DOCSLIB.ORG

The Judiciary Act of 1789

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Judiciary Act of 1789 The Judiciary Act of 1789 Time and Grade Level Two 50 minute class periods in a Grade 9-12 US history, government or civics classroom Purpose of the Lesson The purpose of this lesson is to teach students about the significance of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in establishing a federal judiciary, and the power of judicial review as outlined by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case, Marbury v. Madison (1803). By the conclusion of this lesson, students will understand the key provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the structure of the federal judiciary, as well as the power of judicial review. Critical Engagement Questions & Lesson Objectives 1. What are the key features of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and why are they significant? Objective: Students will be able to analyze and explain the structure of the federal judicial system as created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. They will be able to articulate the reasoning for the structure of the judiciary, as well as how the statute relates to the U.S. Constitution. 2. What is the concept of judicial review, and where did it originate? Objective: Students will be able to define judicial review, articulate the arguments for and against it, and explain the case Marbury v. Madison. Standards Common Core Standards: English Language Arts Standards-History/Social Studies- Grade 9-10 CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis ofprimary and secondary sources, attending to such features as the date and origin of the information. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of how key events or ideas develop over the course of the text. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.9-10.9 Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources. Common Core Standards: English Language Arts Standards-History/Social Studies-Grade 11- 12 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (Grade 9-12) CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details to an understanding of the text as a whole. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the relationships among the key details and ideas. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.11-12.5 Analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured, including how key sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text contribute to the whole. C3 Standards: Suggested k-12 Pathway for College, Career, and Civic Readiness Dimension 2, Civic and Political Institutions, Perspectives, & Causation and Argumentation D2.Civ.4.9-12. Explain how the U.S. Constitution establishes a system of government that has powers, responsibilities, and limits that have changed over time and that are still contested D2.His.6.9-12. Analyze the ways in which the perspectives of those writing history shaped the history that they produced. Overview of the Lesson Day One 1. Homework: Read “The Judiciary Act of 1789 – the Basics” worksheet, and selected provisions of the U.S. Constitution (Appendices A and B). 2. Teacher Lesson: Review the Judiciary Act of 1789 and discuss the tensions and motivations the drafters faced in creating the federal judiciary. 3. Activity: Assign students to small groups to complete “The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Constitution” activity (Appendix B). Day Two 1. Homework: Read “Marbury v. Madison” worksheet (Appendix C) and excerpts from Federalist No. 78 and Brutus XV (Appendix D) 2. Teacher Lesson: Review the facts and outcome of Marbury v. Madison 3. Activity: Assign students to small groups to complete the Federalist 78 and Brutus XV comparison activity (Appendix E) 2 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (Grade 9-12) Materials 1. ConSource materials: a. The Federalist No. 78 (June 14, 1788) b. Brutus XV (March 20, 1788) 2. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (available here) 3. Printed copies of the worksheets included in Appendices A through E Student Warm-Up for the Lesson Prior to the start of the lesson, students should be assigned the following reading: Day One: “The Judiciary Act of 1789 – the Basics” worksheet, and selected provisions of the U.S. Constitution (Appendices A and B). Day Two: “Marbury v. Madison” worksheet (Appendix D) Judicial Powers excerpted reading (Appendix E) Teacher Warm-Up for the Lesson KEY VOCABULARY Admiralty: cases involving ships, the sea, or other navigable waters (also known as maritime) Alien: a person who is not a citizen; a person who is a citizen of another country or nation Appeal: a legal process in which a losing party asks a higher court to reverse a lower court’s decision Civil cases: a law suit that involves private parties; the harm is against an individual, group of individuals, or organization Criminal cases: a law suit that involves a crime; one party is the government; the harm is against society Inferior courts: federal courts that are beneath the Supreme Court. Congress has the constitutional authority to establish these lower courts, and first did so in the Judiciary Act of 1789 when it established District Courts and Circuit Courts (which still exist today!) 3 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (Grade 9-12) “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.” -- Article III, Section 1, U.S. Constitution Judicial Review: the power of the judiciary to overturn acts of legislation that are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution Jurisdiction: the authority of a court to hear a particular case Subject-matter jurisdiction: the court’s authority to hear a case dealing with a specific subject matter Original jurisdiction: the authority of the court to be the first to hear a case Appellate jurisdiction: the court’s authority to hear an appeal of a case Tort: a wrongful act that causes civil legal harm (not criminal) Writ of Mandamus: a court order directing a person or agency to do or not do something OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC1 At the time of the Constitutional Convention, delegates were deeply divided over the creation of federal courts, and what authority those courts would have. The categories of cases that the federal courts would be able to hear (known as “federal subject-matter jurisdiction”) could determine the extent of power of the federal courts, and implicates the federalism concern of allocation of power between state and federal governments. One plan for the new Constitution, the Virginia Plan, suggested a far more expansive federal judiciary than any other plan. Some key aspects to the Virginia Plan’s treatment of the federal judiciary include: broad subject-matter jurisdiction, a supreme court, and a wide-ranging framework of inferior courts. This broad judiciary plan was met with resistance from some delegates, such as John Rutledge of South Carolina and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who argued against federal 1 Works cited: Judiciary Act, Sept. 24, 1789, 1 Stat. 73; Casto, William R. The Supreme Court in the Early Republic: The Chief Justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1995. 