DOCSLIB.ORG

The Constitution of the United States of America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Constitution of the United States of America www.e-rara.ch The constitution of the United States of America Hickey, W. Philadelphia, 1847 ETH-Bibliothek Zürich Shelf Mark: Rar 38353 Persistent Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.3931/e-rara-86312 Chapter 8. This chapter is dedicated to the eminent jurists who have occupied and continue to occupy the bench of that august tribunal, the Supreme Court of the United States. www.e-rara.ch Die Plattform e-rara.ch macht die in Schweizer Bibliotheken vorhandenen Drucke online verfügbar. Das Spektrum reicht von Büchern über Karten bis zu illustrierten Materialien – von den Anfängen des Buchdrucks bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. e-rara.ch provides online access to rare books available in Swiss libraries. The holdings extend from books and maps to illustrated material – from the beginnings of printing to the 20th century. e-rara.ch met en ligne des reproductions numériques d’imprimés conservés dans les bibliothèques de Suisse. L’éventail va des livres aux documents iconographiques en passant par les cartes – des débuts de l’imprimerie jusqu’au 20e siècle. e-rara.ch mette a disposizione in rete le edizioni antiche conservate nelle biblioteche svizzere. La collezione comprende libri, carte geografiche e materiale illustrato che risalgono agli inizi della tipografia fino ad arrivare al XX secolo. Nutzungsbedingungen Dieses Digitalisat kann kostenfrei heruntergeladen werden. Die Lizenzierungsart und die Nutzungsbedingungen sind individuell zu jedem Dokument in den Titelinformationen angegeben. Für weitere Informationen siehe auch [Link] Terms of Use This digital copy can be downloaded free of charge. The type of licensing and the terms of use are indicated in the title information for each document individually. For further information please refer to the terms of use on [Link] Conditions d'utilisation Ce document numérique peut être téléchargé gratuitement. Son statut juridique et ses conditions d'utilisation sont précisés dans sa notice détaillée. Pour de plus amples informations, voir [Link] Condizioni di utilizzo Questo documento può essere scaricato gratuitamente. Il tipo di licenza e le condizioni di utilizzo sono indicate nella notizia bibliografica del singolo documento. Per ulteriori informazioni vedi anche [Link] $g CHAPTER 8, THIS CHATTER IS DEDICATED TO THE EMINENT JURISTS WHO HATE OCCUPIED AND CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THE BENCH OF THAT AUGUST TRIBUNAL, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. From the 4 th March, 1789, to the 3d March , 1847. CHIEF JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. JOHN JAY , of New York , appointed by the President with the ad¬ vice and consent of the Senate, 26th September, 1789. Nomi¬ nated 16th, and confirmed 19th April, 1794, Envoy Extraordinaryto England. Resigned as Chief Justice . Successor appointed 1st July , 1795. JOHN RUTLEDGE , of South Carolina, appointed 1st July , 1795, in recess of Senate, in place of John Jay resigned, and presided on the Bench at August term, 1795. Nominated 10th, and rejected by the Senate 15th December, 1795. WILLIAM CUSHING , of Massachusetts. Nominationconfirmed and appointed, &.C., 27th January , 1796, in place of John Jay , re¬ signed. Declined the appointment. He was then an Associate Justice. OLIVER ELLSWORTH , of Connecticut. Nomination confirmed and appointed, &c., 4th March, 1796, in place of W . Cushing, de¬ clined. Appointed Envoy E**raordinary and Minister Plenipo¬ tentiary to France, 27th February , 1799. Ho presided on the Bench at the August term, 1799. Proceeded on his mission to 381 382 France, 3d November, 1799. Resigned as Chief Justice . Sue cessor appointed 19th December, 1800. JOHN JAY , Governor of New York. Nomination confirmed and ap pointed, &c., 19th December, 1800, in place of Oliver Ellsworth resigned. Declined the appointment. JOHN MARSHALL , Secretary of State.* Nomination confirmed27th and appointed, &c., 31st January , 1801, in place of John Jay , de dined . Died in 1835. ROGER B. TANEY , of Maryland. Nomination confirmed and ap pointed, &c., 15th March, 1836, in the place of John Marshall deceased. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE * SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. JOHN RUTLEDGE , of South Carolina. Nomination confirmed and appointed 26th September, 1789. Resigned, and Thomas John¬ son appointed. WILLIAM CUSHING , of Massachusetts. Nomination confirmed 26th, and appointed 27th September, 1789. Died, and Levi Lin¬ coln appointed. ' JAMES WILSON , of Pennsylvania. Nomination confirmed26th, and appointed 29th September, 1789. Died, and Bushrod Washing¬ ton appointed. JOHN BLAIR , of Virginia. Nomination confirmed 26th, and ap¬ pointed 30th September, 1789. Resigned, and Samuel Chase ap¬ pointed. ROBERT H. HARRISON , of Maryland. Nomination confirmed 26th September, 1789. Resigned, and James Iredell appointed. JAMES IREDELL , of North Carolina. Appointed in recess of Senate, * John Marshall , Secretary of State,was nominated to the Senate as Chief Jus* tice the 20th January,1801 , was confirmed on the 27th,commissioned31st January, and presided on the Bench of the Supreme Court from the 4th to the 9th February, or during February term , 1801. From a message of the President to Congress, accompanied by & report from John Marshall, Secretary of State, dated 27th February , 1801, it appears that he also continued to act in the latter capacity until that day, and from other circumstances that he continued to act as such unMl the 3d March , 1801, on which day the then administration terminated. 383 in place of Robert H. Harrison, resigned. Nomination confirmed and appointed 10th February , 1790. Died, and Alfred Moore ap¬ pointed. THOMAS JOHNSON , of Maryland. Appointed 5th August , 1791, in , recess of Senate, in place of John Rutledgo, resigned. Nomina¬ tion confirmed and appointed 7th November, 1791. Resigned, and William Paterson appointed. WILLIAM PATERSON , Governor of New Jersey . Nomination confirmed and appointed 4th March, 1793, in place of Thomas Johnson, resigned. Died, and Brockholst Livingston appointed. SAMUEL CHASE , of Maryland. Nominationconfirmed and appointed 27th January , 1796, in place of John Blair, resigned. Died, and Gabriel Duval appointed. BUSHROD WASHINGTON , of Virginia. Appointed 29th Septem¬ ber, 1798, in recess of Senate, in place of James Wilson , deceased. Nomination confirmed and appointed 20th December, 1798. Died, and Henry Baldwin appointed. ALFRED MOORE , of North Carolina. Nomination confirmed and appointed 10th December, 1799, in place of James Iredell, de¬ ceased. Resigned, and William Johnson appointed. WILLIAM JOHNSON , of South Carolina. Nomination confirmed and appointed 26th March, 1804, in place of Alfred Moore, re¬ signed. (Confirmed and appointed Collector of the Customs 22d Feb. 1819, and declined the appointment.) Died in 1834, and James M. Wayne appointed. THOMAS TODD , of Kentucky . Nomination confirmed 2d, and ap¬ pointed 3d March,1807. BROCKHOLST LIVINGSTON , of New York. Appointed 10th No¬ vember, 1806, in recess of Senate, in place of William Paterson, deceased. Nomination confirmed and appointed 17th December, 1806. Died, and Smith Thompson appointed. LEVI LINCOLN , of Massachusetts. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 3d January , 1811, in place of William Cushing, deceased. Declined the appointment, and John Quincy Adams appointed. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS , of Massachusetts. Nomination confirmed and appointed 22d February , 1811, in place of Levi Lincoln, de¬ clined. Declined the appointment, and Joseph Story appointed. GABRIEL DUVAL , of Maryland. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 18th November, 1811, in the place of Samuel Chase, de¬ ceased. Resigned, and Philip P . Barbour appointed. JOSEPH STORY , of Massachusetts. Nomination confirmed and ap ■ 2 N 384 pointed 18th November, 1811, in place of John Quincy Adams, declined. Died and Levi Woodbury appointed. SMITH THOMPSON , of New York . Appointed 1st September, 1823, in recess of the Senate, in place of Brockholst Livingston, deceased. Nomination confirmed and appointed 9th December, 1823. Died, and Samuel Nelson appointed. ROBERT TRIMBLE , of Kentucky . Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 9th May, 1826, in the place of Thomas Todd, deceased. Died, and John McLean appointed. JOHN McLEAN , of Ohio. Nomination confirmed and appointed 7th March, 1829, in the place of Robert Trimble, deceased. HENRY BALDWIN , of Pennsylvania. Nomination confirmed and appointed 6th January , 1830,in place of Bushrod Washington, de¬ ceased. Died, and R. C. Grier appointed. JAMES M. WAYNE , of Georgia. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 9th January , 1835, in place of William Johnson, deceased. PHILIP P. BARBOUR , of Virginia. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 15th March, 1836, in place of Gabriel Duval, resigned. Died, and P. V. Daniel appointed. JOHN CATRON , of Tennessee. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 8th March, 1837. WILLIAM SMITH , of Alabama. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 8th March, 1837. Declined the appointment, and John McKinley appointed. JOHN McKINLEY , of Alabama. Appointed 22d April, 1837, in re¬ cess of the Senate, in place of William Smith, declined. Nomina- tioned confirmed and appointed 25th September, 1837. PETER V. DANIEL , of Virginia. Nomination confirmed and ap¬ pointed 3d March, 1841, in place of Philip P. Barbour, deceased. SAMUEL NELSON , of New York. Nomination confirmedand ap¬ pointed, 14lh February, 1845, in place of Smith Thompson, de¬ ceased. LEVI WOODBURY , of New Hampshire. Appointed 20th Septem¬ ber, 1845, in recess of tho Senate, in place of Joseph Story, de¬ ceased. Nomination confirmed and appointed 3d
