Marbury Vs Madison Scott Vs Sandford: Power To Confer Such Action

MARBURY vs MADISON
SCOTT vs SANDFORD
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme

Court by William Marbury, who had been
appointed by President John Adams as Justice of
the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose
commission was not immediately delivered. He
petitioned for an of writ of mandamus to force the
incumbent Secretary of the State, James Madison,
to deliver the documents. But the courts Chief
Justice, John Marshall, denied Marburys petition
holding that the part of the statute where Marbury
had based his claim, which was the Judiciary Act
of 1789 passed by the Congress, is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, since these provides a
midnight appointment of the Midnight Judges.
Upon deciding, the Supreme Court has to consider
three questions:
1. Is the position legally his?
2. Does he have a right to demand?
3. Does the Judiciary have the right to
instruct the executive to continue the
process?
The Supreme Court arrived in a decision that
first, Marbury had the right to his commission
but the court did not have the power to force
Madison to deliver the commission because that
power should be exercised by the Congress.
Second, Marbury has the right to demand
because he was duly appointed accordingly.
Third, the Judicial courts authorizes ONLY the
issuance of writ of mandamus if authorized by the
principles and usages of law, to any courts
appointed, or persons holding office. The
Secretary of State, being a person holding office
did not authorized the issuance of the writ,
therefore the Supreme court does not have the
power to confer such action.
Dredd Scott, born a slave in Virginia, tried to

bought his freedom but was denied. He based his
claim on some legal precedents that his presence
and residence in free territories which prohibits
slavery should also make him free. This first case
was dismissed on the basis of failure to provide a
witness to testify that hes a slave owned by Eliza
Emerson. 1847, Scott was granted another trial in
the Missouri Supreme court which declared Scott
and his family legally free. But this decision was
appealed by Ms. Emerson on the same court and
the decision was reversed by 1852. 1853, when
Scott was sued again in a federal court with Mr.
Sandford as the defendant, it held again that Scott
is still a slave, thus making Scott appeal to the US
Supreme court. The Supreme court decision
agreed with the federal courts decision which
held that Scott is still a slave which brought three
questions before the court:
-THIS CASE WAS THE FIRST TIME IN

WESTERN HISTORY A COURT INVALIDATED
A LAW BY DECLARING IT
"UNCONSTITUTIONAL", A PROCESS CALLED
JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE IDEA THAT COURTS
MAY OVERSEE AND NULLIFY THE ACTIONS
OF ANOTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT
AND FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE
1. Scott was not a citizen of the state, and is

therefore unable to bring a suit in a
federal court, because if he has been a
citizen according to Missouri law, there is
a provision that no State can act by any
law on its own passed since the adoption
of the constitution, introduce a new
political member into the political
community.
2. The provisions of Missouri Compromise
which prohibits the slavery forever and
declaring that it is a free territory, was
beyond the congress (who created it) to
enact, causing it to be proclaimed
unconstitutional.
3. Scott could not be defined as free based
on his stay in a state where slavery is
prohibited because the Supreme Court
did not have jurisdiction on this matter,
thereby the decision of Missouri
government took precedence which held
him a slave.
PLESSY vs FERGUSON
Homer Plessy, an American citizen with a mix of
black filed a case against Honorable Judge
Ferguson, judge of Criminal District Court
Orleans. On June 1892, Plessy engaged and paid
for a first-class passage on the East Louisiana
Railway and entered as a passenger train, and
took possession of a vacant seat in a coach where
passengers of the white race were accommodated.
Plessy was required by the conductor, to vacate
said coach, and occupy another seat intended for
his color. Plessy refused to, and was forcibly
ejected from said coach by a police officer and
imprisoned, charged with a criminal offense,
violating an act of the States general assembly
which was ordering segregation on trains (Acts
1890 No. 111. Plessy argued that:
1. His civil rights have been violated in such
a manner that the general assembly
ordering racial segregation on trains was
unconstitutional as is inviolable granted
under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments ("no state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, and property,
without due process of law.")
2. Such railroad company was incorporated
by the laws of Louisiana as a common
carrier, and was not authorized to
distinguish between citizens according to
their race.
The ruling against Plessy was affirmed in the
Louisiana State Supreme Court, but the Court
refused to grant a re-hearing, and allowed only a
petition to be entered for the writ of error.
The court of Louisiana asserted that:
1. The Act under scrutiny is not
discriminatory against any race as it is
equally applicable to both whites and
non-whites.
The Court decided in favor of the respondent.
Mr. Justice Brow, affirmed the decision arguing
that, Thus the Court held that separate facilities
must be equal to comply with constitutional
rights. In this case the carriages were equal. Thus
Assembly to segregate carriages on race grounds

on the line the applicant traveled on, as the line
was purely interstate. and which was dissented by
Mr. Justice Harlan, argued that, by Louisiana
statute, the validity of which is here involved, all
railway companies (other than street-railroad
companies) carry passengers in that state are
required to have separate but equal
accommodations for white and colored persons.
MCCULLOCH vs MARYLAND
A privately owned national bank facilitating the
financial transactions of the US government was
established by 1917. This bank lasted only for a
short time, until the US Congress created a second
bank but financial problems continued to flood
the country. Americans believed that this bank
causes the economic depression of the country, so
some states attempted to retaliate against the
monster monopoly. They either banned the bank
outright or taxed it. Maryland, passed a law
requiring a stamp tax on all notes issued by banks
not chartered by the state. Maryland sued James
McCulloch, for $110, a penalty for circulating
unstamped banknotes in violation of Marylands
tax law. Maryland won its case in the state courts,
but the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case centered around two constitutional
questions.
1. Did Congress have the constitutional
power to create a nationally chartered
bank?
2. Did Maryland (and other states) have the
constitutional power to tax a national
bank chartered by Congress?
On the first question, the attorneys representing
Maryland pointed out that:
1. chartering banks was not one of the
delegated powers of Congress. Those
powers are listed in Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution. Setting up a bank is
not listed. They concluded that therefore
only the states, or the people they
represent, had the power to incorporate
banks.

Marbury Vs Madison Scott Vs Sandford: Power To Confer Such Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marbury Vs Madison Scott Vs Sandford: Power To Confer Such Action

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marbury Vs Madison Scott Vs Sandford: Power To Confer Such Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARBURY vs MADISON

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme

Dredd Scott, born a slave in Virginia, tried to

-THIS CASE WAS THE FIRST TIME IN

1. Scott was not a citizen of the state, and is

Assembly to segregate carriages on race grounds

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.