4 The Judiciary Act of 1789 (Grade 9-12) encroachment on the power of state courts. As a compromise between those who wanted a powerful judiciary, and those who wanted to preserve the authority of state courts, a motion was passed to give the legislature the power to establish inferior courts. This compromise gave flexibility to the system, by giving the new Congress the discretion of whether to establish these lower federal courts. In deciding subject-matter jurisdiction, the Convention ultimately gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction (the power to hear the case first) over cases involving foreign diplomats and cases in which a state is a party, and appellate jurisdiction (the power to hear an appeal of a case) in other cases, including, for example cases involving federal law, admiralty cases, and cases involving diversity of citizenship and aliens. Also important, the Constitution did not limit the Supreme Court’s ability to review state court decisions. By 1789 the Constitution was ratified, and the new federal government was ready to govern. One of the first legislative actions commenced when the Senate created a Grand Committee consisting of one Senator from each state to draft a bill to design the federal judiciary. One of the major concerns on the mind of those drafting the new bill was national security. Coming out of the weak Articles of Confederation, the drafters wanted to ensure the federal judiciary had power over prize cases (an outdated type of admiralty case), law suits involving federal revenue laws, and cases involving federal crimes. Admiralty jurisdiction was a critical issue in the creation of the federal judiciary. At the time, admiralty cases were frequent and critical to trade and national security. Thus, there was not much controversy over the idea that the federal courts should have jurisdiction over admiralty cases, and due to their frequency, it became clear that having only a single Supreme Court was not an option. This helped immensely in the fight for the establishment of federal trial courts. However, the non-admiralty subject-matter jurisdiction to be given to federal trial courts raised debate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Politics in Districting the Federal Circuit System
    PUSHING BOUNDARIES: THE ROLE OF POLITICS IN DISTRICTING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT SYSTEM Philip S. Bonforte† I. Introduction ........................................................................... 30 II. Background ............................................................................ 31 A. Judiciary Act of 1789 ......................................................... 31 B. The Midnight Judges Act ................................................... 33 C. Judiciary Act of 1802 ......................................................... 34 D. Judiciary Act of 1807 ....................................................... 344 E. Judiciary Act of 1837 ....................................................... 355 F. Tenth Circuit Act ................................................................ 37 G. Judicial Circuits Act ........................................................... 39 H. Tenth Circuit Act of 1929 .................................................. 40 I. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1980 ...................................................... 42 J. The Ninth Circuit Dilemma ................................................ 44 III. The Role of Politics in Circuit Districting ............................. 47 A. The Presence of Politics ..................................................... 48 B. Political Correctness .......................................................... 50 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................. 52 † The author is a judicial clerk
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 the Marshall Court and the Early Republic
    Chapter 2 The Marshall Court and the Early Republic I. The Supreme Court in Its Initial Years: 1 78918O11 The Supreme Court of the United States was a relatively insignificant institution during the first decade of the new Republic. Presidents Washington and Adams had some difficulty attracting people to serve, and the rate of turnover was high. Three men were appointed chiefjustice during the first 12 years.JohnJay resigned after six years to serve as New York’s governor, which he presumably deemed the more important office (and during his tenure he sailed to England to serve as the princi pal negotiator of what became known as the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, which, together with his co-authorship of the Federalist Papers, remains his primary claim to fame for most historians) . His successor, John Rutledge, had been appointed as an Associate in 1 789 but had resigned in 1 791 , without ever sitting, to go to the more prestigious South Carolina Supreme Court. He was nominated to become Chief Justice ofthe U.S. Supreme Court in 1795 but failed to receive Senate confirmation. Thereafter, Oliver Ellsworth was nominated and confirmed in 1796; he served until 1800, when he resigned while overseas on a diplomatic mission to France. One source of discontent was the onerous duty of “riding circuit,” which required eachJustice to travel twice a year to sit in the federal circuit court districts. (There were no “circuit courts” in the modern sense; instead, they consisted of districtjudges sitting together with a Supreme Courtjustice as a “circuit court.”) The trips were strenuous and time-consuming.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics, the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Invention of the Federal Courts
