The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book. David L Hudson
Читать онлайн книгу.
Hampshire sued John Peck of Massachusetts in 1803 to “quiet,” or establish, his title to ensure that he had a valid claim to the land.
The Court ruled that the Georgia law invalidating the Yazoo land sales was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause, preventing states from impairing the obligations of contracts. Chief Justice Marshall reasoned that the new law could negatively impact innocent, third-party purchasers, such as Fletcher. “If the original transaction was infected with fraud, these purchasers did not participate in it, and had no notice of it,” he wrote. “They were innocent.” Marshall ruled that Fletcher had “vested rights” in the land that he had innocently purchased.
CourtSpeak: Fletcher v. Peck Land Deal Case (1810)
Chief Justice John Marshall (majority): “When, then, a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot devest those rights; and the act of annulling them, if legitimate, is rendered so by a power applicable to the case of every individual in the community….
“Since, then, in fact, a grant is a contract executed, the obligation of which still continues, and since the Constitution uses the general term ‘contract’ without distinguishing between those which are executory and those which are executed, it must be construed to comprehend the latter as well as the former. A law annulling conveyances between individuals, and declaring that the grantors should stand seised of their former estates, notwithstanding those grants, would be as repugnant to the Constitution as a law discharging the vendors of property from the obligation of executing their contracts by conveyances. It would be strange if a contract to convey was secured by the Constitution, while an absolute conveyance remained unprotected.”
What famous men represented Peck before the U.S. Supreme Court?
The case was argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1809, future president John Quincy Adams represented Peck and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Joseph Story represented Peck in the reargument.
What famous man represented Fletcher in both arguments before the Court?
Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787, represented Fletcher both times. Martin allegedly showed up drunk to the first argument and the Court had to adjourn until he became sober. Martin was Maryland’s first attorney general and served as a defense counsel for Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase and Vice President Aaron Burr during their impeachment trials.
In what Contract Clause case did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in favor of a college?
The Marshall Court ruled in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) that the state of New Hampshire violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause by changing the status of Dartmouth College and altering the internal functioning of the college. The governor of the state, William Plumer, was a diehard Democratic-Republican who wished to change the Federalist-dominated Board of Trustees. He sought to change the private college into a state-controlled public university. The college’s trustees battled him in court. They argued that the school’s 1769 charter from the king of England and subsequently the New Hampshire government (before Plumer took office) gave it vested rights to its private status.
Dartmouth College, subject of the Supreme Court trial Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in which the Court ruled that the state of New Hampshire violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause by changing the school’s status from a private college to a state-controlled public university. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
Chief Justice John Marshall agreed, writing that the college’s private charter was a contract protected by the Contract Clause. “The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States.”
What attorney argued the case for Dartmouth College?
Former U.S. representative Daniel Webster of New Hampshire (and future U.S. representative and senator from Massachusetts) successfully argued the case for Dartmouth College. He was particularly passionate in his argument, because he had graduated from Dartmouth in 1801.
The Supreme Court upheld the National Bank in what famous case?
The Marshall Court unanimously ruled in McCullough v. Maryland (1819) that Congress had the power to create a national bank and that the state of Maryland could not tax a branch of the National Bank located in Maryland. The state of Maryland levied a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. This tax applied only to the National Bank. James McCullough, the National Bank’s cashier, refused to pay the state tax, leading to the lawsuit.
CourtSpeak: Dartmouth College v. Woodward Contract Clause Case (1819)
Chief Justice John Marshall (thoughts on a corporation): “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property, without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object, like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person. It is no more a state instrument, than a natural person exercising the same powers would be.”
What did Chief Justice Marshall say about the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution?
Marshall reasoned that Congress had the power to create the National Bank based on its powers under the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution, which provides: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
How long were oral arguments in the McCullough case?
Oral arguments in McCullough v. Maryland lasted nine days—between February 22 and March 3, 1819.
CourtSpeak: Congress’s Powers under the “Necessary and Proper” Clause
Chief Justice John Marshall: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”
What famous lawyers argued the McCullough case?
Daniel Webster, who argued nearly 250 cases before the Court in his illustrious career, was one of the lawyers for the United States in the case. Luther Martin, whether drunk or sober, argued the case for the state of Maryland.
In what two decisions involving the confiscation of Loyalist property did the Supreme