then they use those chemicals. And that's why the color of their flag is. And it it taught taught history and a interesting way. Dave just said, it's James Burks connections. Is that that that was it that it.
"marshall court" Discussed on KOA 850 AM
"And joining me now is the author of a new book on the Marshall court specifically, John Marshall, Richard Burke, is our has written a book, very simply called John Marshall, the man who made the supreme court, Richard. Thanks for making time for me today. Thanks for having me. Well, first of all I have to ask what inspired you to write about John Marshall? Now, obviously you've written about many many of our founding fathers. But what was it that drew you to John Marshall? I think that he was underdone. He's a very important man in our history. Obviously, the supreme court is a very important thing. And and has I argue he was he was the chief Justice who who made it appear of the executive and the legislative branch, and yet he's relatively underdone there there many fewer books about him than other founding fathers. And so I saw a gap and thought I'd saw do you feel like he belongs in the category of founding father. Anyway, he's the youngest, you know, he's the youngest one. He's he's born in seventeen fifty five. So he's sees twenty years younger than George Washington. He's ten or eleven years younger than Thomas Jefferson. He's about the age of Alexander Hamilton. But unlike you know, poor Hamilton who shot and killed in his late forties. Marshall. L marches on until he's almost eighty and he sits on the supreme court all that time. So he he's a man of the revolutionary era of the founding, but he marches on into the age of Andrew Jackson now before John Marshall took over and he was the longest running chief Justice of the court thirty four years still a record. What was the role of the supreme court at the prior to John Marshall? Well, I it can be summed up in one story. And this is one John Adams is finishing his term. He has lost his reelection campaign to Thomas Jefferson, so he's a lame duck. And he is trying to appoint people to jobs who belong to his party. The federalist party, which is just got its clock cleaned. They've lost the White House. They've lost both houses of congress. So you have to imagine. John Adams in the still unfinished White House. He's the first president to occupy it. But it isn't even quite done yet. And he gets a letter from the chief Justice a man name Oliver Ellsworth is third person to hold that job. And all's worth skis got gout and kidney stones. And he says my health is bad. I gotta quit. So Adams offers the job to the first man who held it. That was John J he was chief Justice from seventeen eighty five to seventeen ninety five. Great patriot. He helped write the federalist papers. He was a diplomat. He was a spy master eminent, man. He sends Jay's name to the Senate the Senate confirms J then he gets a letter from saying, I'm not gonna take this job. Oh nice. I already had it. And the his exact words were it lacks, energy, weight and dignity. So there you have it from that. That was his comment about being a supreme court Justice being the chief Justice of the supreme court. For six years. I'm not going back there. It lacks energy weight and dignity. So that was the that was how the court was viewed it had issued a few important decisions. But it didn't have a lot of cases. It's decisions were very badly reported. The justices had to not only be supreme court justices. They also had to ride circuit. Now. This is something they didn't tell the eighteen sixties. But you you can imagine the state of the roads in this country in the seventeen ninety sure, you know, chief Justice having to cover like all of New England. In addition to the time that he goes to the nation's capital and sits on the supreme court, and it was j just thought it was a pain in the neck. I'm not gonna do this again. So then do then we go back to John Adamson his office in the White House. And he's he's talking this over with his secretary of state who is. John Marshall, and he says to Marshall who shall I nominate down Marshall says, I don't know sir Adams thinks a little bit. And he says, I believe all nominate you. That's how John Marshall gets the job in in eighteen zero one. So was he even an attorney at the time. Yeah. He'd been in private practice in Virginia. He was very successful wine. He was making good money. He'd been reluctant to hold office in the federal government because he was making good money family. And he was also, you know, buying land. He you know, we needed to make the money. The reason he he got in the federal government. Now, this is going back to years is that George Washington who'd Bennis commander during the revolutionary war summoned him to mount Vernon and basically ordered him to run for congress because their political party. The federalist party was having trouble in their home state Virginia and Washington wanted a young attractive man like Marshall to to run for. For congress and Marshall says now, and he says now and this goes on for several days, and then finally Marshall decides I can't keep this up. I can't keep saying no to George Washington. I I have to get up at the crack of dawn and just leave. But the story goes that Washington got up first and accosted him on the Piazza mount Vernon innocent uniform and asked him one more time and Marshall had to say yes to that. So basically, it's one of those positions at the time where somebody didn't show up for meeting, and they were volunteers hold that. They were going to be chief Justice because nobody actually wanted the job. Well, yeah. Sort of like that. So you know, Marshall goes he wins this race for congress. And so he's in congress, and then it's from congress John Adams picks him to be secretary of state. And then that's why he's sitting in says with president Adams when Adams opens his letter from John Jay and finds Jay doesn't want the job. So the job goes to this forty five year old. Old Virginian veteran and lawyer John Marshall. Wow. Wow. In a few weeks later, he has to inaugurate the new president Thomas Jefferson who