DOCSLIB.ORG

Yes, There Were Chief Justices Before Marshall

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yes, There Were Chief Justices Before Marshall CHICAGOLAWBULLETIN.COM WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2014 ® Volume 160, No. 247 Yes, there were chief justices before Marshall n the history of the U.S. On to 3 Supreme Court, there have C O T T E R ’S CORNER Upon the resignation of Rutledge, been 17 chief justices. Many Washington nominated William consider John Marshall to be Cushing, but Cushing rejected the the first, including one of my nomination in February 1796. (The Istudents who opened a paper by position obviously did not have the stating he was the first chief. prestige and honor or responsibil- Notwithstanding that Marshall DANIEL A. ities it eventually would post-Mar- served the longest in that role and COTTER shall.) Washington turned to Oliver that his court’s decisions estab- Ellsworth, nominating him on lished the court as the final arbiter March 3, 1796. The Senate unani- of the Constitution and established Daniel A. Cotter is vice president, general mously approved Ellsworth the its powers, three chiefs preceded counsel and secretary of Fidelity Life next day. M a r s h a l l . Association and an adjunct professor at Ellsworth was a delegate to the The John Marshall Law School, where he The first teaches SCOTUS Judicial Biographies. Constitutional Convention from The inaugural session of the He is also president of The Chicago Bar Connecticut and one of many Supreme Court began Feb. 2, 1790, Association. The article is Cotter’s lawyers at the convention. He was in the new nation’s capital, New opinion and not to be attributed to one of the drafters of the Constitu- York City. Presiding over the first Fidelity Life, the CBA or John Marshall. tion and one of the main proponents Supreme Court was Chief Justice of the bicameral legislative setup. John Jay, a Founding Father of our No. 2 He left the convention before c o u n t r y. John Rutledge was a delegate to signing and eventually became a big A New Yorker, Jay became a the Continental Congress and a del- advocate of judicial review as a member of the Committee of Cor- egate to the Constitutional Conven- drafter of the Judiciary Act of 1789. respondence in 1774. He drafted the tion from South Carolina. Rutledge Ellsworth served until Sept. 30, Constitution of New York and was was a slave-owner and argued that 1800, when he resigned due to poor one of the three delegates to the any prohibition on slavery in the health. His tenure was short, al- Treaty of Paris to end the Revolu- Constitution would prevent the though two of his court’s decisions tionary War. Southern states from supporting —Hylton v. U.S. and New York v. He did not sign the Declaration the Constitution. Connecticut —established the of Independence (his New York In 1789, he was nominated as the c o u r t ’s power of judicial review role prevented him from voting on Supreme Court’s first associate jus- (fleshed out by Marshall a few years it) and was not at the Constitu- tice and was confirmed. He resigned later) and witnessed the first exer- tional Convention but was one of in 1791 without having heard a single cise of the court’s original jurisdic- the authors of the Federalist Pa- case to become the chief justice of tion in state disputes. p e rs . the South Carolina Supreme Court. Ellsworth also established the President George Washington Rutledge became a recess ap- precedent of unified court opinions, originally offered Jay the position of pointment when Jay resigned, and which Marshall would adopt and secretary of state, which Jay reject- his term began immediately on e n f o r c e . ed. When offered the newly created June 30, 1795. Rutledge gave a Conclusion position of chief justice (pursuant to speech roundly criticizing the Jay John Marshall may be seen as the the Judiciary Act of 1789), he ac- Treaty. That speech cost him sup- father of the Supreme Court. He ce p t e d . port of the Washington administra- might also be considered first when Jay ’s court heard only three cases tion and many senators, and even- it comes to legacy and assessment in his five-year tenure, the only sig- tually, his nomination was rejected. of accomplishment. nificant one being Chisholm v. Geor- Rutledge resigned on Dec. 28, But he wasn’t the first chief jus- gia (the genesis of the 11th Amend- 1795, and the rejection of his nom- tice. Three esteemed contempo- ment). In 1795, Jay resigned as chief ination ruined the man. He at- raries set the tone, and Marshall ex- justice to become the governor of tempted suicide back in South Car- panded and strengthened what his New York. olina and withdrew from public life. predecessors had established. Copyright © 2014 Law Bulletin Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from Law Bulletin Publishing Company..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ...