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grand Inquests: the Historic Impeach- Ments of Justice
    GRAND INQUESTS: THE HISTORIC IMPEACH­ MENTS OF JUSTICE SAMUEL CHASE AND PRESIDENT ANDREW JOHNSON. By William H. Rehnquist.' William Morrow & Co., Inc. 1992. Reissued in paperback, 1999. Pp. 304. $12.00. Michael J. Gerhard( INTRODUCTION Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's is a book that was written well ahead of its time-almost seven years, to be precise. Written in 1992, Grand Inquests explores the backgrounds, de­ tails, historical contexts, and constitutional significance of the two most important Senate impeachment trials in the nineteenth century-those of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 and President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Presumably, Chief Jus­ tice Rehnquist expected at the time that he published the book that the topic would be a safe one for a sitting chief justice, for it would then have seemed highly unlikely that no similar such trial would have been on the horizon during the Chief Justice's ten­ ure or lifetime. Thus, Chief Justice Rehnquist could have rea­ sonably expected that he could write about the Chase and John­ son impeachment trials without ever having to confront the issues involved in them (or like proceedings) in his formal ca­ pacity. We now know that Chief Justice Rehnquist's interest in im­ peachment was prescient. The book became enormously signifi­ cant when, almost seven years after its publication, the House of Representatives impeached President William Jefferson Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, and in January and February of 1999, the United States Senate con­ ducted an impeachment trial of President Clinton with none other than Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Reminiscences of the United States Supreme Court
    YALE LAW JO URNAL. REMINISCENCES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. On motion of Reverdy Johnson, at one time Attorney-General and afterward Senator in Congress from Maryland, I was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court in 1865. Salmon P. Chase was then Chief Justice, and the associates were James M. Wayne, Robert C. Grier, Noah H. Swayne, David Davis, Samuel Nelson, Nathan Clifford, Samuel F. Miller and Stephen J. Field. All of these, ex- cepting Justice Field,* are now dead. I was in Washington at the inauguration of Franklin Pierce in 1853 and attended some of the sessions of the Supreme Court at that time. That court then con- sisted of Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice; John McLean, James M. Wayne, John Catron, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson, Robert C. Grier, Benjamin R. Curtis and John A. Campbell, associates, none of whom are now living. I never saw Taney, Catron or Daniel afterward, and have no very distinct impressions as to Catron or Daniel, but Chief Justice Taney was a noticeable man and his ap- pearance is still daguerreotyped upon my memory. He was a tall, angular and exceedingly slim man. Apparently there was little or no flesh upon his bones and his face was deeply furrowed by the ravages of time. His eyes surmounted by shaggy eyebrows were deeply set under a remarkably low forehead. There was a rough and rugged distinctness about all his features. He was appointed Chief Justice in 1836 and died in office when he was 88 years old. He was 8o years of age when he delivered the opinion of the court in the celebrated Dred Scott case.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Bacon Face
