Federalism Supreme Court Cases

pptx

School

University of Florida *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

8890

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pptx

Pages

Uploaded by pl230913

Federalism Supreme Court Cases Collaborators: Daniel Barraza,

Marbury v. Madison (1803) What was the central conflict of the court case? William Marbury, a prominent financier and Federalist, sued James Madison in response to not being served his commission for justice of the peace for Washington, D.C. Marbury requested the U.S. Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the commission. • Who were the two parties involved in the court case? Summarize their main arguments. William Marbury, a federalist and James Madison. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission. What was the Supreme Court's ultimate decision? The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. On February 24, 1803, [b] the Supreme Court issued a unanimous 4–0 [c] decision against Marbury. The Court's opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall. What support from the Constitution did the Supreme Court cite to justify their decision? The Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. • How does the case relate to Federalism? Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful.

Gibbons v. Ogden The central conflict of Gibbons v. Ogden was about the regulation of steamboat navigation in waters within New York state jurisdiction for 20 years. New York's granting of a monopoly to Livingston and Fulton by buying out the competitors but it conflicted with federal authority over interstate commerce. The two parties involved in the case were Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons. Aaron Ogden was granted a monopoly by the state of New York to operate steamboats in state waters, while Thomas Gibbons held a federal coastal license to operate steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Ogden's main argument was that New York's state-granted monopoly gave him the exclusive right to operate steamboats in those waters, and he sought to prevent Gibbons from operating on the same route. Gibbons, on the other hand, argued that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce The Supreme Court ultimately decided in favor of Gibbons. It set precedent that regulation of navigation for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress under the U.S. Constitution. This meant that New York's interference with interstate navigation was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cited the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify its decision. The Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and in this case, the Court ruled that steamboat navigation was a form of interstate commerce. The case of Gibbons v. Ogden relates to federalism because it talks about states interfering with federal authority in regulating interstate commerce. The decision reinforced the supremacy clause in matters of interstate commerce and limited the ability of states to grant exclusive rights or monopolies that could interfere with that federal authority. It strengthened the federal government's role in regulating commerce between the states and set a precedent for cases between the federal government and the states.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

McCulloch VS Maryland 1. The state of Maryland imposed taxes on a bank. The cashier named James W. McCulloch refused to pay the tax. 2. James W. McCulloch argued the tax because a state cannot tax as it is unconstitutional. Maryland argued the bank was in Maryland borders therefore they had to pay the tax. 3. The court ruled in favor of McCulloch by talking about the legitimacy of necessary powers while also noting the power of taxation is supreme and is not held by the states. 4. Article 1, section 8. Necessary must mean appropriate and legitimate. The laws were supreme which therefore meant the states had no ruling. 5. This case relates to Federalism as it supports and follows constitutional guidelines nothing that this case had supreme laws therefore not declaring power to the states per Article 1, section 8.