    [Show full text]
  • High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1974 High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936" (1974). Popular Media. 267. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/267 Copyright c 1974 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media High Court of Congress: Impeachment Trials, 1797-1936 by William F. Swindler Twelve "civil officers" of the United States have tacle, appear to have rested more on objective (and been subjected to trials on impeachment articles perhaps quasi-indictable) charges. in the Senate. Both colorful and colorless figures The history of impeachment as a tool in the struggle have suffered through these trials, and the nation's for parliamentary supremacy in Great Britain and the fabric has been tested by some of the trials. History understanding of it at the time of the first state constitu- shows that impeachment trials have moved from tions and the Federal Convention of 1787 have been barely disguised political vendettas to quasi-judicial admirably researched by a leading constitutional his- proceedings bearing the trappings of legal trials. torian, Raoul Berger, in his book published last year, Impeachment: Some Constitutional Problems. Like Americans, Englishmen once, but only once, carried the political attack to; the head of state himself. In that encounter Charles I lost his case as well as his head. The decline in the quality of government under the Com- monwealth thereafter, like the inglorious record of MPEACHMENT-what Alexander Hamilton called American government under the Reconstruction Con- "the grand inquest of the nation"-has reached the gresses, may have had an ultimately beneficial effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Justices
    The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Signers of the U.S. Constitution
    CONSTITUTIONFACTS.COM The U.S Constitution & Amendments: About the Signers (Continued) The Signers of the U.S. Constitution On September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention came to a close in the Assembly Room of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. There were seventy individuals chosen to attend the meetings with the initial purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. Rhode Island opted to not send any delegates. Fifty-five men attended most of the meetings, there were never more than forty-six present at any one time, and ultimately only thirty-nine delegates actually signed the Constitution. (William Jackson, who was the secretary of the convention, but not a delegate, also signed the Constitution. John Delaware was absent but had another delegate sign for him.) While offering incredible contributions, George Mason of Virginia, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts refused to sign the final document because of basic philosophical differences. Mainly, they were fearful of an all-powerful government and wanted a bill of rights added to protect the rights of the people. The following is a list of those individuals who signed the Constitution along with a brief bit of information concerning what happened to each person after 1787. Many of those who signed the Constitution went on to serve more years in public service under the new form of government. The states are listed in alphabetical order followed by each state’s signers. Connecticut William S. Johnson (1727-1819)—He became the president of Columbia College (formerly known as King’s College), and was then appointed as a United States Senator in 1789.
    [Show full text]
  • The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1987 Book Review: The oD cumentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2. Edited by Maeva Marcus and James R. Perry. John P. Roche Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Roche, John P., "Book Review: The ocD umentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2. Edited by Maeva Marcus and James R. Perry." (1987). Constitutional Commentary. 499. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/499 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]. 166 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY [Vol. 4:155 judgment-of personal responsibility for one's own choices and be­ havior-is lacking. In short, Hewlett and others now writing in a comparable vein never consider that the "double-bind" on women Hewlett de­ scribes-the multiple burdens, the tensions and conflicts-may not be the result of society's failures, or the clashing demands of femi­ nists and conservatives, but an inescapable dilemma, part of the human condition generally, and the female condition particularly. None of this, I hasten to add, means that parental leaves and other measures are necessarily bad. Women do marry and have children; they also work. Various proposals may be sound.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Convention
    The Constitutional Convention Woman (to Benjamin Franklin): “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Benjamin Franklin: "A Republic, if you can keep it.” - McHenry, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, Oil on Canvas, Howard Chandler Christy The hundred day debate known as the Constitutional Convention was one of the most momentous occurrences in United States Constitutional History, and the events that would take place in the Pennsylvania State House during that time would set the United States on the course towards becoming a true Constitutional Republic. The Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The point of the event was decide how America was going to be governed. Although the Convention had been officially called to revise the existing Articles of Confederation, many delegates had much bigger plans. Men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wanted to create a new government rather than fix the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the Convention. 70 Delegates had been appointed by the original states to attend the Constitutional Convention, but only 55 were able to be there. Rhode Island was the only state to not send any delegates at all. As history played out, the result of the Constitutional Convention was the United States Constitution, but it wasn't an easy path. The drafting process was grueling. They wanted the supreme law of the United States to be perfect. The first two months of the Convention saw fierce debate over the 15 points of the "Virginia Plan" which had been proposed by Madison as an upgrade to the Articles of Confederation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court