    The Judge’s Lawyer In successfully defending the ate tries him or her, with a two-thirds vote irascible Supreme Court Justice needed to convict—has run its full course only 18 times. Three of the 18 have been Samuel Chase—aka “Old Bacon especially momentous cases: those of two Face”—against impeachment, presidents, Andrew Johnson (1868) and Joseph Hopkinson C1786 G1789 William Jefferson Clinton (1998-99), and that of a Supreme Court justice, Samuel helped set a high bar for removal Chase (1805). from office and establish the Graduates of the University of Pennsyl- principle of judicial independence. vania have figured in two of those three blockbusters. The Clinton impeachment By Dennis Drabelle featured Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter C’51 breaking ranks with most of his Republican colleagues to vote against of this writing (February 9, 2018), conviction. Important as the fate of a Samuel Chase the Impeach-O-Meter—Slate particular president may be, however, magazine’s self-styled “wildly Perhaps the most remarkable thing even more was at stake in the Chase case: As subjective and speculative daily about impeachment is how seldom it the separation of powers. The phalanx of estimate” of the likelihood that Presi- happens. Common sense and the law of attorneys representing the embattled dent Donald Trump W’68 won’t get to averages suggest that hundreds of federal jurist included Joseph Hopkinson C1786 serve out his term—stands at 45 per- officials have abused their power or G1789, to whom was entrusted a crucial cent. That’s actually a pretty good num- betrayed the public’s trust over the years.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Advisory Opinions by Chiefjustice Oliver Ellsworth
    Two Advisory Opinions by ChiefJustice Oliver Ellsworth William R. Casto ODA.Y ADVISORY OPINIONS are between the President and the House of anathema to the federal judiciary, but Representatives. Representative Edward T the early justices ofthe Supreme Court Livingston of New York had introduced a were not so loath to provide extrajudicialadvice resolution that would have reqnired President ro the Executive Branch. Although thejustices Washington to submit to the House the fanlOusly refused to render an advisory opinion documents and correspondence relevant to onone occasion duri~gthe Neutrality Crisis of the negotiation of the Jay Treaty, purportedly '793, their refusal was an exception (albeit an to assist the House in deciding whether to exception that was to become the rule) to their appropriate funds related to the treary. As ordinary practice. John Jay, the first Chief ProfeSSor David Currie has noted, "debate on Justice ofthe United States, gave the Executive this resolution lasted an enrire month and was Branch advisory opinions on a wide variety of one of the most impressive and fundamental • subjects before the 1793 refusal. After the ever conducted in Congress:'z Five days after Neutrality Crisis, the Court's third Chief he became Chief Justice, Ellsworth wrote an Justice, Oliver Ellsworth, continued the opinion letter to Connecticut Senator • practice..I .Jonathan-Trumbull, _cQru;!lJdinUj;t .. the. I , In 1796, Ellsworth wrote an advisory House had. no constitutional role in treaty • opinion on a looming constitutional dispute making and was thus bound to appropriate William R. Casto is the Alvin R. Allison Professor ofLaw at the Texas nch University School ofLaw.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention
    The Question of Representation at the 1787 Convention Student Name ___________________________________________________ Date ________________ Activity Two: Bicameralism, Modes of Election and the “Rule of Suffrage” in Congress Reading Set A. One House or Two? 1. Constitutional Convention, 16 June 1787 http://www.teachingamericanhistory.com/convention/debates/0616.html Mr. PATTERSON, said as he had on a former occasion given his sentiments on the plan proposed by Mr. R. he would now avoiding repetition as much as possible give his reasons in favor of that proposed by himself…It is urged that two branches in the Legislature are necessary. Why? for the purpose of a check. But the reason of7 the precaution is not applicable to this case. Within a particular State, where party heats prevail, such a check may be necessary. In such a body as Congress it is less necessary, and besides, the delegations of the different States are checks on each other. Do the people at large complain of Congs.? No, what they wish is that Congs. may have more power. If the power now proposed be not eno', the people hereafter will make additions to it… Mr. WILSON entered into a contrast of the principal points of the two plans so far he said as there had been time to examine the one last proposed. These points were 1. in the Virga. plan there are 2 & in some degree 3 branches in the Legislature: in the plan from N. J. there is to be a single legislature only… [P]roceeding now to the 1st point on which he had contrasted the two plans, he observed that anxious as he was for some augmentation of the federal powers, it would be with extreme reluctance indeed that he could ever consent to give powers to Congs.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Eliminating Life Tenure for Article Iii Judges Require a Constitutional Amendment?
