1. US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the Supreme Court for over three decades as numerous decisions were made affecting checks and balances, Federal-State relations, and commercial interests. Thesis Challenge: Assess the degree to which the Marshall court was successful in expanding the rights and powers of the judicial branch, national government, and free enterprise system in the United States between the years 1801 and 1835. Historical Context:

2. “the judicial power of the Unites States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress shall from time to time establish.” Other than establishing it, Article III of the US Constitution spells out neither the specific duties, powers, nor organization of the Supreme Court. Supreme Court - A Brief History http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm Document A

3. President Adams had first offered the seat to ex-Chief Justice John Jay, who declined on the grounds that the Court lacked "energy, weight, and dignity." (1801) John Jay John Adams’ Judicial Appointments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall Document B

4. Marbury v. Madison (1803) "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." — Chief Justice John Marshall http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/home.html Document C

5. The Court's decision was opposed by President Thomas Jefferson, who lamented that this doctrine made the Constitution, "a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall Jefferson’s Response to Marbury v Madison (1803) Document D

6. James W. McCulloch, a Federal cashier at the Baltimore branch of the U.S. bank, refused to pay the taxes imposed by the state. Maryland filed a suit against McCulloch in an effort to collect the taxes. The Supreme Court, however, decided that the chartering of a bank was an implied power of the Constitution, under the “elastic clause,” which granted Congress the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the work of the Federal Government. This case presented a major issue that challenged the Constitution: Does the Federal Government hold sovereign power over states? The proceedings posed two questions: Does the Constitution give Congress power to create a bank? And could individual states ban or tax the bank? The court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government. Marshall ruled in favor of the Federal Government and concluded, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy." http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=21 This Supreme Court Case addressed the issue of Federal power and commerce. McCulloch v Maryland (1819) Document E

7. In the summer of 1819 the newly elected governor of New Hampshire, William Plumer, sought to take control of the college's charter from its (Federalist) trustees in order to replace the board with elected (Republican) members. Daniel Webster successfully argued for Dartmouth in the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Marshall handed down the decision that Dartmouth was a private rather than public entity, therefore, the state of New Hampshire did not have regulatory power over it. This is considered an important historical decision as it limits the control a state government may have over a corporate charter. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) Document F Source …whoops!

8. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) "... Few things were better known, than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution... that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law." — Chief Justice John Marshall http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/home.html Document G

9. Question: Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation? Conclusion: No. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting that the "treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union," Chief Justice Marshall argued, "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government's authority and was unconstitutional. Justice Henry Baldwin dissented for procedural reasons and on the merits. Worcester v Georgia (1832) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1832/1832_0/ Document H

10. While frequently frowned upon in the North, the Removal Act was popular in the South, where population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land had increased pressure on tribal lands. The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, culminating in the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia) which ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted (regarding the decision) as having said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Whether or not he actually said it is disputed. SouthCherokeeGeorgiaU.S. Supreme CourtWorcester v. GeorgiaJohn Marshall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson President Jackson responds to Worcester v Georgia (1832) Document I