Why Is The Marshall Court Important

Another important court case, Gibbons v. Ogden, happened in 1824. Ogden controls a ferry business in New York. However, because of the Eerie Canal, Ogden can travel to other states, which would be interstate trade. Gibbons, a person also wanting to create an industry in transportation, decides to sue Ogden. Gibbons wins, and this case creates national supremacy over interstate trade.

Throughout history, many cases have gone beyond local courts and have reached Supreme Court. One of the most famous cases to reach Supreme Court is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury v. Madison was a case that was fought because James Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. In return, Marbury had petitioned for a writ of mandamus in order to receive his commissions. The Supreme Court had reinforced the “Marbury” decision in many cases, for example McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and United States v. Le Baron.

In the early years of the eighteenth Century, the young United States of America were slowly adapting to the union and the way the country was governed. And just like the country, the governmental powers were starting to develop. Since the creation of the Constitution and due to the Connecticut Compromise, there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Power. But the existence of those powers was not always that naturally. In these crucial times, the Judicial Power had problems controlling the other powers. It was a challenge for the Supreme Court to exercise the powers granted by the new Constitution. Federal Government was not generally appreciated and

In Marbury v. Madison, he led the Court in striking down an act of Congress that was in conflict with the Constitution, legitimizing the doctrine of judicial review. Over the course of his thirty-four year term, Marshall oversaw numerous landmark cases, his decisions in which played an undeniably critical role in the early development of American law. Thanks to his firm hand and consistent principles, he was able to secure the institutional power of the Supreme Court in the face of staunch Jeffersonian opposition—affirming its place as an equal among the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the

In United States v. McBratney (1881), McBratney tried to argue that the federal government had no authority over a crime that occurred on Indian Territory, despite the fact that both parties were white. The Court ruled that since Colorado had not expressly renounced jurisdiction over the Ute Indian

The Marshall Trilogy is a term used to describe the three federal court cases that are the basis of federal Indian Law. John Marshall was the Chief of Justice during this time and he played a significant role in these cases. John Marshall and other justices believed that Native American tribes should be allowed to retain their independent “nations” status, and only the Federal Government would have the power to relate with them.

filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an action challenging the authority of Georgia's laws. The Cherokees disputed that the laws desecrated their chief rights as a nation and criminally interfered into their treaty relationship with the United States. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the court held that it did not have the authority to strike down Georgia's laws. In dicta that became particularly important in American Indian law, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokees constituted a "private, dependent nation" that existed under the custody of the United States.

     In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820's, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, "Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it."

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

By the 1830s, the Americans wanted to expand their territory. To do so, meant taking-over ancestral lands from the Native Americans. In the court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Cherokees fought for defense against the Indian Removal Act and against the Georgia Legislature's nullification of Cherokee laws. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had "an unquestionable right" to their lands, although they were not a foreign state. According to the Constitution, the Cherokee nation, a domestic and dependent nation, could not sue in a United States court over Georgia's voiding their right to self-rule. Although it was a devastating case for the Cherokee nation against Georgia, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act. In 1830 a Georgia law had required whites in the territory to get licenses authorizing their residence there, and to take an oath of allegiance to the state. Two New England missionaries among the Indians refused and were sentenced to four years of hard labor. On appeal their case reached the Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and

The decision really helped decide the border between the constitutionally executive and judicial branches of the American government. The case had resulted into a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Marbury also petitioned the Supreme Court to strengthen the new Secretary of State in order to deliver the documents. The Court had found that Madison's refusal to deliver the agency was both illegal and fixable. The petition later on in the year was refused.

. . regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution further enumerates these powers denied to the states in Article I section x. The state of Georgia challenged the federal government’s power over states rights, a precursor to the Civil War, when it challenged the trust relationship and the autonomy of the Cherokee. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in three decisions (Marshall Trilogy) upheld the United States’ federal power, defined the responsibility of the doctrine of federal trust, and clarified the sovereignty of Indian nations: Johnson v McIntosh 1823, Cherokee v Georgia 1831, Worcester v Georgia 1832.

The Court’s final decision was unanimous and it denied Marbury’s request for the writ of mandamus. Marbury never received his appointment. This case is significant because it established the concept of judicial review. The Constitution does not specifically grant the judiciary this power. Judicial review allows federal courts to review laws and determine if they are constitutional or not. This gives the judiciary the power to void any laws that are found to violate any part of the Constitution. Therefore, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the federal courts the authority to hear mandamus cases was unconstitutional. Ironically, Chief Justice Marshall is the person who was the Secretary of State under Adams that sealed Marbury’s appointment.

Marshall Law is a false hope and a double edge sword. People will become creative and make their own weapons much like they do in prison. People will lie on background checks to get a hold of weapons. Its a hasty law that will cripple ammunition departments and weapons manufacturing organizations as well as upset many veterans. Job availability and employment ratio will decrease. A limit law should not be used for political gain and false hope. What it can and probably will do is slow or stop the ingenuity of weapons technology advancements that could actually keep us safer. It might allow our enemies to gain more practice at surpassing us in their own manufacturing of weapons...think about it. What are we really setting ourselves up for as