    DOW & MEHTA_03_15_21 (DO NOT DELETE) 3/17/2021 6:41 PM DOES ELIMINATING LIFE TENURE FOR ARTICLE III JUDGES REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? DAVID R. DOW & SANAT MEHTA* ABSTRACT Beginning in the early 2000s, a number of legal academicians from across the political spectrum proposed eliminating life tenure for some or all Article III judges and replacing it with a term of years (or a set of renewable terms). These scholars were largely in agreement such a change could be accomplished only by a formal constitutional amendment of Article III. In this Article, Dow and Mehta agree with the desirability of doing away with life tenure but argue such a change can be accomplished by ordinary legislation, without the need for formal amendment. Drawing on both originalism and formalism, Dow and Mehta begin by observing that the constitutional text does not expressly provide for lifetime tenure; rather, it states that judges shall hold their office during good behavior. The good behavior criterion, however, was not intended to create judicial sinecures for 20 or 30 years, but instead aimed at safeguarding judicial independence from the political branches. By measuring both the length of judicial tenure among Supreme Court justices, as well as voting behavior on the Supreme Court, Dow and Mehta conclude that, in fact, life tenure has proven inconsistent with judicial independence. They maintain that the Framers’ objective of insuring judicial independence is best achieved by term limits for Supreme Court justices. Copyright © 2021 David R. Dow & Sanat Mehta. * David Dow is the Cullen Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Sanat Mehta, who graduated magna cum laude from Rice University in 2020 with a degree in computer science and a minor in Politics, Law, and Social Thought, is a data analyst at American Airlines.
    [Show full text]
  • The Old Supreme Court Chamber (1810-1860)
    THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER 1810–1860 THE OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER 1810–1860 Historical Highlights Located on the ground floor of the original north wing of the Capitol Building, this space served as the Senate chamber from 1800 to 1808. It was here that the first joint session of Congress was held in the new capital city of Washington on November 22, 1800, and President Thomas Jeffer- son was inaugurated in 1801 and 1805. Architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe proposed extensive mod- ifications to the area in 1807, which included moving the Senate to the second floor and con- structing a chamber for the Supreme Court of the Working drawing for the Supreme Court Chamber by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, September 26, 1808 United States directly below (in the space previ- ously occupied by the Senate). The Court had been meeting in a small committee room in the north wing since 1801. The Capitol, however, was never intended to be its permanent home; a sepa- rate building for the Court was long discussed, but was not completed until 1935. The work on the Supreme Court chamber did not proceed without difficulties. Cost overruns were a problem, and Congress was slow in appropriating funds to continue the project. In September 1808 construction superintendent John Lenthall was killed when he prematurely removed props sup- porting the chamber’s vaulted ceiling, causing it to collapse. But by August 1809 the massive vault had been rebuilt on an even more ambitious scale. Often likened to an umbrella or a pumpkin, it was a triumph both structurally and aesthetically.
    [Show full text]
  • Naval Affairs
    .t .j f~Ji The New I American State Papers I ~ '* NAVAL AFFAIRS Volume 2 Diplomatic Activities Edited lJy K. Jack Bauer ~c:!:r~ourres Inc. I q8/ Leadership ofthe Navy Department 1798-1~61 Sea:etaries o/the NfZJJYl Benjamin Stoddert2 18 June 1798-31 March 1801 Robert Smith 27 July 1801-7 March 1809 Paul Hamilton 15 May 1809-31 December 1812 William Jones 19 January 1813-1 December 1814 Benjamin W. Crowninshield 16 January 1815-30 September 1818 Smith Thompson 1January 1819-31 August 1823 Samuel L. Southard 16 Septe~ber 1823-3 March 1829 John Branch 9 March 1829-.12 May 1831 Levi Woodbury 23 May 1831-30June 1834 Mahlon Dickerson 1July 1834-30June 1838 James K. Paulding 1July 1838-3 March 1841 George E. Badger 6 March 1841-11 September 1841 Abel P. Upshur 11 October 1841-23July 1843 David Henshaw 24 July 1843-18 February 1844 Thomas W. Gilmer 19 February 1844-28 February 1844 John Y. Mason 26 March 1844-10 March 1845 George Bancroft 11 March 1845-9 September 1846 John Y. Mason 10 September 1846-7. March 1849 William B. Preston 8 March 1849-23July 1850 William A. Graham 2 August 1850-25July 1852 John P. Kennedy 26 July 1852-7 March 1853 James C. 'Dobbin 8 March 1853-6 March 1857 Isaac Toucey 7 March 1857-6 March 1861 Board o/Naval Commissioners, 7 February 181'-)1 August 1842 Comm. John Rodgers3 25 April 1815-15 December 1824 Comm. Isaac Hull 25 April 1815-.30 November 1815 I Prior to 1798 naval affairs were administered by the War Department.
    [Show full text]