Now, let’s explore some key decisions made by the Marshall Supreme Court to understand their implications. In the first two parts of this series, we discussed John Marshall’s early life and his role in the adoption of the Constitution. Parts 3 and 4 will delve into some highlights of his 34-year tenure as chief justice.
There is a common misconception that Marshall was a judicial activist who favored big government, but this is not accurate. Throughout his career, Marshall made decisions based on the Constitution’s enumerated powers and the rule of law. His interpretations of the Constitution were grounded in legal principles that were widely accepted at the time.
The four key decisions we will examine are Marbury v. Madison (1803), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), and Worcester v. Georgia (1834). These cases demonstrate Marshall’s commitment to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall ruled that Congress cannot exercise powers not listed in the Constitution. This case established the concept of judicial review, which was already recognized in American law. Marshall did not “invent” judicial review but reaffirmed its importance in upholding the Constitution.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall addressed the issue of Congress’s power to incorporate a national bank. He clarified that Congress has the authority to adopt laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated financial powers. This decision was based on a thorough understanding of the Constitution and its provisions.
Overall, Marshall’s decisions were not driven by a desire for big government or judicial activism. He followed legal principles and upheld the Constitution in his rulings. It is important to understand the context and legal reasoning behind Marshall’s decisions to appreciate his contributions to American jurisprudence. When McCulloch was decided, President James Madison, who had initially believed a national bank was unconstitutional, changed his mind. Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that Congress could choose the methods for carrying out its authority, whether they were directly listed in the Constitution or incidental to a listed power. An incidental power was of lesser importance than a listed power and reasonably necessary or customary.
For example, Congress could impose sales taxes, income taxes, tariffs, or construct an office building for tax collectors as permissible means of collecting taxes. In McCulloch, the debate centered on whether incorporating a bank was incidental to Congress’s financial authority. Marshall ruled that incorporating a national bank was within Congress’s incidental authority as it was a customary way for governments to fulfill their financial responsibilities.
Contrary to claims made during the New Deal era, the necessary and proper clause does not grant Congress vast authority. It simply ensures that the powers granted in the Constitution are interpreted based on the Founders’ intentions. This doctrine of incidental powers was designed to carry out the Founders’ intentions behind the Constitution.
Source link
