Quick Analysis of 6 Supreme Court Cases
1. Chisholm v Georgia(1973)
Chisholm had had his land confiscated by Georgia during the American Revolution. This Tory was suing the state for restitution. The Supreme Court Justices were now faced with a question of sovereignty. One of the judges, Iredell, believed that no sovereign state could be sued without Congress's approval, while Wilson and Jay proclaimed that the people of the United States were the true sovereigns. In the clause of Article III it neither excludes suits by outside citizens nor required the state's consent. Due to the controversy surrounding this ruling, the Eleventh Amendment was passed. This stated that a state could be sued without its consent by a citizen of another state.
2. Fletcher v Peck(1810)
In 1794 a group of corrupt officials authorized the sale of 35 million acres of the Yazoo area to four land companies for only one and a half cents per acre. Congress retracted the sale in 1796. Peck was sued by Fletcher for a breach of warranty of title. His ultimate objective was to invalidate the legislature recession. John Marshall felt the real issue of the case was whether legislatures could deprive honest investors of the lands they purchased under a invalid grant. Using the Contract Clause as a guide, Marshall held the act unconstitutional of the obligations of lawful contracts. He established that a state legislature could not enact legislation that would impair contracts acquire "honestly". The public was stunned by this, more so by the proponents of state's right. It disallowed legislation to interfere with the law of property and contract. The case reflected the court's patronage to security of contracts and property rights.
3. Martin v Hunter Lessee(1816)
This case mainly concerned section 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. This section empowered the Supreme court. The decisions of the state reviewed the final judgments of the highest state courts when federal statutes or treaties were involved. Many thought this was unconstitutional because federal courts could disrupt state power. During the war Virginia confiscated land from loyalist such as Lord Fairfax. He brought them to court for going against Jay's Treaty and the Treaty of Paris. The courts ruled with Fairfax and rebuked Virginia for not complying with the ruling right away. The federal government possesses "implied powers" and therefore the case went the way of Fairfax. This case was later named Martin v Hunter Lessee. The case credited the Supremacy Clause, which was in danger of losing its credibility because states cannot be forcibly bound to the Constitution.
4. McCulloch v Maryland(1819)
This case revolved around Maryland's tax and the constitutionality of congress incorporating a bank. Marshall believed that congress had no authority to incorporate a bank. He also said that the national governments powers must be in subordination to the states because the Constitution derives its power from the people. The Justices used the "necessary and proper clause" to broaden the construction of the constitution. Taylor thought that the doctrine of implied powers would destroy the sate and lead to a government of unlimited powers. Marshall relied on the Supremacy Clause(Article VI) to treat the bank as an "instrument" of the United States. The tax was found to be unconstitutional and through "implied powers" Virginia recommended an amendment. Marshall replied to the public in a newspaper article. Ohio and Virginia later nullified the decision in the case. Marshall, Beveridge's "supreme conservation" set up the ground work for the Deal and Welfare states.
5. Dartmouth College v Woodward(1819)
In this case a republican legislature wanted to change Dartmouth College by replacing federalist with trustees appointed through politics. The charter granted to Dartmouth in 1769 was revised, making the college an University, altering internal control by imposing external controls. Webster led the courts in 1818 deciphering the Contract Clause(Article 1, Section 10). The Clause could be used as a barrier to the taking away rights, property, and franchise and given them to another. Marshall extended the Clause to Cooperate Charters. Since Dartmouth was a private school, Marshall found that the state couldn't interfere with the rights of a private school. The charter was protected from interference by legislation. It showed that private activities would be protected from state policies.
6. Gibbons v Ogden(1824)
When Robert Fulton invented the steamboat he sailed it up and down the Hudson. Thomas Gibbons held the federal coasting license and ran competing boats, which defied the monopoly between Elizaberthtown and New York City. This monopoly was of license belonging to Ogden. The New York Act was passed which angered many states and proclaimed that the state ports would be closed to all steamboats not owned or licensed by a state run monopoly. The Supreme Court ruled this illegal, then overturned it. Marshall cited the exclusion option that defined commerce expansively to include people and new objects. Webster said the opposite and supported Gibbons. The compromise was made which acknowledged a partially agreeable state power over interstate trade. Later while reviewing the case it was found it allowed almost unlimited federal power and new uses for the Commerce power and protection of Civil rights emerged.