DOCSLIB.ORG

S0115.16 Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JOHN MARSHALL: INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ 2016 Seminar Material ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ S0115.16 New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education A Division of the State Bar Association NJICLE.com c THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JOHN MARSHALL: INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION Moderator Donald Scarinci, Esq. Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC (Lyndhurst) Speakers Steve Edenbo (Portraying Thomas Jefferson) American Historical Theater (Philadelphia, PA) Doug Thomas (Portraying John Marshall) American Historical Theater (Philadelphia, PA) In cooperation with the New Jersey State Bar Association Senior Lawyers Special Committee and the New Jersey State Bar Foundation S0115.16 © 2016 New Jersey State Bar Association. All rights reserved. Any copying of material herein, in whole or in part, and by any means without written permission is prohibited. Requests for such permission should be sent to NJICLE, a Division of the New Jersey State Bar Association, New Jersey Law Center, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520. Table of Contents Page Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall: Interpreting the Constitution 1 Biographies of the Participants 3 Thomas Jefferson/Steven Edenbo 5 John Marshall/Doug Thomas 7 Donald Scarinci 9 Timeline of the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall 11 Relevant Constitutional Provisions 17 Annotations to the Constitution 19 Commerce Clause 19 Necessary & Proper Clause 23 Contract Clause 24 Judicial Review 26 Supremacy Clause 29 Relevant Decisions from 1800 to 1836 31 Talbot v. Seeman: The Power to Declare War 33 Supreme Court Review of the Affordable Care Act Began in 1803 35 Charming Betsy and the Law of Nations 37 Fletcher v. Peck and the Contract Clause 39 U.S. v. Hudson and Goodwin: Jurisdiction Over Criminal Matters 41 Livingston v. Van Ingen: NY Appeals Court Tackles Commerce Clause 42 Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee: The Supreme Court’s Authority Over State Courts 44 McCulloch v. Maryland: The Necessary and Proper Clause 46 Sturges v. Crowinshield: Constitutionality of State Bankruptcy Laws 48 Dartmouth College v. Woodward: The Contracts Clause 49 Cohen v. Virginia: U.S. Supreme Court Trumps State Courts 51 Johnson v. M’Hintosh: The Power to Grant Land 53 Corfield v. Coryell: The Privileges and Immunity Clause 55 Gibbons v. Ogden: The Commerce Clause 57 Osborn v. Bank of the United States Clarifies Reach of Federal Jurisdiction 59 Wayman v. Southard: The Limits of Non-Delegation 61 Brown v. Maryland: Import Taxes on Foreign Goods 63 Ogden v. Saunders: The Contracts Clause 65 Martin v. Mott: The President’s Power Under the Militia Clause 67 Weston v. City Council of Charleston: What is a “Suit?” 69 Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Company: The Dormant Commerce Clause 70 Craig v. Missouri Interprets Prohibition of Bills of Credit Under Article I 72 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia: The Rights of Indian “Nations” 74 Worcester v. Georgia: Indian Sovereignty and the States 76 Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore: The Limits of the Bill of Rights 78 Biographies of Great Americans 79 Henry Baldwin 81 John Blair, Jr. 83 Samuel Chase 85 William Cushing 87 Gabriel Duvall 89 Oliver Ellsworth 91 James Iredell 93 John Jay 95 Thomas Johnson 97 William Johnson 99 Henry Brockholst Livingston 101 John Marshall 102 John McLean 104 Alfred Moore 106 William Paterson 108 John Rutledge 110 Joseph Story 112 Roger B. Taney 114 Smith Thompson 115 Thomas Todd 117 Robert Trimble 118 Bushrod Washington 119 James Moore Wayne 121 James Wilson 123 1 Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall: Interpreting the Constitution Thomas Jefferson: portrayed by Steve Edenbo John Marshall: portrayed by Doug Thomas Moderated by: Donald Scarinci of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC 3 Biographies of the Participants 5 Thomas Jefferson Portrayed by Steve Edenbo Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 in Shadwell, Virginia. In 1760 he attended the College of William and Mary and decided to study law. He was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1767. In 1768 Mr. Jefferson was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses. He became one of Virginia’s delegates to the continental congress and worked with Mr. Adams to draft the declaration of independence. Virginia elected Mr. Jefferson as its second Governor in 1779 where he served two terms until 1781. Mr. Jefferson replaced Benjamin Franklin as the United States minister to France in 1785 and returned to America in 1789 to become Secretary of State under President George Washington. Mr. Jefferson served as Vice President of the United States in 1797 and he was elected President in 1800. He was re-elected in 1804. Thomas Jefferson is the author of “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” published in 1774. He also authored “notes on the State of Virginia” published in 1781. 