    The Supreme Court Why It Matters Write the following statement on the BEFORE YOU READ TAKING As you read, NOTES take notes on board: Every case is eligible to be tried The Main Idea Reading Focus Key Terms how the Supreme Court can before the Supreme Court. Ask students influence society. Use a The Supreme Court hears 1. What is the power of judicial review, p. 189 graphic organizer like this whether they agree or disagree with this appeals, reviews laws, judicial review? remand, p. 190 one to record your notes. statement and why. Ask them how they 2. and strongly influences What are the constitutional opinion, p. 190 think the Supreme Court decides which American society. checks on the Supreme concurring opinion, p. 190 Court’s powers? cases to try. Help students understand dissenting opinion, p. 191 3. How has the Supreme that the Court carefully chooses to Court strengthened constitutional rights? consider cases on appeal that deal with important issues. Academic Vocabulary What kinds of activities are pro- Review with students the high-use academic tected by your right to free speech? term in this section. What is cruel and unusual punish- explicitly fully revealed without vagueness ment? These are all constitutional (p. 190) questions, and many of them have been addressed by the courts. In fact, lower state and federal courts Key Terms frequently deal with constitutional issues, but their rul- Preteach the following terms: ings are not the fi nal word. In our system of govern- judicial review courts’ power to decide ment, the Supreme Court has the fi nal say about what whether a law or presidential action is in is constitutional and what is not.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justice Rutledge
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER FOUNDED 1852 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LAW VOL. {5 4 .S. APRIL, I9o6. No. 4. CHIEF JUSTICE RUTLEDGE. AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE LAW DEPARTMENT OF THE UNI- VERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. BY HENRY FLANDERS, ESQ. GENTLEMEN :-For more than two centuries after the battle of the Boyne, the rrish, in every generation, in greater or less numbers have crossed the seas, and sought new homes in America. And this is true whether they have been of Celtic, or Saxon descent. The increase and success of Irishmen in this country has been remarkable. Some years ago, I happened to be at Pittsfield, Massa- chusetts, on a summer's vacation, and went one night to see an Irish play which proved to be very jovial and amusing. The audience was a crowded one, and particularly numerous with blackeyed, blackhaired, and rosy cheeked Irish girls, whose charms would have aroused the suscepti- bilities, and disturbed the peace of any company of law students, anywhere, and for the time being, at least, have banished Coke and Blackstone entirely out of their minds. The principal part in this comedy was admirably played by a stalwart actor, who in one of the scenes strode across NoTE: This address upon the life of Chief Justice Rutledge was delivered by Henry Flanders, Esq., before the students of the Law Department of the University of Pennsylvania in December last, and through his courtesy, and with his permission, we are enabled to publish it.-Ed. CHIEF JUSTICE RUTLEDGE; the stage with shillalah in hand, exclaiming, "If there is any man prisint who denies that Washington is the Capital of 'Ould Ireland' let him show himself." I am bound to say, that no man " prisint" accepted the challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Down but Not Out: How American Slavery Survived the Constitutional Era
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University History Theses Department of History 12-16-2015 Down But Not Out: How American Slavery Survived the Constitutional Era Jason Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/history_theses Recommended Citation Butler, Jason, "Down But Not Out: How American Slavery Survived the Constitutional Era." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2015. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/history_theses/99 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOWN BUT NOT OUT: HOW AMERICAN SLAVERY SURVIVED THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERA by JASON E. BUTLER Under the Direction of H. Robert Baker, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Whether through legal assault, private manumissions or slave revolt, the institution of slavery weathered sustained and substantial blows throughout the era spanning the American Revolution and Constitutional Era. The tumult of the rebellion against the British, the inspiration of Enlightenment ideals and the evolution of the American economy combined to weaken slavery as the delegates converged on Philadelphia for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Even in the South, it was not hard to find prominent individuals working, speaking or writing against slavery. During the Convention, however, Northern delegates capitulated to staunch Southern advocates of slavery not because of philosophical misgivings but because of economic considerations. Delegates from North and South looked with anticipation toward the nation’s expansion into the Southwest, confident it would occasion a slavery-based economic boom.