    Duke Law Journal VOLUME 1989 DECEMBER NUMBER 6 "TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE": POLITICS, THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789, AND THE INVENTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS WYTHE HOLT* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Why Do We Have the National Judiciary We Have? . 1422 A. Unnoticed National JudiciaryPuzzles .................. 1422 * University Research Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law. B.A., 1963, Amherst College; J.D., 1966, Ph.D., 1979, University of Virginia. This essay is copyrighted by the author, who reserves all rights thereto. The author is grateful to Dean Nathaniel Hansford and the University of Alabama School of Law for their generous support of several years of research that forms the basis of this essay, and for a sabbatical leave that also in part supported the research for this essay. The author is most grateful to Charlene Bickford, Kenneth Bowling, Helen Veit, and their colleagues at the Documentary His- tory of the First Congress project at George Washington University, who graciously made available their magnificent collection of materials and have been kind enough to advise, assist, and cheer the author on many occasions. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Jim Buchanan, Christine Jordan, Maeva Marcus, Jim Perry, Steven Tull, and their associates at the Documentary History of the United States Supreme Court, 1789-1800 project, for generously giving time, advice, and expertise, and allowing the author to supplement his research for this essay with their fine collection. William Casto, Eugene Genovese, L.H. La Rue, and Sandra Van Burkleo commented generously, helpfully, and often persuasively upon earlier drafts. Finally, the author gratefully ac- knowledges the expert aid, pleasantness, and unfailing good cheer extended to the author by the many librarians and research aides at the numerous repositories cited in this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • Congress's Power to Regulate the Federal Judiciary: What the First Congress and the First Federal Courts Can Teach Today's Congress and Courts
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 2 3-15-2010 Congress's Power to Regulate the Federal Judiciary: What the First Congress and the First Federal Courts Can Teach Today's Congress and Courts Paul Taylor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Paul Taylor Congress's Power to Regulate the Federal Judiciary: What the First Congress and the First Federal Courts Can Teach Today's Congress and Courts , 37 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 3 (2010) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol37/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Congress's Power to Regulate the Federal Judiciary: What the First Congress and the First Federal Courts Can Teach Today's Congress and Courts Paul Taylor* I. INTRODUCTION II. JAMES MADISON AND THE CONVENTION DEBATES III. THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT IV. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS (ALEXANDER HAMILTON) VI. OLIVER ELLSWORTH AND THE FIRST CONGRESS A. The JudiciaryAct of 1789 B. The Pro-FederalGovernment Policy ofSection 25 of the JudiciaryAct of 1789 C. Supportfor the JudiciaryAct of 1789 in the First Congress D. Cases Dismissed Under Section 25 of the JudiciaryAct of 1789 VII. THE POLICY BEHIND THE 1914 AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 25 OF THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789 VIII.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATING the FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. CREATING the FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM ()c::) FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER ~ t--- ~ ~.... 1789-BICENTENNIAL OF THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY-1989 THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER Board The Chief Justice of the United States, Chairman Judge J. Clifford Wallace Chief Judge William C O'Kelley United States Court oj Appeals Jor the Ninth Circuit United States District Court, Northern District oj GeOTfJia Judge Monroe G. McKay Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. Uflfted States Court oj Appeals Jor the Tenth Circuit United States District Court, Northern District oj Ohio Judge Jose A. Cabranes Judge Robert E. Ginsberg United States District Court, District oj Connecticut United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District oj Illinois L. Ralph Mecham Director oj the Administrative OJJice oj the U.s. Courts Director .Judge John C Godbold Deputy Director Charles W. Nihan Division Directors William B. Eldridge, Research Daniel L. Skoler, Continuing Education & Training Richard D. Fennell, Innovations & Systems Development Russell R. Wheeler, Spedal Educational Services Alice L. O'Donnell, Inter-Judicial Affairs & InJormation Services 1520 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C 20005 Telephone (202) 633-6011 ~ 102728 u.s. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this 0 : 5 Igl:tcd material has been granted by Public Domain Federal- JuCiicial Center to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing Judicial Review: Marbury and the Judicial Act of 1789
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 38 Issue 4 The Scholarship of Sanford Levinson Summer 2003 Establishing Judicial Review: Marbury and the Judicial Act of 1789 Mark A. Graber Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mark A. Graber, Establishing Judicial Review: Marbury and the Judicial Act of 1789, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 609 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol38/iss4/4 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Graber: Establishing Judicial Review: Marbury and the Judicial Act of 178 ESTABLISHING JUDICIAL REVIEW: MARBURY AND THE JUDICIAL ACT OF 1789* Mark A. Graber** Marbury v. Madison1 occupies a place of pride in American constitutional law. Constitutional commentators regard that 1803 decision as a judicial landmark, one of the most important cases decided by any court in any country. Marbury's declaration that a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, scholars of all constitutional persuasions and professional affiliations agree, provided the necessary and sufficient foundations for judicial review in the United States. Such claims as "John Marshall's famous opinion in Marbury... established the Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, 3 litter the scholarly literature on constitutional law, theory, politics, and history. American constitutional law, in the received pedagogical canon, is largely a footnote to Marbury.
