DOCSLIB.ORG

President Thomas Jefferson V. Chief Justice John Marshall by Amanda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
President Thomas Jefferson V. Chief Justice John Marshall by Amanda A Thesis Entitled Struggle to Define the Power of the Court: President Thomas Jefferson v. Chief Justice John Marshall By Amanda Dennison Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts in History ________________________ Advisor: Diane Britton ________________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo August 2005 Copyright © 2005 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. Acknowledgments Finishing this step of my academic career would not have been possible without the support from my mentors, family, and friends. My professors at the University of Toledo have supported me over the past three years and I thank them for their inspiration. I especially thank Professors Alfred Cave, Diane Britton, Ronald Lora, and Charles Glaab for reading my work, making corrections, and serving as advisors on my thesis committee. I am eternally grateful to the University of Toledo History Department for their financial and moral support. When I came to the University of Toledo, I would not have survived my first graduate seminar, let alone long enough to finish this project without the experience from my undergraduate career at Southwestern Oklahoma State University. I thank Professors Laura Endicott and John Hayden for their constant support, reading drafts, and offering suggestions and Professors Roger Bromert and David Hertzel for encouraging me via email and on my visits back to Southwestern. Ya’ll are the best. I have a wonderful support system from my family and friends, especially my parents and brother. Thank you Mom and Dad for your encouragement and love. And thank you Russ for your love and advice. I have been blessed with another support system up north. Rob MacDonald, you are my rock, thank you for selflessly editing my work and keeping me sane. Thank you to the MacDonald family for being my home away from home and to Layla Gordon for staying up with me on all the late nights. To my family and friends over the miles, this is for all of you. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments iii Table of Contents iv Introduction 1 I. Last Minute Shuffle: John Marshall's Appointment as Chief Justice 9 II. The Initial Encounter 37 III. Unraveling the Federalist Judiciary 53 IV. Courtroom Intoxication: Impeachment of Federal Judges 87 V. The Final Straw: Treason Defined 123 Conclusion 173 Bibliography 179 iv INTRODUCTION "Thomas Jefferson presents his compliments to General Marshall. He had the honor of calling at his lodgings twice this morning, but was so unlucky as to find ^ that he was out on both occasions. He wished to have expressed in person his regret that a pre-engagement for to-day which could not be dispensed with, would prevent him the satisfaction of dining in company with General Marshall, and therefore begs leave to place here the expressions of that respect which in company with his fellow citizens he bears him."1 Jefferson left this note for Marshall in Philadelphia after the latter's return from France where he served as an envoy in the XYZ Affair. Evidently, Jefferson made a mistake and first wrote that he was "so lucky" to have missed Marshall, but then corrected it by inserting "un." Marshall later referred to the note as the only time Jefferson came close to telling the truth.2 Marshall witnessed revolutionary France, which shaped his philosophy of government contrary to Jefferson's admiration for the French revolutionary ideals. Government ideology was one of the conflicts of interest between Marshall and Jefferson, but political differences have always existed between people. What makes the Jefferson/Marshall differences unique is the influence that their politics had on the judiciary system then and now. As evidenced by the aforementioned story, they had developed a sort of rivalry that was accelerated and publicized after Marshall's 1 Jefferson to Marshall, 23 June 1798, quoted in Nathan Schachner, Thomas Jefferson: A Biography, vol. 2 (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1951), 605-606. 2 Schachner, 606. 1 appointment as chief justice in January 1801, and Jefferson's inauguration in March of the same year. The sources used to elucidate the argument are letters, documents, and other historians' perspectives. Both Marshall and Jefferson's personal papers have been published, however, the latter's far outnumber the former's, which has posed a problem providing balance to their insights on events. Secondary sources have been used to show how Marshall has been portrayed, which has perpetuated the romanticism of the Marshall Court. The point is to show that the changes Marshall made were not smoothly implemented into the judiciary. Jefferson fought any alteration that would give the judiciary independence or strength. This thesis will examine four events that shaped the court and the executive's power between 1801 to 1807. The first three, the Marbury v. Madison decision, the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, and the Impeachment of Federalist judges, occurred within the first few years and show how the power struggle evolved into the final showdown of the Aaron Burr treason trial. The Burr trial was an arena where the president and the chief justice faced off in a highly publicized trial that dealt with the most serious of crimes allegedly performed by the former vice president. The first chapter, "Last Minute Shuffle," examines the early history of the court and