In this final part, two more of Marshall’s leading Supreme Court cases are discussed, and the remainder of his life is summarized. The first case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), highlighted Marshall’s argument that regulating navigation falls under Congress’s Commerce Power as a part of regulating commerce. Marshall specifically rejected the idea that because an activity affects interstate commerce, the federal government can regulate it. The case also established that a federal navigation statute overrides an inconsistent state statute under the supremacy rule in the Constitution’s Article VI.
The second case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), upheld federal authority over the Cherokee Indians due to specific treaties between the United States and the Cherokee, not because of power granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Marshall emphasized that even the Cherokee treaties did not grant Congress power to regulate internal Indian affairs. The case does not support the claim that Congress has “plenary and exclusive” authority over Indian affairs as some have suggested.
The commentary also touches on the various ways in which the Constitution can be interpreted, including phrases such as “strict construction,” “liberal construction,” “precedent,” “original meaning,” and “living constitution.” The framers of the Constitution intended for it to be interpreted based on the “intent of the makers” or “original understanding.” Marshall wrote at a time when there was limited access to the ratification debates and case precedent on the Constitution itself. Marshall often had to rely solely on the text of a document to determine the intent of its makers. Despite this limitation, he believed that it was crucial for a judge to uncover the true intention behind the words. He emphasized the importance of finding a balance in interpreting the document, avoiding both overly narrow and overly broad interpretations. Marshall always strived for a “fair construction” that aligned with the language used and the true intent of the makers.
Some have characterized Marshall as a liberal activist, pointing to his statement in Marbury v. Madison about interpreting the Constitution. However, Marshall’s goal was always to apply the document as its creators intended, whether it be a constitution, statute, or contract. He believed that the process for discerning intent may vary, but the ultimate objective remains the same.
Aside from his judicial duties, Marshall was a prolific writer and explorer. He authored a biography of George Washington and led survey expeditions in Virginia. Despite his high position, Marshall remained connected to the common people, often seen doing his own shopping in Richmond. He continued to be active in public life, participating in a constitutional convention at the age of 74.
Marshall lived a full life, passing away at the age of 79 in 1835. His legacy endures, with his Richmond home preserved for public viewing. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.
Source link