    [Show full text]
  • SEATACMUNICIPALCOURT Your City. Your Court
    JULY, 2014 VOL #3 ISSUE #2 SEATACMUNICIPALCOURT Your City. Your Court. “Independence” In.de.pen.dence (noun): freedom from outside The Constitution contains Amendments 11-27 control or support: the state of being independent; which address additional rights: the time when a country or region gains political freedom from outside control. th The 13 Amendment prohibits slavery and This month, we celebrated our independence as a involuntary servitude nation. The Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, th The 14 Amendment prohibits any state from 1776, declared our independence, and dissolved all making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens, or which political connection and allegiance with Great Britain. shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, or deny any Shortly thereafter, on September 17, 1787, the person the equal protection of the law Constitution of the United States was signed into effect. The 15th Amendment guarantees all citizens the Finally, on March 4th, 1789, Congress ratified the Bill of right to vote, regardless of race or color Rights, which consists of Constitutional Amendments 1- th The 19 Amendment guarantees all citizens the 10. That timeless, elegant document establishes the rights right to vote, regardless of sex with which we are most familiar: freedom of religion, (Continued on next page….) The United States Constitution called for a Supreme Court and a federal judiciary. The Judiciary Act of 1789 created 13 district courts in principal cities, with one judge in each court, and three circuit courts to cover the eastern, middle and southern United States.
    [Show full text]
  • MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN Turnu I
    [Vol.109 THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN TuRNu I "The Federalists have retired into the judiciary as a strong- hold . and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." ' This bitter lament of Thomas Jefferson after he had succeeded to the Presidency referred to the final legacy bequeathed him by the Federalist party. Passed during the closing weeks of the Adams administration, the Judiciary Act of 1801 2 pro- vided the Chief Executive with an opportunity to fill new judicial offices carrying tenure for life before his authority ended on March 4, 1801. Because of the last-minute rush in accomplishing this purpose, those men then appointed have since been known by the familiar generic designation, "the midnight judges." This flight of Federalists into the sanctuary of an expanded federal judiciary was, of course, viewed by the Republicans as the last of many partisan outrages, and was to furnish the focus for Republican retaliation once the Jeffersonian Congress convened in the fall of 1801. That the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed and the new judges deprived of their new offices in the first of the party battles of the Jeffersonian period is well known. However, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of "the midnight judges" have never been recounted, and even the names of those appointed have vanished from studies of the period. It is the purpose of this Article to provide some further information about the final event of the Federalist decade. A cardinal feature of the Judiciary Act of 1801 was a reform long advocated-the reorganization of the circuit courts.' Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts of the United States had been grouped into three circuits-Eastern, Middle, and Southern-in which circuit court was held by two justices of the Supreme Court (after 1793, by one justice) ' and the district judge of the district in which the court was sitting.5 The Act of 1801 grouped the districts t Assistant Professor of History, Wellesley College.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee
    A History of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee M. NEIL REED, TOM VANDERLOO, AND STEPHANIE WOEBKENBERG 34 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • August 2016 upreme Court Justice Potter Stewart may have best explained the importance of the Sixth Circuit when he wrote, “The Sixth Federal Judicial SCircuit is a cross section of the nation. Extending from the tip of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to As the nation grew and new states entered the union, Congress the Mississippi border, it spans the heartland of periodically realigned some of the circuits. The boundaries of the our country. So it is that the United States Court Sixth Circuit underwent some shifting changes before their final realignment after the Civil War. With the Judiciary Act of 1866,7 of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is not a regional Congress reorganized the states into nine circuits and established court but in every sense a national one. Its the geographical outline that has remained unchanged except for the workload reflects the pluralism and diversity of inclusion of new states within existing circuits and the division of two 8 9 our national life.”1 circuits. The Judiciary Act of 1869 created a judgeship for each of the nine circuits, thus lessening the demands of circuit riding among the Supreme Court justices as they were required to attend each Congress first implemented the constitutional provision that “[t]he circuit court within their assigned circuit only once every two years. judicial power of the United States, shall
