DOCSLIB.ORG

The Early Role of the Attorney General in Our Constitutional Scheme: in the Beginning There Was Pragmatism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Early Role of the Attorney General in Our Constitutional Scheme: in the Beginning There Was Pragmatism Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 1989 The Early Role of the Attorney General In Our Constitutional Scheme: In the Beginning There Was Pragmatism Susan Low Bloch Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1204 1989 Duke L.J. 561-653 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons THE EARLY ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHEME: IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS PRAGMATISM SUSAN LOW BLOCH* INTRODUCTION The Office of the Attorney General, created by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789,1 occupies a unique position in our tripartite government. Empowered by Congress, appointed by the President, and required to answer to the judiciary, the Attorney General serves "three masters"2 and often faces a confluence of forces that produces difficult separation of powers issues. Responsible for representing the "interests of the United States,"3 the Attorney General may be pulled in conflicting directions if Congress and the President disagree on the nature of those interests. Occasionally, a frustrated or overwhelmed Attorney General has written an anecdotal article about the complexities of the office, 4 but few • Professor, Georgetown University Law Center; J.D., Ph.D., M.A., University of Michigan; B.A., Smith College. I am very grateful to Professor Maeva Marcus, Director of the Documentary History Project of the Supreme Court, for her informative seminar that both alerted me to the Iredell papers and helped me immerse myself in the history of the 1790s. I am also indebted to Charlene Bickford, Director of the Documentary History of the First Congress, for her guidance and generous access to her valuable collection. Without these two invaluable, exciting documentary his­ tories and their able leaders, this article could not have been written. I also want to thank my generous colleagues Richard Bloch, Daniel Ernst, Vicki Jackson, L. Michael Seidman, Girardeau Spann, and Mark Tushnet for their valuable help in reading earlier drafts and my research assistants Katherine Harrison, Samia Rodriguez, Jeffrey Eichen, Michael Heafey, and Keith Donahoe for their helpful research. Finally, I am grateful to the Georgetown University Law Center for its generous research grant. I. An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States, ch. 20, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) [hereinafter The Judiciary Act of 1789]. 2. Huston, History of the Office ofthe Attorney General, in L. HUSTON, A. MILLER, S. KRIS­ LOV, & R. DIXON, ROLES OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL IN THE UNITED STATES 3 (1968). 3. 28 u.s.c. §§ 517, 518 (1982). 4. See, e.g., F. BIDDLE, IN BRIEF AUTHORITY 174-366 (1962) (memoirs of Francis Biddle, Attorney General from September 1941-June 1945); Bell, Office of Attorney General's Client Rela­ tionship, 36 Bus. LAW. 791 (1981) (speech by Griffin B. Bell, Attorney General from January 1977 to December 1979); Bell, The Attorney General: The Federal Government's Chief Lawyer and Chief Litigator, or One Among Many?, 46 FoRDHAM L. REV. 1049 (1978) (Attorney General Bell offering some "tentative views" on the office's proper role in American system); Clark, Reminiscences of an Attorney General Turned Associate Justice, 6 Hous. L. REv. 623 (1969) (reminiscences of Tom C. Clark, Attorney General from 1945 to 1949); Stark, When the Government Goes to Court, Who 561 562 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 1989:561 systematic analyses of this position have been attempted.5 On the eve of the two-hundredth birthday of the office, it is time to examine the com­ plex separation of powers questions surrounding the office: What is the role of Congress in defining the duties of the Attorney General; to what extent can Congress control the Attorney General's decisions on litiga­ tion strategy; to what extent must the President have unfettered control of the Attorney General and law enforcement generally? These issues are not new. Questions concerning authority over the Attorney General and law enforcement arose both in the First Congress's debates and in the Supreme Court's early encounters with the Attorney General. Unfortunately, however, modern efforts to answer these ques­ tions make too little use of the history that can inform and guide. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court confronted questions that turned on an interpretation of the role of the Attorney General and, in both cases, the Court could have benefited from a better understanding of the historical background. In United States v. Providence Journal, the Supreme Court had to interpret the modern incarnation of section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.6 The majority approached the statute as if it had been writ­ ten yesterday, wholly ignoring its origins and long history.7 Similarly, in Should Speak for Uncle Sam?, 12 NAT'L J. 1098, (1980) (conflict concerning litigation responsibili· ties of Justice Department and agencies not resolved); Tyler, The Attorney General of the United States-Counsel to the President or to the Government?, 45 ALB. L. REv. 1 (1980); cf. Babcock, Role Can Be Ambiguous, Retiring Justice Aide Says, Wash. Star, June 29, 1979, at A3, col. 1 (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division). 5. Former Attorney General Homer Cummings and Special Assistant Carl McFarland wrote the classic study of the office of the Attorney General, H. CUMMINGS & C. McFARLAND, FEDERAL JU5TICE (1937). See also J. EASBY-SMITH, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: ITS HISTORY AND FUNCTIONS (1904); D. MEADOR, THE PRESIDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE DEPART· MENT OF JUsTICE 3-18, :i6-27, (1980); L. HUSTON, A. MILLER, S. KRISTOV, R. DIXON, ROLES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (1968); Hightower, From "Attornatus" to the Department ofJustice-an Historical Perspective ofthe Nature ofthe Attorney Generalship of the United States as Embodied in the Department of Justice Act of 1870, reprinted in Removing Politics from the Administration of Justice: Hearings on S. 2803 and S. 2978 Before the Subcomm. on Separation ofPowers of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 405-20 (1974) (chronology of historical roots of Attor­ ney Generalship in English precedent, colonial experience, Constitution, Judiciary Act of 1789, and the evolution from office to department 1789-1870); Key, The Legal Work of the Federal Govern· ment, 25 VA. L. REV. 165 (1938) (history of then-current reforms aiming at the most efficient method of handling government litigation-consolidation under Attorney General); Learned, The Attorney General and the Cabinet, 24 PoL. Sci. Q. 444 (1909) (historical development of Office of Attorney General); Nealon, The Opinion Function of the Federal Attomey General, 25 N.Y.U. L. REv. 825 (1950) (describing Attorney General's role as advising President and Executive Branch on legality and constitutionality of their actions); Comment, The Confrontation of the Legislative and Executive Branches: An Examination of the Constitutional Balance of Powers and the Role of the Attorney General, 11 PEPPERDINE L. REv. 331 (1984) (legislative reform needed to prevent undue attachments of the Attorney General to the President and the Executive Branch). 6. 485 u.s. 693 (1!188). 7. Having previously decided in Young v. United States ex rei. Vuitton et Fils, S.A., ~81 U.S. 787 (1987), that the judiciary could appoint private attorneys to prosecute criminal contempt of Vol. 1989:561] HISTORY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 563 Morrison v. Olson, the Supreme Court faced the question of the constitu­ tionality of Congress's creation of special prosecutors and the restrictions imposed thereby on the President's and Attorney General's control over law enforcement. 8 Again, the Court's analysis was too little informed by history.9 It is not that these early experiences would necessarily answer to­ day's questions. Indeed, one of the most important contributions that a study of this history offers is precisely the point that, from the start of this Republic, these questions were present and their answers uncertain. Originalists who believe the answers to today's questions are to be found in the framers' intent and the words they chose are mistaken.10 There are no clear lines now because there were n?ne then. But while history cannot provide definitive answers, it offers an in­ structive approach to constitutional interpretation. The framers of the Constitution and the early legislators understood they were creating­ "constituting"-a dynamic organism. They created a unitary Presi­ dency, but did not mandate complete presidential control over all admin­ istrative offices that Congress might establish. Their