    [Show full text]
  • President John Adams and Four Chief Justices: an Essay for James F
    NYLS Law Review Vols. 22-63 (1976-2019) Volume 57 Issue 3 Supreme Court Narratives: Law, History, Article 3 and Journalism January 2013 President John Adams and Four Chief Justices: An Essay for James F. Simon R.B. Bernstein New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/nyls_law_review Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Legal History Commons, President/ Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation R.B. Bernstein, President John Adams and Four Chief Justices: An Essay for James F. Simon, 57 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. (2012-2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Law Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. VOLUME 57 | 2012/13 R.B. Bernstein President John Adams and Four Chief Justices: An Essay for James F. Simon 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 441 (2012–2013) ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School, and Adjunct Professor of Political Science and History, Skadden, Arps Honors Program in Legal Studies, City College of New York. I thank my colleagues and friends at New York Law School—including Dean Emeritus James F. Simon and Professors William P. LaPiana, Edward A. Purcell, Jr., Marcey Grigsby, and Nadine Strossen, as well as co-panelists Akhil Reed Amar of Yale University, Richard D. Friedman of the University of Michigan Law School, and Lucas A. Powe, Jr. of the University of Texas at Austin.
    [Show full text]
  • Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post-Revolutionary Era, 35 Notre Dame L
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 1 Article 2 12-1-1959 Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post- Revolutionary Era Anton-Hermann Chroust Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Anton-Hermann Chroust, Dilemma of the American Lawyer in the Post-Revolutionary Era, 35 Notre Dame L. Rev. 48 (1959). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol35/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DILEMMA OF THE AMERICAN LAWYER IN THE POST-REVOLUTIONARY ERA Anton-Hermann Chroust* On the eve of the Revolution the legal profession in the American colonies,' in the main, had achieved both distinction and recognition. It had come to enjoy the respect as well as the confidence of the people at large. This is borne out, for instance, by the fact that twenty-five of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, and thirty-one of the fifty-five members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Of the thirty-one lawyers who attended the Constitutional Convention, no less than five had studied law in England.2 The American Revolution itself, directly and indirectly, affected the legal profession in a variety of ways. First, the profession itself lost a considerable number of its most prominent members; secondly, a bitter antipathy against the lawyer as a class soon made itself felt throughout the country; thirdly, a strong dislike of everything English, including the English common law became wide- spread; and fourthly, the lack of a distinct body of American law as well as the absence of American law reports and law books for a while made the administra- tion of justice extremely difficult and haphazard.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Bulwark of ... Political Liberties
    NOTE “The Great Bulwark of ...Political Liberties”: The Decline of Jury Power and the Rise of Slave Interests in the Early American Republic RYAN SHYMANSKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1733 I. ORIGINS OF THE AMERICAN JURY SYSTEM ......................... 1736 II. JURIES AS CITIZEN-JUDGES OF FEDERAL LAW ....................... 1740 A. JURIES AS A RESTRAINT ON THE JUDICIARY .................... 1740 B. JURIES AS JUDGES OF QUESTIONS OF LAW...................... 1742 III. SLAVERY AND THE DECLINE OF THE AMERICAN JURY. 1745 A. JURIES AND THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1793 . 1746 B. JURIES AND THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT OF 1850 . 1752 C. SLAVE POWER VERSUS JURY POWER .......................... 1755 CONCLUSION ...................................................... 1757 INTRODUCTION It is no stretch to say that “jury” and “fact finder” have become nearly synon- ymous terms in the language of modern American law.1 Yet this has the unfor- tunate side effect of obscuring an essential part of the jury’s institutional history—specifically, that until the end of the nineteenth century, juries were regularly called on to decide questions of law as well as fact.2 Though the * Georgetown Law, J.D. 2019; Georgetown College, B.A. 2016. © 2019, Ryan Shymansky. Many thanks to Professor John Mikhail for his invaluable advice and feedback, as well as to the editors and staff members of The Georgetown Law Journal who have worked so diligently to prepare this Note for publication. 1. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “jury” as a “group of persons selected according to law and given the power to decide questions of fact and return a verdict in the case submitted to them.” Jury, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed.
    [Show full text]