    [Show full text]
  • A History of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee
    A History of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee M. NEIL REED, TOM VANDERLOO, AND STEPHANIE WOEBKENBERG 34 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • August 2016 upreme Court Justice Potter Stewart may have best explained the importance of the Sixth Circuit when he wrote, “The Sixth Federal Judicial SCircuit is a cross section of the nation. Extending from the tip of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to As the nation grew and new states entered the union, Congress the Mississippi border, it spans the heartland of periodically realigned some of the circuits. The boundaries of the our country. So it is that the United States Court Sixth Circuit underwent some shifting changes before their final realignment after the Civil War. With the Judiciary Act of 1866,7 of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is not a regional Congress reorganized the states into nine circuits and established court but in every sense a national one. Its the geographical outline that has remained unchanged except for the workload reflects the pluralism and diversity of inclusion of new states within existing circuits and the division of two 8 9 our national life.”1 circuits. The Judiciary Act of 1869 created a judgeship for each of the nine circuits, thus lessening the demands of circuit riding among the Supreme Court justices as they were required to attend each Congress first implemented the constitutional provision that “[t]he circuit court within their assigned circuit only once every two years. judicial power of the United States, shall
    [Show full text]
  • Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Akhil Reed Amart
    Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Akhil Reed Amart In this year marking the Bicentennial of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and in a symposium designed to commemorate that Act, it might seem perverse, if not downright gauche, to begin by re- minding the reader that § 13 of this Act was the only congressional provision held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for the first third of our Constitution's history. (The case, of course, was Mar- bury v Madison.1 ) I nevertheless begin this way because I believe that a careful re-examination of the narrow constitutional issues raised by § 13 will yield important insights into larger and much debated issues of constitutional law. And the icing on the (200th birthday) cake is that such a re-examination will acquit § 13 of the Marbury Court's charge of unconstitutionality-surely a fitting message to deliver on this celebratory occasion (even though it raises some problems for me about what I shall be able to write without perversity or gaucherie fourteen years hence, on the Bicen- tennial of Marbury itself).2 A brief summary of the questions that I shall pose, and the answers that I shall offer, is in order at the outset. After a broad t Associate Professor, Yale Law School. B.A., 1980, Yale University; J.D., 1984, Yale Law School. I thank Bruce Ackerman, Vik Amar, Willy Fletcher, Jack Goldsmith, Paul Kahn, Larry Lessig, Mike Paulsen, Mike Rappaport, and John Siegel for their helpful com- ments on earlier versions of this essay.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Key to the Judiciary Act of 1789
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 46 Issue 5 Article 3 Summer 1995 The Federal Key to the Judiciary Act of 1789 Henry J. Bourguignon University of Toledo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Henry J. Bourguignon, The Federal Key to the Judiciary Act of 1789, 46 S. C. L. Rev. 647 (1995). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bourguignon: The Federal Key to the Judiciary Act of 1789 The Federal Key to the Judiciary Act of 1789 Henry J. Bourguignon I. INTRODUCTION James Wilson, one of the most influential drafters of the Constitution in 1787, during the ratification debate coined a label for the type of government created by the new Constitution. He called it a federal republic.' During this debate James Winthrop, a strong opponent of the new Constitution, writing under the name Agrippa also called the ideal government a federal republic.' For Winthrop, however, this ideal government already existed under the Articles of Confederation. When President Thomas Jefferson spoke at his inauguration in 1801, he proclaimed, "We are all republicans-we are all federalists. "I Jefferson's blithe assertion strikes us today as the prototype of a political platitude, a call for national unity after a bitterly partisan campaign. Jefferson, however, seems naively to have believed that all his countrymen, even those federalists who had fought with such personal enmity against his election, would soon realize that they too were republicans.4 The language of Wilson and Winthrop suggests Jefferson's words would have rung true at the time of the debate over the ratification and founding of the new constitutional government.
    [Show full text]