approach to questions of control was neither rigid nor doctrinaire. On the contrary, it was remarkably subtle and pragmatic. The simplified model of separa­ tion of powers assumed by many modem discussants misses the nuances the framers and early legislators appreciated. This Article attempts to accomplish two distinct but related objec­ tives. First, it initiates the proposed systematic study of the Office of the Attorney General by examining its early role. Second, it explores how these early experiences help to answer today's questions. To those ends, Part I examines the establishment of the Office of the Attorney General. Studying the genesis of the office and contrasting it to the other signifi­ cant offices created by the First Congress, such as the Secretaries of For­ eign Affairs, War, and Treasury, reveals the priorities and concerns of court, the Supreme Court in Providence Journal had to explore the extent to which these special prosecutors could operate independently of the Attorney General. See infra notes 202-14 and ac­ companying text.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Emerging Genre of the Constitution: Kent Newmyer and the Heroic Age
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2021 The Emerging Genre of The Constitution: Kent Newmyer and the Heroic Age Mary Sarah Bilder Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Bilder, Mary Sarah, "The Emerging Genre of The Constitution: Kent Newmyer and the Heroic Age" (2021). Connecticut Law Review. 459. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/459 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 52 FEBRUARY 2021 NUMBER 4 Essay The Emerging Genre of The Constitution: Kent Newmyer and the Heroic Age MARY SARAH BILDER In written celebration of Kent Newmyer’s intellectual and collegial influence, this Essay argues that the written constitution was an emerging genre in 1787-1789. Discussions of the Constitution and constitutional interpretation often rest on a set of assumptions about the Constitution that arose in the years and decades after the Constitutional Convention. The most significant one involves the belief that a fixed written document was drafted in 1787 intended in our modern sense as A Constitution. This fundamental assumption is historically inaccurate. The following reflections of a constitutionalist first lay out the argument for considering the Constitution as an emerging genre and then turn to Kent Newmyer’s important influence. The Essay argues that the constitution as a system or frame of government and the instrument were not quite one and the same. This distinction helps to make sense of ten puzzling aspects of the framing era. 1263 The Emerging Genre of The Constitution: Kent Newmyer and the Heroic Age MARY SARAH BILDER * In written celebration of Kent Newmyer’s intellectual and collegial influence, this Essay argues that the written constitution was an emerging genre in 1787-1789.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of Federal Common Law: Part Two*
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 133 JULY 1985 No. 6 ORIGINS OF FEDERAL COMMON LAW: PART TWO* STEWART JAYt Thomas Jefferson wrote Edmund Randolph in August 1799 of the need "to portray at full length the consequences of this new doctrine, that the common law is the law of the US, & that their courts have, of course, jurisdiction co-extensive with that law, that is to say, general over all cases & persons." 1 Closing the letter in the next line, he re- marked, "But, great heavens! Who could have conceived in 1789 that within ten years we should have to combat such wind-mills." 2 Some- what more than a year later, John Marshall commented in a private correspondence: In political controversy it often happens that the precise opinion of the adversary is not understood, & that we are at much labor to disprove propositions which have never been maintained. A stronger evidence of this cannot I think be given than the manner in which the references to the com- mon law have been treated.' © Copyright 1985 by Stewart Jay. All rights reserved. * Part One of this essay appears at 133 U. PA. L. REv. 1003 (1985) [hereinafter cited as Jay, Part One]. t Associate Professor of Law, University of Washington. 1 Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Edmund Randolph (Aug. 23, 1799), reprinted in 9 THE WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 76 (P. Ford ed. 1905). 2 Id. at 76-77. " Letter from John Marshall to St. George Tucker (Nov. 27, 1800), reprinted in Appendix A, infra.
