Marshall studied the case in a manner that helped to create the Judicial Review, which allows congress to study the constitutionality of a law. Marshall stated that Marbury is correct in the fact that he is deserving of an appointment, yet the Judicial Act of 1789 is unconstitutional so the court can't give him an appointment. In this case Marshall stated the powers given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. By using the Marbury v. Madison case, Marhsall was able to create the Judicial Review which gave more power to Federal government, and thus helping his ideas as a federalists. John Marshall also used the powers of Congress and the relationship between federal and state authorities to end a dispute between national and state law regarding banks—McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819.This time was during the Era of Good Feelings as James Monroe was president.
Zinn also uses an excerpt from historian Charles Beard to explain his reasoning. Beard basically said that the rich controls the government or the laws the government operates by. Zinn points out that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hides behind innocence. Meaning that Congress completely ignores the freedom of speech. Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies.
In the 1700s, Europeans saw numerous opportunities in the New World. They envisioned the colonization as a chance for them to live a free and prosperous life, but, in reality, the American colonists faced many setbacks. The tension between Great Britain and the New England colonies led to American Revolution. In Transcript of Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged how the act of force was a rational option in order to obtain liberty from Great Britain; however, in The Rise and Fall of the Newburgh Conspiracy, George Marshall depicted how there is a more reasonable alternative to resolving problems within the new independent country. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson explained how governments should not be overthrown for petty reasons, but he believed the King of Great Britain had taken the situation too far.
Brutus says in his essay that this power given to the federal government will take away all of the state government’s power to collect taxes and that the constitutions and treaties of the states will become null. Hamilton denies this by explaining that the structure of the proposed federal government will preserve the state constitutions. What Hamilton says about this seems to go against Article 6 of the Constitution, which says that the law of the Constitution will be supreme over the states. Brutus’ Essay V seems to say the same thing over and over again. Many of the things that he lists as problems to the nation are things that we love about our government today.
Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were two of the most politically influential men involved in building the new American government. They both agreed on creating a strong government, but disagreed on where the supreme power should be located. Hamilton wanted a strong central government, while Jefferson wanted strong state governments. Alexander Hamilton was a man who represented the Federalists. Some of his contributions consist of The Federalist Papers , the Report on Public Credit , and the creation of the national bank.
Analysis of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision was the most controversy Supreme Court case of the 21st century. According to the decision, corporation's funding candidate protected is under the First Amendment's free speech principle- that government cannot regulate political speech. The ruling of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission classify corporation as people, "donation" to candidate as political speech, and election as a way of expression. Hence, suppressing the "speech" of "people” is unconstitutional.
The new Constitution sought to divide the powers of government among the different branches of government to provide a system of checks and balances of power. According to Fisher (2012) “The Constitution vests in Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, an activity the Framers understood as closely related to the war power. Commercial conflicts between nations were often a cause of war. In 1824 in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice John Marshall said of the commerce power that "it may be, and often is, used as an instrument of war." Guided by history and republican principles, the framers placed that power and responsibility with Congress” (para
Rough Copy In 1775, the American Revolutionary War began, as the American Colonies wanted to achieve independence from the British Monarchy. Even though many reasons were sighted out for the revolution, one in particular sticks out. King George III outlawed the interest free independent currency the thirteen colonies were producing and using themselves. This in turn forced the colonies to borrow money from the Central Bank of England, which put the colonies into immediate debt. The Federal Reserve Bank was alleged to be a step towards the “One World Government”, simply by manipulating the international monetary system and the media in order to create a monopoly.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 34 years, was the most influential person in regards to shaping the constitution interpretation to the conservative. John Marshall affirmed the right of judicial review over Congressional legislation; however, the Chief Justice contributed much more to the Judicial Branch and the federal government. He used his traits to position the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of the United States’ government and to prevent the states from eroding federal power after the Eleventh Amendment was ratified. He made the judicial branch of the government the most powerful, in giving it the ability to interpret acts. Some monumental cases shaped the constitution along conservative lines are Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, Dartmouth v. Woodward, and Gibbons v Ogden.
Despite the Anti- Injunction Act, The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty case could proceed considering the constitutionality of the tax. Lawsuits can’t be used to prevent taxes, only to get refunds on taxes already paid, the law states. Since the Congress designated the mandate of the penalty rather than a tax the law doesn’t apply in this case