Marshall's appointment. At the time, the American government was in a developmental stage and President George Washington served as the model for the executive branch. The judiciary, however, was not an equal branch and was disregarded by the citizens and even the men who served on the Court. John Jay was appointed the first chief justice but retired to run as governor of the state of New 2 York. John Rutledge, a recess appointment whom the Senate never confirmed, succeeded him, and Oliver Ellsworth, the third chief justice and diplomat, resigned for health reasons. The chief justiceship was not a desirable position since the Court performed time-consuming circuit duties and few significant cases were appealed to the Supreme Court. When Ellsworth resigned, Adams knew he could either promote an associate justice or appoint someone outside of the Court, but he carefully, quickly, contemplated because he did not want the incoming Republican party to have the opportunity to make an appointment. Justice William Cushing of Massachusetts had seniority, followed by Justice William Paterson of New Jersey. Adams hesitated at promoting Cushing because illness often prevented his attendance which might lead to his resignation during the Jefferson administration, therefore guaranteeing a Republican chief justice. The President explored options outside of the Court, but there were too many complications to insure a Federalist chief justice. Marshall's appointment as chief justice was one of judgeships President Adams appointed before he left office in March, 1801. When Jefferson took the presidential oath of office from Secretary of State/Chief Justice John Marshall on March 4, 1801, he was prepared to fight the judiciary at all costs. Jefferson disagreed with a strong judicial branch because the Court may override the Constitution and infringe on states’ rights; he said “the spirit of Marshallism” must be eliminated. Chapter two examines one of Jefferson’s attempts 3 to “humble the court.”3 The new president refused to deliver commissions to justices of the peace whom Adams had appointed and were approved by Secretary of State Marshall, but not delivered to the appointees. William Marbury demanded his commission, Secretary of State James Madison refused, and the case went to the Supreme Court. In what has been deemed a case of historic legal importance, the Marbury v. Madison decision was a powerful display of judicial power that tested the doctrine of judicial review. The precedent of judicial review had long-lasting effects and has been the focus of numerous studies, however, judicial review was not the main issue at the time. Marbury v. Madison was the first instance where Marshall and Jefferson flexed their muscles as chief justice and president. Jefferson was not pleased with the decision and he expressed his disproval throughout the rest of his life. For example, on June 12, 1823, he reminded Justice William Johnson of Marshall's practice of "traveling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court."4 The Marbury v. Madison case was introduced in the Supreme Court in 1801, but was not decided until 1803 because Jefferson and the Republicans abolished the Court for fourteen months. Chapter three examines how the Federalists, during a lame-duck session, passed an act that replaced the Judiciary Act of 1789. Signed on February 13, 1801, the Federalists attempted to maintain power in at least one government branch before the Republicans took over in March. It abolished the 3 R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001), 148. 4 Jefferson to Johnson, 12 June 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 447. 4 Supreme Court justices’ tradition of riding circuit, a task that was burdensome and problematic since Supreme Court justices could hear a case in the circuit court and if appealed, hear it again in the high court. The act created more districts to accommodate westward expansion and circuit court judges and district judges to hear district cases. The Federalists changed the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, claiming that the Court would appear unified without possible tied decisions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation
    ARTICLE ALL ABOUT WORDS: EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE 'JUDICIAL POWER" IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 1776-1806 William N. Eskridge, Jr.* What understandingof the 'judicial Power" would the Founders and their immediate successors possess in regard to statutory interpretation? In this Article, ProfessorEskridge explores the background understandingof the judiciary's role in the interpretationof legislative texts, and answers earlier work by scholars like ProfessorJohn Manning who have suggested that the separation of powers adopted in the U.S. Constitution mandate an interpre- tive methodology similar to today's textualism. Reviewing sources such as English precedents, early state court practices, ratifying debates, and the Marshall Court's practices, Eskridge demonstrates that while early statutory interpretationbegan with the words of the text, it by no means confined its searchfor meaning to the plain text. He concludes that the early practices, especially the methodology ofJohn Marshall,provide a powerful model, not of an anticipatory textualism, but rather of a sophisticated methodology that knit together text, context, purpose, and democratic and constitutionalnorms in the service of carrying out the judiciary's constitutional role. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 991 I. Three Nontextualist Powers Assumed by English Judges, 1500-1800 ............................................... 998 A. The Ameliorative Power .............................. 999 B. Suppletive Power (and More on the Ameliorative Pow er) .............................................. 1003 C. Voidance Power ..................................... 1005 II. Statutory Interpretation During the Founding Period, 1776-1791 ............................................... 1009 * John A. Garver Professor ofJurisprudence, Yale Law School. I am indebted toJohn Manning for sharing his thoughts about the founding and consolidating periods; although we interpret the materials differently, I have learned a lot from his research and arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber
    AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM Volume II: Rights and Liberties Howard Gillman, Mark A. Graber, and Keith E. Whittington INDEX OF MATERIALS ARCHIVE 1. Introduction 2. The Colonial Era: Before 1776 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties B. Principles i. Winthrop, “Little Speech on Liberty” ii. Locke, “The Second Treatise of Civil Government” iii. The Putney Debates iv. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” v. Judicial Review 1. Bonham’s Case 2. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” C. Scope i. Introduction III. Individual Rights A. Property B. Religion i. Establishment 1. John Witherspoon, The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man ii. Free Exercise 1. Ward, The Simple Cobler of Aggawam in America 2. Penn, “The Great Case of Liberty of Conscience” C. Guns i. Guns Introduction D. Personal Freedom and Public Morality i. Personal Freedom and Public Morality Introduction ii. Blackstone, “Commentaries on the Laws of England” IV. Democratic Rights A. Free Speech B. Voting i. Voting Introduction C. Citizenship i. Calvin’s Case V. Equality A. Equality under Law i. Equality under Law Introduction B. Race C. Gender GGW 9/5/2019 D. Native Americans VI. Criminal Justice A. Due Process and Habeas Corpus i. Due Process Introduction B. Search and Seizure i. Wilkes v. Wood ii. Otis, “Against ‘Writs of Assistance’” C. Interrogations i. Interrogations Introduction D. Juries and Lawyers E. Punishments i. Punishments Introduction 3. The Founding Era: 1776–1791 I. Introduction II. Foundations A. Sources i. Constitutions and Amendments 1. The Ratification Debates over the National Bill of Rights a.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Under Law William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1977 Justice Under Law William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Justice Under Law" (1977). Popular Media. 264. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/264 Copyright c 1977 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media INL Chief Justice John Marshall, portrayed by Edward Holmes, is the star of the P.B.S. "Equal Justice under Law" series. By William F. Swindler T HEBuilding-"Equal MOTTO on the Justice facade under of-the Law"-is Supreme also Court the title of a series of five films that will have their pre- mieres next month on the Public Broadcasting Service network. Commissioned by the Bicentennial Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and produced for public television by the P.B.S. national production center at WQED, Pittsburgh, the films are intended to inform the general public, as well as educational and professional audiences, on the American constitutional heritage as exemplified in the major decisions of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall. ABOVE: Marshall confers with Justice Joseph Story (left) and Jus- Four constitutional cases are dramatized in the tice Bushrod Washington (right). BELOW: Aaron Burr is escorted to series-including the renowned judicial review issue jail. in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the definition of "nec- essary and proper" powers of national government in the "bank case" (McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPEACHMENT AS a POLITICAL WEAPON THESIS Presented to The
    371l MoA1Y IMPEACHMENT AS A POLITICAL WEAPON THESIS Presented to the Graduate Council of the North Texas State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS By Sally Jean Bumpas Collins, B. A. Denton, Texas December, 1977 Collins, Sally J, B., Impeachment as a Political Weapon. Master of Arts (History), December, 1977, 135 pp., appendices, bibliography, 168 titles, This study is concerned with the problem of determining the nature of impeachable offenses through an analysis of the English theory of impeachment, colonial impeachment practice, debates in the constitutional convention and the state rati- fying conventions, The Federalist Papers and debates in the first Congress, In addition, the precedents established in American cases of impeachment particularly in the trials of Judge John Pickering, Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson are examined. Materials for the study included secondary sources, con- gressional records, memoirs, contemporary accounts, government documents, newspapers and trial records, The thesis concludes that impeachable of fenses include non-indictable behavior and exclude misconduct outside official duties and recommends some alternative method of removal for federal judges. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF IMPEACHMENT ,, . ! e ! I 9I1I 1 ITI THE IMPEACHMENT ISSUE IN EARLY AMERICAN HISTORY I I I I I I I I 12 III. THE PICKERING TRIAL . 32 IV. THE CHASE TRIAL ... ... 0 . .0. .. 51 V. EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION 77 .... 0 0 -APPENDICES0.---