    [Show full text]
  • Keep Reading Wilson As a Justice
    Wilson as a Justice MAEVA MARCUS* ABSTRACT James Wilson, a founding father of great intellect and promise, never ful®lled his potential as a Justice. This paper explores his experience on the Supreme Court and the reasons that led to his failure to achieve the distinction that was expected of him. James Wilson very much wanted to be the ®rst Chief Justice.1 But when George Washington denied him that honor and nominated him to be an Associate Justice, he accepted and threw himself into the work with characteristic industry.2 Other than a title and $500 more in annual salary3 (Wilson probably wanted this more than anything else), Wilson lost little. Life as an Associate Justice would be no different from life as the Chief. A Justice occupied one of the most exalted positions in the new government and was paid more than any other federal em- ployee, except the President and the Vice-President.4 Nominations were the sub- ject of ®erce competition.5 But in 1789 no one knew exactly what that job would entail. This paper gives the reader some idea of what a Justice, and speci®cally James Wilson, did in the 1790s.6 Wilson spent more of his time on the bench of circuit courts than he did on the Supreme Court bench; thus, this paper will focus signi®- cantly on his circuit court activities.7 And Wilson performed his circuit court * Currently Director of the Institute for Constitutional History at the New-York Historical Society and Research Professor at the George Washington University Law School and General Editor of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, Maeva Marcus previously edited The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800, an eight-volume series completed in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Edmund Randolph Constitutional Convention
    Edmund Randolph Constitutional Convention Sundry Erich overtop her laddies so recklessly that Pooh shown very tauntingly. Patel overcalls her rodents live, plutocratic and undimmed. Which Huntington denudating so statedly that Muhammad cutinising her Teutonism? The Fair Information Practices Principles form the backbone of privacy law in the United States and the concepts they include have played a significant role in the development of data protection laws around the globe. He supported the separation of church from state and was active in the organization of military affairs, especially in the West. How to cite this site. New Jersey proposed the New Jersey Plan on behalf of the smaller states, which provided for equal representation in Congress. Constitutional Convention were serving in the Continental Congress eleven years ago when they signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to achieve independence from Great Britain. Large states supported this plan, while smaller states generally opposed it. Ariana Jenings at Williamsburg, Virginia. The following year, however, he was one of the Federalist leaders at the Virginiaratifying convention. The fact has been removed. Mason and are not subscribed, it is not, therefore, to be concluded that we are opposed to its adoption. But Gerry was not worried that chancery or admiralty cases would be heard without a jury as they always had been. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Mason and Gerry were rejected. The new constitution because these include an exclusion of edmund randolph constitutional convention.
    [Show full text]
  • 1143-2584 American Memory Project (CH, Lampert, California State
    1143-2584 [Internet Resource] The James Madison papers URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/ [Visited Oct'OS] Online access via the American MemoryProject (CH, Dec'OS, 43-2404) to the James Madison Papers from the Manuscript Divi­ sion at the Library of Congress gives researchers access to the finding aids, or­ ganization, and content of approximately 12,000 items captured in some 72,000 digital images. According to the custodians of this important resource, this collection is built from digitally scanned images of microfilmed copies of handwritten documents. Many document images link to searchable text transcriptions. With this resource researchers can now access many of these materials with considerable ease, although the quality of some images varies. The collection is organized into six series dating from 1723 to 1836. It in­ cludes a selection of Madison's father's letters, and documents about Madi­ son's early life and duties as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Continental Congress (1779-82). The site documents Madison's impact on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, his work in the House of Rep­ resentatives, and his time as secretary of state during Thomas Jefferson's administration. Correspondence and notes also trace Madison's two terms as the fourth president. According to the Web site, notable correspondents in this col­ lection include Dolley Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Alexan­ der Hamilton, George Washington, Edmund Randolph, and Noah Webster. Access through this American MemoryProject site also provides researchers with a time line of Madison's life (1751-1836), essays, an introduction to his life and papers, a section on Madison and the Federal Constitutional Con­ vention of 1787, and an interesting section on the codes and ciphers Madi­ son employed to keep unauthorized people from reading private and pub­ lic correspondence.