is his second cousin wants remote. And they detest each other. This gets better. And better you I have to say Richard, you, we like to think of the current political era as unprecedented, and it's sort of a level of soap operas and what I'm hearing is. No, it's always been some kind of chicanery going on. There's always bad. I mean, look it was worse by people fought duels that right? The politicians when Dick Cheney shot that guy. It was an accident. And he lived vice president Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Liberty died. So. So let me jump ahead just a little bit too. When did John Marshall really become the what was it an intentional process? Then he elevated the status of the court. How did that process occur? Well, yeah, I think it was intentional. Now. Part of this is political but Marshall was belong to the federalist party. Which is I said had just been hosed in the elections of eighteen hundred they had lost all three elective branches of government, the White House the Senate and the house of representatives. So where were they left? They were left on the supreme court the supreme court then had only six members and they'd all been appointed by federalists president. So there were six federalist justices of the supreme court. But you know, the Thomas Jefferson is the new president. And he's followed by his best friend James Madison, who's followed by James Monroe, and they're all. Of the new other party. The the van was called the Republican party. It's the ancestor of today's democratic. But so time passes justices, retire and die. And then and only eleven years. The supreme court has only two federalist justices and Scott five Republicans it's grown from six to seven. But there's five new Republican justices on it. And yet all these men end up agreeing with John Marshall. Now, how does that happen? Several reasons one reason is and it's it's, you know, easy to overlook, but it's very important Marshall likes people and people like him. He's a genial warm easygoing man in his personal relations when he comes on as chief Justice. There's a tradition on the court that when the justices deliberate, you know, they'll hear their cases during the day. And then they'll go back to the boarding house where they're staying and they'll talk about it. And they'll have had supper they could the tradition was they could only have wine if it was raining. Cheer them up. Themselves up. It wasn't raining. No why. Sure. No Marshall Marshall always asks one of his colleagues brothers story. Will you look out the window and tell us what the weather is. And you know story we'll say, well, it's a beautiful clear sunset and Marshall will say our jurisdiction is so vast that it must be raining. Wine is always served with the Marshall court. You know, he knows how to spread in an era of good feeling around him. He's he's also very differential. They're justices who are expert in areas of law, which he is not he will let them take the lead like land titles. That would go to Justice Todd if it's admiralty law that would go to Justice story. And then he gets a deference in return, of course. But then the the most important thing is Marshall is always the smartest man in the room. And this is just something that everyone acknowledges, including colleagues of his who were very smart themselves, and the lawyers who argued before the supreme court who were also smart we're talking about people like Daniel Webster. But they all said this guy's mind when it gets going. It was just unstoppable. One one man who became. Attorney general said his mind was like the Atlantic Ocean everybody else's minds were mere pods. Wow. So that's how he converts them. All so let let me ask this question. How did he was very much pro central government and a lot of his rulings protected growing government power? So do we blame John Marshall for where we are today? You know, you could say that. But you could also blame George Washington right because because he was a very PAM's on powerful chief executive. Yes, he's pro central government in the context of his time, which is very different from ours. One of Marshall's last important decisions Barron v Baltimore is not a centralizing decision. He says the Bill of rights does not apply to the states. You know that the prohibitions on established religion, the guarantees freedom of the press so on and so on those all apply to the federal government. They do not apply to state governments. So that's a pretty, you know, sweeping session of of power and authority to state governments. And that only gets on done begins to get on with the fifteenth fourteenth and fifteenth amendments and how those are interpreted in the twentieth century, right? Now. But he's also, you know, what he sees himself doing? It's not that he sees himself so much being in favor of the central government as he is that, but he's also in favor of specific things like contracts, he thinks that article one section ten which forbids the states from impairing the obligation of contract. It's known as the contract clause. And he thinks that is a very important thing in the constitution. Because he saw the states after independence before the constitution was written. You know, just passing blizzards of legislation changing the laws from one session to another undoing obligations that they had made, you know, issuing charters, then re sending them this kind of thing. And he just thought that that was legal and economic chaos and he wanted in case. Cases that came before him to establish the principle that if you sign a contract you signed it, you know, you better think before you do it. Because once once you're down in black and white and fat is a contract, and a state cannot come along later and just tear this up, and he has, you know, two of his important cases on this one was Fletcher versus pack in eighteen ten that had to do with the land sale that the state of Georgia had done they'd sold thirty five million acres for a penny and a half an acre. And then it turned out all the legislators have been bride and all the voters didn't like that. So the elected a new set and then the new set set..