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Master's Theses (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University Recommended Citation Labinski, Nicholas, "Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin" (2011). Master's Theses (2009 -). Paper 104. http://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/104 EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN by Nicholas Labinski A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2011 ABSTRACT EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN Nicholas Labinski Marquette University, 2011 This paper examines John F. Kennedy’s rhetoric concerning the Berlin Crisis (1961-1963). Three major speeches are analyzed: Kennedy’s Radio and Television Report to the American People on the Berlin Crisis , the Address at Rudolph Wilde Platz and the Address at the Free University. The study interrogates the rhetorical strategies implemented by Kennedy in confronting Khrushchev over the explosive situation in Berlin. The paper attempts to answer the following research questions: What is the historical context that helped frame the rhetorical situation Kennedy faced? What rhetorical strategies and tactics did Kennedy employ in these speeches? How might Kennedy's speeches extend our understanding of presidential public address? What is the impact of Kennedy's speeches on U.S. German relations and the development of U.S. and German Policy? What implications might these speeches have for the study and execution of presidential power and international diplomacy? Using a historical-rhetorical methodology that incorporates the historical circumstances surrounding the crisis into the analysis, this examination of Kennedy’s rhetoric reveals his evolution concerning Berlin and his Cold War strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Sin and Judicial Independence: Providing Accountability for Justices
    William and Mary Law Review VOLUME 50 NO. 4, 2009 ORIGINAL SIN AND JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE: PROVIDING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR JUSTICES PAUL D. CARRINGTON & ROGER C. CRAMTON * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE ............................ 1106 A. The Founding Vision ............................ 1109 1. The Federalists’ “Ark of Safety” .................. 1115 B. Removing a Disabled Judge: The Pickering Case ..... 1128 C. The Impeachment of Justice Chase: Are Justices Different? ........................... 1141 1. How To Remove A Justice .................... 1144 CONCLUSION ....................................... 1152 * Paul D. Carrington, Professor of Law, Duke University; Roger C. Cramton, Stevens Professor of Law Emeritus, Cornell University. Thanks to James Boyle, Henry Monaghan, Randall Roth, and Sanford Levinson for their helpful comments and to Michael Schobel for his research assistance. Thanks also to those attending the conference on The Citizen Lawyer presented at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary, to whom this Essay was presented on February 8, 2008, and to the Duke Law faculty workshop. 1105 1106 WILLIAM AND MARY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 50:1105 I. A DEFINING CHALLENGE The independence of the judiciary is an enduring and defining objective of the legal profession. We lawyers, of all citizens, have the greatest stake in shielding judges from intimidation or reward. And that task of protecting judicial independence stands today at the very top of the agenda of the American legal profession. 1 The integrity of law and legal institutions requires more than just the protection of judges. It is equally dependent on the willingness and ability of judges to maintain virtuous disinterest in their work. 2 Some might explain their occasional failings as manifesta- tions of the original sin inherited from Adam; 3 whatever their source, the proclivities of judges to indulge or celebrate themselves are perpetual temptations and judicial self-restraint is a perpetual challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture in the Fredericksburg Area Harold J
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research 6-1969 Agriculture in the Fredericksburg area Harold J. Muddiman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Muddiman, Harold J., "Agriculture in the Fredericksburg area" (1969). Master's Theses. Paper 823. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGRICULTURE IN THE FREDERICKSBURG AREA, 1800 TO 1840 BY HAROLD J. MUDDIMAN, JR. A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND IN CANDIDA CY FOR THE DEGREE OF MP.STER OF ARTS IN HISTORY JUNE 1969 _j- \.-'.' S I ,, I 1 \ f ! '• '\ ~ 4' ·.,; " '''"·. ·-' Approved: PREFACE I would like to express my appreciation for the invaluable advice of Dr. Joseph C. Robert in the preparation of this paper. Thanks also to my wife, Jane, for her help in gathering information from various county tax records. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS 1 Introduction Description of Agriculture in Virginia Tobacco Wheat Corn Cotton Flax, Hemp Livestock Landholdings II. PROBLEMS FOR THE FARMER . ' . 26 Slavery Overseer Transportation Tariff Emigration III. AGRICULTURAL REFORM 43 John Taylor of Caroline Diversified Farming Agricultural Societies Agricultural Journals Manures Crop Rotation Improved Agricultural Implements IV. CONCLUSION 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 VITA LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Tobacco Shipped From Fredericksburg and Nalmouth Warehouses, 1800-1824 .........
    [Show full text]