6 While earning his BA from Dickinson College, Steve Edenbo’s focus was research and writing; however his theater experience included improvisation, and training in voice and singing. Mr. Edenbo was introduced to American Historical Theatre in 1999 by AHT Associate Producer Kim Hanley, He bases his interpretation of Thomas Jefferson on the insight that comes from years of reflection, for which he was awarded a Research Fellowship at Monticello in 2008 by the International Center for Jefferson Studies. Mr. Edenbo also has the honor of interpreting Thomas Jefferson at Philadelphia’s Declaration House, a re-creation by Independence National Historical Parks of the building in which Jefferson lived and wrote the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Edenbo is the only person invited to interpret Thomas Jefferson at this historic site. Mr. Edenbo has interpreted Thomas Jefferson at venues that include Monticello; The National Archives, DC and NYC; Independence National Historical Park: Independence Hall, Declaration House, Congress Hall and City Tavern; The Smithsonian Institution; National Constitution Center; University of Virginia; Freedoms Foundation of Valley Forge; Carpenter’s Hall; Hamilton Grange National Memorial; Federal Hall National Memorial; the Philly Pops at Independence Hall; Texas A & M International University; Academy of Natural Sciences; and numerous middle and high schools and colleges, and at professional improvement seminars for Judges, Lawyers, and Educators at locations throughout the United States. 7 John Marshall Portrayed by Doug Thomas John Marshall was born on September 24, 1755 in Germantown, Virginia. Marshall studied law at the College of William and Mary, and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1780. That same year, Marshall launched his own law practice, specifically defending clients against pre-war British creditors. Over the years, Marshall held various political offices. In 1782, he joined the Virginia House of Delegates, where he represented Henrico County. A few years later, in 1788, Marshall served as a delegate of the Virginia Convention, where he lobbied for ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Once the ratification was complete, Marshall became a leader of Virginia’s Federalist Party, associating himself with the party and its platforms. In 1799, Marshall was elected to a seat in the House of Representatives, a position he held briefly before being appointed Secretary of State under President John Adams in 1800. In 1801, Marshall was appointed by President Adams to serve as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, where he served until his death on July 6, 1835. During his tenure as Chief Justice, Marshall made a number of significant changes to the Supreme Court. One of these changes, which is still in effect today, was to eliminate the practice of justices submitting separate opinions. Marshall additionally cemented the Supreme Court’s authority for interpreting constitutional law, as well as its significance of a co-equal branch of government. 8 Doug Thomas is a professional actor with over two decades of performance experience. Local credits include The Philadelphia Shakespeare Festival, Vagabond Theatre and others. He has been immersed in historical interpretation for over 18 years. His quick wit and depth of knowledge, along with a keen understanding of theater, entertainment, and communication have made him a first rate interpreter of historical characters. Characters in his repertoire include Meriwether Lewis, William Penn, John Marshall, John Paul Jones, Anthony Wayne, Patrick Henry, Francis Scott Key and a young Governor Livingston. He regularly performs at Independence Hall in Philadelphia and the National Archives in Washington D.C. 9 Donald Scarinci Donald Scarinci is a partner at Scarinci Hollenbeck. He writes extensively about Constitutional Law and edits The Constitutional Law Reporter, www.ScarinciAttorney.com which has achieved national recognition as an educational and informational blog reporting on the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Scarinci’s practice focuses on representing public institutions and businesses that interact with government. He currently serves as Corporation Counsel to the City of Union City and the Town of West New York. Over the last two decades Mr. Scarinci has advised over 200 different public entities and served as Chief Counsel to the gubernatorial transition team of Governor Jim McGreevey and as legal counsel to the New Jersey State Assembly. Mr. Scarinci has authored four book including, “David Brearley and the Making of the United States Constitution,” a historical biography about David Brearley, a signer of the Constitution from the State of New Jersey and the first Federal District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey (1789); and, “Redistricting and the Politics of Reform,” published in 2010. 11 Timeline: Jefferson v. Marshall 1743-1837 April 13, 1743: Thomas Jefferson is born in Shadwell, Virginia. September 24, 1755: John Marshall is born in Germantown, Fauquier County, Virginia. May 11, 1769: Jefferson is elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses. He becomes one of Virginia’s delegates to the continental congress, and works with John Adams to draft the declaration of independence. June 1, 1779: Virginia elects Jefferson its second governor, where he serves two terms until 1781. 1782: Marshall begins serving in Virginia’s House of Delegates.
Recommended publications
  • The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments

    The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments

    A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren Paige Joyce Judson Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Arts In Political Science Jason P. Kelly, Chair Wayne D. Moore Karen M. Hult August 7, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Judicial Politics, Electoral Realignment, Alteration to the Supreme Court Copyright 2014, Lauren J. Judson A Compliant Court: The Political Effects of the Addition of Judgeships to the United States Supreme Court Following Electoral Realignments Lauren J. Judson ABSTRACT During periods of turmoil when ideological preferences between the federal branches of government fail to align, the relationship between the three quickly turns tumultuous. Electoral realignments especially have the potential to increase tension between the branches. When a new party replaces the “old order” in both the legislature and the executive branches, the possibility for conflict emerges with the Court. Justices who make decisions based on old regime preferences of the party that had appointed them to the bench will likely clash with the new ideological preferences of the incoming party. In these circumstances, the president or Congress may seek to weaken the influence of the Court through court-curbing methods. One example Congress may utilize is changing the actual size of the Supreme The size of the Supreme Court has increased four times in United States history, and three out of the four alterations happened after an electoral realignment. Through analysis of Supreme Court cases, this thesis seeks to determine if, after an electoral realignment, holdings of the Court on issues of policy were more congruent with the new party in power after the change in composition as well to examine any change in individual vote tallies of the justices driven by the voting behavior of the newly appointed justice(s).
  • —FOR PUBLICATION— in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS SKÖLD, Plaintiff, V

    —FOR PUBLICATION— in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS SKÖLD, Plaintiff, V

    —FOR PUBLICATION— IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS SKÖLD, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION GALDERMA LABORATORIES, L.P.; NO. 14-5280 GALDERMA LABORATORIES, INC.; and GALDERMA S.A., Defendants. OPINION I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are Defendants Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and Galderma Laboratories, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Pending the Outcome of the Administrative Proceeding, Plaintiff Thomas Sköld’s Response in Opposition thereto, and Galderma L.P. and Galderma Inc.’s Reply, as well as Defendant Galderma S.A.’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay Pending the Outcome of the Administrative Proceeding, the Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition thereto, and Galderma S.A.’s Reply.1 The Court held oral argument on all pending motions on March 19, 2015. For the reasons that follow, the motion to stay shall be denied as moot, the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim shall be granted in part, and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction shall be denied. 1 Galderma S.A. was served after Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and Galderma Laboratories, Inc. had filed their motion to dismiss. Galderma S.A. then filed its own motion to dismiss, incorporating the arguments contained in L.P. and Inc.’s motion to dismiss Sköld’s state-law claims and also arguing separately that this Court cannot exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over it. See S.A. Mot. to Dismiss at 11. Hereinafter, any reference in this Opinion to an argument made by “the Defendants” collectively will be used in the context of an argument asserted by Galderma Laboratories, L.P.
  • GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW

    GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW

    GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW CROPS, GUNS & COMMERCE: A GAME THEORETICAL CRITIQUE OF GONZALES V. RAICH Maxwell L. Stearns 05-21 LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER SERIES An electronic version of this paper can be downloaded from the following websites: Social Science Research Network: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id= 787304 BePress Legal Repository: http://law.bepress.com/gmulwps/gmule/art37 Crops, Guns & Commerce: A Game Theoretical Critique of Gonzales v. Raich Maxwell L. Stearns∗ Abstract In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court sustained an application of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), banning all private use of marijuana, as applied to two women who had cultivated or otherwise acquired marijuana for the treatment of severe pain pursuant to the California Compassionate Use Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens placed Raich at the intersection of two landmark Commerce Clause precedents: Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 decision, which upheld a penalty under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 applied to a local farmer who violated his wheat quota but who had used the modest excess portion entirely on his own farm, and Lopez v. United States, the controversial 1995 decision, which stuck down the Gun- Free School Zones Act and for the first time in over sixty years imposed limits on the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause power based upon the underlying subject matter of the regulated activity. Writing for the Lopez majority, Chief Justice Rehnquist had claimed not to disturb the expansive post-New Deal Commerce Clause precedents, but rather to fit all of the cases neatly into three circumscribed categories: the use of channels of interstate commerce; instrumentalities or persons or things traveling in interstate commerce; and economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
  • Caqe ,T-)65 61

    Caqe ,T-)65 61

    eiF C714rd FF27JAIKL,ti Ckw.i,ZSI CAqE ,t-)65_61,. ;bo'7qra TAE C3h11© I-SuPRLrnE COi.I fF,a,qRh aF- CoFnmi SSiWER.SI 1N fvE: LE VEF2T K. PdE3221't2^. AKC^N.d^l ^f^r's^'L., t.^SES. A- LLCyt:LSTiN P. oSUEL^Sa7.ReGA(a.OGi 115% 511 M.MArN ST ./LMZc^ni.e^l1 4431U< .4AOa.... pE^,' 0 6 Z006 LAWREIJGE R. Sin^TiJ.FS©.,REG.NO.a©2902Es1 ONE CflSCA6E PLZ.. 7t1(.FL..AKR-dN.ON 44 3ej8, MARCIA J NIENGEL, CLERI( AEFTS.,APLEES..RES.... SUPREME CUF;! OF ILELATQiZ.AP('ELLAnfT, PLAu.ITiF'F LEVErc'l` K,C►RIPFrn! MOi IGaI FdR r-N7RY FdOR ALLEGE LdA1rQI.ITN6kI ZE P'cAcT 1 CE aF LAW L6t^^EN AGAwsT ZnTF1 A'T'f'oRAfEYs Lf1ldYER lA1LAPTlOAIEN As AL3ouE SEE NEraLE EXNIL3rT#'^"^4 "C° &IbuS CvMES,RELATafZ.ArPELLqM.PLAinitrFF LEUERT nc.6RIF'FiN.NE(mF3Y PRRY PbfZ RELIEF LLPOni'Ta WlliG.N RELIER CAnr BE GPtAn[TEd. A.rnaTrer.t FrafR Eti1TRY FoR ALLEGE dnrr4uTW0rtraE PreACTrcE aF LAru IoOisEO Afvr^,E6-ra ArTaRuEYs LAwyER. ^nsCA.PTranrE& AS AbevsE_ .SEC r(s,ucE cxAI PEr.li,rmL. L>APPE.FlL As QF R1a13T z^TRFanI Smi?R'Fa L eF RS.Car'.h LEVESZ~1 SOaw Cl-,..uSE- dRDE2 FOp^ REL)Ar11b, MmANf]E& TA)C f'fLEE AT ALL COS*P `TAlS RZEqmCLE5r wER Ciau F3AR rL, U rs 6lFl, PEnrtvAjG AISTddtC A7rVE REL/EF C,u P. RL. 55(a1^6) t*'s4,uERN WJLUE' 7)IE Au7'F1.. SctP CT RL. P"h.'00 , iti{E rgAl2cFoAln RL,$L.LIh^A^t^^JGR^ZEb PrZALT^CECK LAC^/.
  • Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10

    Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law 10

    A CRANK ON THE COURT: THE PASSION OF JUSTICE WILLIAM R. DAY Ross E. Davies, Professor, George Mason University School of Law The Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Fall 2009, pp. 94-107 (BRJ is a publication of SABR, the Society for American Baseball Research) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 10-10 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1555017 **SABR_BRJ-38.2_final-v2:Layout 1 12/15/09 2:00 PM Page 94 BASEBALL AND LAW A Crank on the Court The Passion of Justice William R. Day Ross E. Davies here is an understandable tendency to date the Not surprisingly, there were plenty of other baseball Supreme Court’s involvement with baseball fans on the Court during, and even before, the period Tfrom 1922, when the Court decided Federal covered by McKenna’s (1898–1925), Day’s (1903–22), Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Pro- and Taft’s (1921–30) service. 13 Chief Justice Edward D. fessional Base Ball Clubs —the original baseball White (1894–1921) 14 and Justices John Marshall Har - antitrust-exemption case. 1 And there is a correspon - lan (1877–1911), 15 Horace H. Lurton (1910–14), 16 and ding tendency to dwell on William Howard Taft—he Mahlon Pitney (1912–22), 17 for example. And no doubt was chief justice when Federal Baseball was decided 2— a thorough search would turn up many more. 18 There is, when discussing early baseball fandom on the Court.
  • Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power

    Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power

    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 10 Issue 2 Issue 2 - February 1957 Article 9 2-1957 Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power F. William O'Brien S.J. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation F. William O'Brien S.J., Justice William Cushing and the Treaty-Making Power, 10 Vanderbilt Law Review 351 (1957) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol10/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE WILLIAM CUSHING AND THE TREATY-MAKING POWER F. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, S.J.* Washington's First Appointees Although the work of the Supreme Court during the first few years was not great if measured in the number of cases handled, it would be a mistake to conclude that the six men who sat on the Bench during this formative period made no significant contribution to the develop- ment of American constitutional law. The Justices had few if any precedents to use as guides, and therefore their judicial work, limited though it was in volume, must be considered as stamped with the significance which attaches to all pioneer activity. Moreover, most of this work was done while on circuit duty in the different districts, and therefore from Vermont to Georgia the Supreme Court Justices were emissaries of good will for the new Constitution and the recently established general government.
  • Congress Hall Hotel: an Historic Structure Report

    Congress Hall Hotel: an Historic Structure Report

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Theses (Historic Preservation) Graduate Program in Historic Preservation 1991 Congress Hall Hotel: An Historic Structure Report Michael Calafati University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses Part of the Historic Preservation and Conservation Commons Calafati, Michael, "Congress Hall Hotel: An Historic Structure Report" (1991). Theses (Historic Preservation). 313. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/313 Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Calafati, Michael (1991). Congress Hall Hotel: An Historic Structure Report. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/313 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Congress Hall Hotel: An Historic Structure Report Disciplines Historic Preservation and Conservation Comments Copyright note: Penn School of Design permits distribution and display of this student work by University of Pennsylvania Libraries. Suggested Citation: Calafati, Michael (1991). Congress Hall Hotel: An Historic Structure Report. (Masters Thesis). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/hp_theses/313 st^^» V >;>«.>>•/' ^^Bi^i', i m. UNIVERSlTYy^^ PENNSYLVANIA. UBKARIES CONGRESS HALL HOTEL: AN HISTORIC
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K

    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
  • EXPLORE OUR Historic Sites

    EXPLORE OUR Historic Sites

    EXPLORE LOCAL HISTORY Held annually on the third weekend in October, “Four Centuries in a Weekend” is a county-wide event showcasing historic sites in Union County. More than thirty sites are open to the public, featuring Where New Jersey History Began tours, exhibits and special events — all free of charge. For more information about Four Centuries, EXPLORE OUR Union County’s History Card Collection, and National Parks Crossroads of the American Historic Sites Revolution NHA stamps, go to www.ucnj.org/4C DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION Office of Cultural & Heritage Affairs 633 Pearl Street, Elizabeth, NJ 07202 908-558-2550 • NJ Relay 711 [email protected] | www.ucnj.org/cultural Funded in part by the New Jersey Historical Commission, a division of the Department of State Union County A Service of the Union County Board of 08/19 Chosen Freeholders MAP center BERKELEY HEIGHTS Deserted Village of Feltville / Glenside Park 6 Littell-Lord Farmstead 7 CLARK Dr. William Robinson Plantation-Museum 8 CRANFORD Crane-Phillips House Museum 9 William Miller Sperry Observatory 10 ELIZABETH Boxwood Hall State Historic Site 11 Elizabeth Public Library 12 First Presbyterian Church / Snyder Academy 13 Nathaniel Bonnell Homestead & Belcher-Ogden Mansion 14 St. John’s Parsonage 15 FANWOOD Historic Fanwood Train Station Museum 16 GARWOOD 17 HILLSIDE Evergreen Cemetery 18 Woodruff House/Eaton Store Museum 19 The Union County Office of Cultural and Heritage KENILWORTH Affairs offers presentations to local organizations Oswald J. Nitschke House 20 at no charge, so your members can learn about: LINDEN 21 County history in general MOUNTAINSIDE Black history Deacon Andrew Hetfield House 22 NEW PROVIDENCE Women’s history Salt Box Museum 23 Invention, Innovation & Industry PLAINFIELD To learn more or to schedule a presentation, Drake House Museum 24 duCret School of Art 25 contact the History Programs Coordinator Plainfield Meetinghouse 26 at 908-436-2912 or [email protected].
  • THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS of the COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B

    THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS of the COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B

    THE NEGATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE* Jom B. SHoLLEYt ON MARCH 4, 1935, the United States Supreme Court held in Baldwin v. Seelig, that the state of New York had no power to protect its milk Producers against underselling by the producers of other states even though the former were by law forbidden to sell below prescribed prices,2 and the resulting competition would go far to wreck the whole statutory system. The particular statute condemned forbade in effect the sale of imported milk in New York unless its producers had been paid the equivalent of the New York standard price. The gist of the opin- ion of Mr. Justice Cardozo is contained in the following excerpts: If New York, in order to promote the economic welfare of her farmers, may guard them against competition with the cheaper prices of Vermont, the door has been opened to rivalries and reprisals that were meant to be averted by subjecting commerce be- tween the states to the power of the nation.3 What is ultimate is the principle that one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation. Formulas and catchwords are subor- dinate to this overmastering requirement. Neither the power to tax nor the police power may be used by the state of destination with the aim and effect of establishing an economic barrieragainst competition with the products of another state or the labor of its residents. Restrictions so contrived are an unreasonable clog upon the mobility of commerce. They set up what is equivalent to a rampart of customs duties designed to neutralize advantages belonging to the place of origin.
  • Not the King's Bench Edward A

    Not the King's Bench Edward A

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2003 Not the King's Bench Edward A. Hartnett Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Hartnett, Edward A., "Not the King's Bench" (2003). Constitutional Commentary. 303. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/303 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT THE KING'S BENCH Edward A. Hartnett* Speaking at a public birthday party for an icon, even if the honoree is one or two hundred years old, can be a surprisingly tricky business. Short of turning the party into a roast, it seems rude to criticize the birthday boy too harshly. On the other hand, it is at least as important to avoid unwarranted and exaggerated praise.1 The difficult task, then, is to try to say something re­ motely new or interesting while navigating that strait. The conference organizers did make it easier for me in one respect: My assignment does not involve those ideas for which Marbury is invoked as an icon. It is for others to wrestle in well­ worn trenches with exalted arguments about judicial review and its overgrown descendent judicial supremacy, while trying to avoid unseemly criticism or fawning praise. I, on the other hand, am to address more technical issues involving section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and its provision granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus.
  • 13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)

    13-485 Comptroller of Treasury of MD. V. Wynne (05/18/2015)

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND v. WYNNE ET UX. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 13–485. Argued November 12, 2014—Decided May 18, 2015 Maryland’s personal income tax on state residents consists of a “state” income tax, Md. Tax-Gen. Code Ann. §10–105(a), and a “county” in- come tax, §§10–103, 10–106. Residents who pay income tax to anoth- er jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction are al- lowed a credit against the “state” tax but not the “county” tax. §10– 703. Nonresidents who earn income from sources within Maryland must pay the “state” income tax, §§10–105(d), 10–210, and nonresi- dents not subject to the county tax must pay a “special nonresident tax” in lieu of the “county” tax, §10–106.1. Respondents, Maryland residents, earned pass-through income from a Subchapter S corporation that earned income in several States. Respondents claimed an income tax credit on their 2006 Maryland income tax return for taxes paid to other States. The Mary- land State Comptroller of the Treasury, petitioner here, allowed re- spondents a credit against their “state” income tax but not against their “county” income tax and assessed a tax deficiency.