Marshall Court Cases: Marbury V. Madison

Words: 803
Pages: 4

Liam Garry
APUSH P.5
Mr.Lewis
Marshall Court Cases
Marbury v.. Madison
This Court was brought to case as Thomas Jefferson came into office.The former president John Adams had elected Marbury and other Midnight Judges just before Jefferson had taken office. Jefferson and his vice president,James Madison, opposed the election of Marbury to Justice of the peace in Washington county in the district of Columbia .
The dilemma was that although the court found that Jefferson and Madison were wrong for preventing Marbury from taking his position; the court also ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the case. The Judiciary act of 1789 had given the supreme court the ability to rule over the case, but the Judiciary act of 1789 was found to be in conflict
…show more content…
The Judiciary act, which gave the court the power to review this case, wass deemed unconstitutional by them This set the standard for judicial review, which gives the supreme court power to deem if an act passed by congress is inline with the constitution and therefore valid.

Fletcher v. Peck
The 1795 Yazoo act approved the selling of land tracts to private land developing companies. It was revealed later that the act was passed due to bribes. This act was later repealed and the deals under it were canceled. Fletcher bought this land from Peck while it was still valid, in 1803 Fletcher came after Peck saying that he had not had clear title to the land when he sold it to him.
Is the contract that Fletcher and Peck made invalid because of georgia's legislature's decision?
The court ruled that the transaction was valid. This decision was made because the court found that cancelling contracts made by previous laws was unconstitutional.

McCulloch v. Maryland
In 1816 congress contracted the second U.S bank. Maryland tried to pass laws to tax this bank. The cashier of the U.S bank branch in Baltimore did not accept this tax.
In the first place, did congress have the right to establish the second U.S.
…show more content…
They tried to do this by giving the power of trustee appointments to the Governor. The old trustees,looking to regain power, filed a suit against William Woodward who took the side of the new trustees.
The question was if New Hampshire had interfered with Dartmouth’s constitutional right under the contract clause.

The court decided that the Government of New Hampshire had no right to interfere in the private contract., This decision was made despite the fact that the government had commissioned the charter. Marshall ruled that a contract meant private transactions and that the government had nothing to do with it.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Laws set in New York gave monopolies to one line of steamboats in New York. Aaron Ogden, the former governor of New Jersey, bought a license with his partner Thomas Gibbons. The partnership later collapsed. However, Gibbons continued to use the route even though he did not have a NEw York license, but he did have a federal license. Ogden brought the case to couet to prevent Gibbons from using the route, and Gibbons appealed to the supreme court.
Did New York have authority on the department that was usually reserved to congress, Trade and