Trova il tuo prossimo book preferito
Abbonati oggi e leggi gratis per 30 giorniInizia la tua prova gratuita di 30 giorniInformazioni sul libro
The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions: 20 Cases that Changed America
Azioni libro
Inizia a leggere- Editore:
- Fall River Press
- Pubblicato:
- Nov 29, 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781435164239
- Formato:
- Libro
Descrizione
—Obergefell v. Hodges
In the United States of America, the legislative branch is responsible for creating legislation, while the executive branch is responsible for signing that legislation and enforcing it. But how do senators, representatives, and presidents make sure that these laws don’t run afoul of the Constitution that guides the running of the country?
The nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States serve as the final arbiters of which laws are and aren’t constitutional. Every year, thousands of contentious cases are submitted to the court for that reason; only about eighty of them are heard. Out of those cases, many are remembered only by the people directly involved. But over the years, many cases heard by the Supreme Court have gone on to affect the lives of many or even all American citizens.
In The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions, veteran court reporter Tony Mauro picks out the twenty most momentous Supreme Court cases in United States history. In his reviews of Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case that first affirmed the Supreme Court’s status as the country’s final legal arbiter, to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage, Mauro summarizes each case and includes cogent summaries of the justices’ decisions, as well as notable dissents.
With Mauro’s crisp language and sharp insights, The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions serves as your quick, concise, and informative guide to one of the most important, and sometimes least-understood, institutions in the nation.
Informazioni sul libro
The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions: 20 Cases that Changed America
Descrizione
—Obergefell v. Hodges
In the United States of America, the legislative branch is responsible for creating legislation, while the executive branch is responsible for signing that legislation and enforcing it. But how do senators, representatives, and presidents make sure that these laws don’t run afoul of the Constitution that guides the running of the country?
The nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States serve as the final arbiters of which laws are and aren’t constitutional. Every year, thousands of contentious cases are submitted to the court for that reason; only about eighty of them are heard. Out of those cases, many are remembered only by the people directly involved. But over the years, many cases heard by the Supreme Court have gone on to affect the lives of many or even all American citizens.
In The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions, veteran court reporter Tony Mauro picks out the twenty most momentous Supreme Court cases in United States history. In his reviews of Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case that first affirmed the Supreme Court’s status as the country’s final legal arbiter, to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that legalized same-sex marriage, Mauro summarizes each case and includes cogent summaries of the justices’ decisions, as well as notable dissents.
With Mauro’s crisp language and sharp insights, The Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions serves as your quick, concise, and informative guide to one of the most important, and sometimes least-understood, institutions in the nation.
- Editore:
- Fall River Press
- Pubblicato:
- Nov 29, 2016
- ISBN:
- 9781435164239
- Formato:
- Libro
Informazioni sull'autore
Correlati a The Supreme Court
Anteprima del libro
The Supreme Court - Anthony Mauro
Americans.
MARBURY v. MADISON
– 1803 –
JUDICIAL POWER
For the first time, the Supreme Court declared that it had the authority to strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional.
In its early years of existence, the Supreme Court was not a major player in governing the new nation. It was not given a building of its own when Washington, D.C., was built as the nation’s capital, instead occupying a small room in the Capitol.
More than anyone else, it was John Marshall, chief justice from 1801 to 1835, who turned the Supreme Court into a branch of government that was equal in stature to the executive and legislative branches. The dramatic change came in the context of a seemingly ordinary case, Marbury v. Madison.
The case stemmed from a dispute over a group of judges whose commissions were signed by President John Adams on the final night of his administration in 1801. Congress had authorized Adams to appoint sixteen federal circuit judges and forty-two justices of the peace as a parting gift of sorts before Thomas Jefferson took office.
But John Marshall, whom Adams had appointed as secretary of state in May 1800 and as chief justice in January 1801 (he served in both positions simultaneously), did not deliver the commissions to all of the appointed judges. After some political maneuvering, William Marbury and three other appointees who did not receive their commissions asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering that their commissions be delivered.
By modern-day ethical standards, Marshall would probably not have participated in a Supreme Court case that had its roots in something he had failed to do in his other government position. But in December 1801 he ordered the Jefferson administration to respond to Marbury and the others in the next session of the Court, which Congress delayed until 1803.
