Robert Mccloskey Case

“While the authors of the United States Constitution are frequently portrayed as noble and idealistic statesmen who drafted a document based upon their conception of good government, reality is that the constitution reflects the politics of the drafting and ratification process. Unfortunately, the result is a document that is designed to produce an ineffective government, rather than a government that can respond to issues in a timely fashion.” In support of this conclusion, the issues of slavery, The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake, and the civil rights struggle keenly demonstrate the ways in which our constitution hinders the expediency and effectiveness of America’s government. The constitution’s provisions towards voting eligibility and

The late 1700s and early 1800s was a critical time period in American history in which our newly independent nation was beginning to lay down the groundwork for how the country would run. During this time, America was in its infancy and its crucial first steps would dictate how the nation would either walk, run, or retreat. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Unites States, was a highly important and influential political figure whose decisions forever molded the future of the American judicial system. Like many other great political figures, much of John Marshall’s influence can be attributed to timing; he emerged just as the United States Constitution came into existence.

In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

An understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment begins not in Congress, but in the history leading up to the Civil War. The first crucial story in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment is the striking changes in the law of race relations that took place in the North - especially in Bingham’s home state of Ohio - in the dozen or so years before the Civil War began. The second story is about the South, and the legal repression and brutal racial violence that took place there immediately after the Civil War ended (Finkelman, 2003).

Currie, D. (1992), the Constitution in the Supreme Court: The First Hundred Years, 1789-1988, Pges152-155 (Univ. of Chicago).

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

Throughout the history of the United States, the decisions made by leaders of the past have become precedents for the rest of us throughout history and even now in the present. The United States in its most juvenile state was vulnerable to both the outside world and its own internal obstacles. The fourth Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall stood as a paradigm to the rest of the nation setting new precedents for the nation that would hold their power throughout history thus far. Chief Justice John Marshall existed as one of the most pivotal characters in history because his Supreme Court rulings developed new standards involving national supremacy over state’s rights, the roles of the Supreme Court and Congress, and the Constitutional roots

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Distinctive within American history, the duration in which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953 to 1969) witnessed a vigorous court fearless to challenge controversial issues. Changing the way Americans today perceive their relationship with their government, an activist court did much to expand the rights of the individual and the power of the federal government to enforce civil rights legislation. Not since then has the Supreme Court generated so much power in shaping American culture. And because of all what Earl Warren has done he is remembered as one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history. Through all the cases during Earl Warren’s tenure I strongly believe that

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

These source texts address the enduring issue concerning checks and balances by relating our undemocratic Supreme Court with democracy. These issues clearly reflect how prescient our founding fathers were in generating a set of founding principles enabling posterity to grapple with new and evolving situations that could not have been foreseen in the context of the times when our founding documents were written. Luckily, our system of checks and balances is closely aligned with democracy, and in most cases, provides useful direction in resolving the tension between the old and new issues. The argument that the Supreme Court is undemocratic is well supported because Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and because

In this famous quote, Justice Stevens accurately describes the Constitution as “a mysterious document.” Just a few pages of parchment long, the United States Constitution dictates the function and operation of a vast system of governance, and is filled with phrases and clauses that can be interpreted and manipulated countless ways. However, the idea that “the Constitution is so vague that no one really knows what it permits and what is prohibits” is an even more accurate description of the chief problem of the document. This reformulation of Justice Stevens’ quote accurately portrays the core dilemma of Constitutional decision making. While judicial opinions are largely based off of the personal opinions of the justices, this drawback is an inevitable part of the Court’s role.

Acclaim for asserting the United States Supreme Court as a substantial participant in the American structure of government has been ascribed to the guidance of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. By 1835, the Supreme Court had attained a level of equality with the prowess and prestige as that of Congress and the Executive that was not present before John Marshall was appointed to the position. Central to this development was the Court 's adoption of the Constitution as its distinct reserve. Chief Justice John Marshall utilized judicial review to eliminate the Supreme Court from the socio-political conflicts in government and to institute the rule of law based on the principles established in the Constitution of the Unites States. Marshall and his colleagues erected the Court 's recognized power by effectively affirming an assertion to explain the Constitution and subsequently supplant the Constitution as supreme law in the commonplace sequence of arbitration and by the end of his judgeship firmly supplanted the Supreme Court’s role in the U.S. system of government.