When the case came before the court in 1803, Marshall devised a seemingly contradictory way of resolving the case. He said the so-called midnight judges
were entitled to their commissions. But the ruling went on to state that Congress did not have the power under the Constitution to give the Supreme Court authority to issue a writ of mandamus to require that the commissions be delivered.
In that part of the ruling, Marshall said the federal law authorizing the high court to issue such writs violated the Constitution. It was that aspect of the case that gave Marshall the opportunity to announce the court’s broad power to strike down acts of Congress.
The ruling of the six-member court was 4–0, with the other two justices not participating.
In spite of the clear language in Marbury, the Supreme Court did not strike down another federal law until over fifty years later. Since the twentieth century, Supreme Court decisions overturning laws have become far more common, though justices say they do so only reluctantly because of the gravity of invalidating acts of Congress.
DECISION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL
"The Constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case, because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States….
"If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage—is entirely without meaning—if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance….
"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it….
"… The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void….
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each….
"So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
"If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
"Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
"This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory….
"That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions—a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
GIBBONS v. OGDEN
– 1824 –
FEDERAL POWER
Broadening the authority of Congress, the Supreme Court declared that under the Constitution, Congress has preeminent power over the states in regulating commerce between the states and with foreign countries.
The Articles of Confederation, the first agreement among the thirteen states of the nation in 1776, gave the national government no power to regulate commerce between states. Trade wars and tariffs ensued, making it difficult to establish a national economy.
With that in mind, the framers of the Constitution established in Article I, Section 8 that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.
But the wording of the provision left confusion about the extent of the power given to Congress and what exactly constituted commerce.
The Supreme Court resolved the questions in Gibbons v. Ogden, giving a broad definition of congressional powers that helped the national economy to grow to the colossus that it is today.
The origin of the case illustrated the fact that states were still squabbling with each other over trade issues in spite of the Constitution’s grant of commerce power to Congress. Robert Fulton, inventor of the steamboat, was able to obtain an exclusive license from New York for steam navigation within the state and in interstate waterways as well. They licensed Aaron Ogden to run a ferry between New York City and New Jersey. But Thomas Gibbons held a federal coastal license to operate boats in competing routes.
Their dispute reached the Supreme Court as the first major test of the Commerce Clause. By a 6–0 vote the court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, agreed that the power to regulate commerce extends to every species of commercial intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and among the several States.
That expansive view included navigation. The ruling allowed that states can regulate commerce entirely within their own boundaries, and said that states could still enact and enforce certain kinds of health and inspection laws that affect commerce. Justice William Johnson wrote a concurrence that gave an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce power.
The decision had the immediate impact of canceling Ogden’s monopoly, but the importance of Gibbons v. Ogden has grown ever since. Congress has invoked its commerce power in a broad range of areas ranging from antitrust regulations to the prohibition of marijuana sales. In the 1964 case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Supreme Court agreed that the Commerce Clause justified the provision of the Civil Rights Act that barred racial discrimination in public accommodations, because interstate commerce was involved.
DECISION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL
"The subject to which the power is next applied is to commerce ‘among the several States.’ The word ‘among’ means intermingled with. A thing which is among others is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.
"It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.
"Comprehensive as the word ‘among’ is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one. The phrase is not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a State, because it is not an apt phrase for that purpose, and the enumeration of the particular classes of commerce to which the power was to be extended would not have been made had the intention been to extend the power to every description. The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated, and that something, if we regard the language or the subject of the sentence, must be the exclusively internal commerce of a State. The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the States generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.
"But, in regulating commerce with foreign nations, the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several States. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United States with foreign nations is that of the whole United States. Every district has a right to participate in it. The deep streams which penetrate our country in every direction pass through the interior of almost every State in the Union, and furnish the means of exercising this right. If Congress has the power to regulate it, that power must be exercised whenever the subject exists. If it exists within the States, if a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a State, then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State….
"… [I]t has been contended that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject and each other like equal opposing powers.
"But the framers of our Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself, but of the laws made in pursuance of it. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law. The appropriate application of that part of the clause which confers the same supremacy on laws and treaties is to such acts of the State Legislatures as do not transcend their powers, but, though enacted in the execution of acknowledged State powers, interfere with, or are contrary to, the laws of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution or some treaty made under the authority of the United States. In every such case, the
Recensioni
Recensioni
Cosa pensano gli utenti di The Supreme Court
00 valutazioni / 0 recensioni