    [Show full text]
  • Of-Biography - of $ -.*«*; Tubffo
    ! Of-Biography - Of $ -.*«*; Tubffo tive from South Carolina, born in JOHN C. CALHOUN Charleston January 2, 1797; at John CaJdvvell Calhoun was Portraits of Two South Carolinians tended Charleston College and the born at "the Long Canes set i •• ©© school of the Rev. Moses Wad- tlement" In what became Abbe- dell at Abbevule; was graduated ville County, March 18, 1782; V from the College of South Caro was graduated from Yale in lina (USC) in 1814; studied law 1804 and from Litch field law In State Department Collection 1814-1817; further pursued stu School, 1806, admitted to the bar dies in Paris and Edinburg in in 1807 and commenced prac 1818 and 1819; admitted to the By Kathleen Leicit tice In Abbeville; married Flo- bar in 1822 and commenced ride Bonneau Calhoun in 1811; practice in Charleston; member TN THE Department of State the works of those less promi Washington on February 28,1844. gave up the practice of law and of the State House of Repre 1 in Washington, there is a nent. Some are by unknown or James Gillespie Blaine con established himself as a plant sentatives 1820-22 and 1924-30; little-known collection of por obscure artists. j vened and presided over the er; member of the House of one of the founders and editor traits in oils of the men who All appear to be painted on first Pan American Conference Representative 1808-09; Repre of the Southern Review 1828-32; canvas. in 1889. Robert Bacon, mem sentative from South Carolina have served our country as attorney general for South Caro The title "Secretary ol State" ber of Genend Pershing©s stalf, 1811-17; was Secretary of War in Secretaries of State.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavery in Ante-Bellum Southern Industries
    A Guide to the Microfilm Edition of BLACK STUDIES RESEARCH SOURCES Microfilms from Major Archival and Manuscript Collections General Editors: John H. Bracey, Jr. and August Meier SLAVERY IN ANTE-BELLUM SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES Series C: Selections from the Virginia Historical Society Part 1: Mining and Smelting Industries Editorial Adviser Charles B. Dew Associate Editor and Guide compiled by Martin Schipper A microfilm project of UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS OF AMERICA An Imprint of CIS 4520 East-West Highway • Bethesda, MD 20814-3389 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Slavery in ante-bellum southern industries [microform]. (Black studies research sources.) Accompanied by printed reel guides, compiled by Martin P. Schipper. Contents: ser. A. Selections from the Duke University Library / editorial adviser, Charles B. Dew, associate editor, Randolph Boehm—ser. B. Selections from the Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—ser. C. Selections from the Virginia Historical Society / editorial adviser, Charles B. Dew, associate editor, Martin P. Schipper. 1. Slave labor—Southern States—History—Sources. 2. Southern States—Industries—Histories—Sources. I. Dew, Charles B. II. Boehm, Randolph. III. Duke University. Library. IV. University Publications of America (Firm). V. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Library. Southern Historical Collection. VI. Virginia Historical Society. HD4865 306.3′62′0975 91-33943 ISBN 1-55655-547-4 (ser. C : microfilm) CIP Compilation © 1996 by University Publications
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Collections of Virginia
    ~ISTORICAL COLLECTIONS OF VIRGINIA- CONTAINING ~- A COLLECTION OF THE MOST INTERESTING FACTS, TRADITIONS, BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES, ANECDOTES,' &0. RELATING TO ITS HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES, TOGETHER WITH GEOGRAPHICAL AND STATISTICAL DESCRIPTIONS. TO WHICH 18 APPENDED, AN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE SKETCH OP THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ILLUSTRATED BY OVER 100 ENGRAVINGS, GIVING VIEWS OF THE PRINCIPAL TOWNS,-SEATS OF EMINENT MEN,­ PUBLIC BUILDINGS,-RELICS OF ANTIQUITY,-HISTORIC LOCALITIES, NATURAL SCENERY, ETC., ETC. BY HENRY HOWE.\- [Arms ofVif&Wa,] [Tb.. 01...,. W1Ib tynall.] QHARLESTo.Nl_ S. C. PUBLISHED-:SYBABCOCK & CO. ----1845. 146 The following are llItI of Vlr&inlau who have held hIch puhI1e Ilatiou 1III4er the cenen1 IOftJ!I­ ment. They are camplele only 10 the year 1842. Pr.ridertU of IA. u,uU4 StGIu.-Georp Waablncton. eleeted 1789; dlecI Dee. 1~, 1m, qed 67. Thomas J811'"",,n, elected 1811; died July" 1826, a&ed 83. James MadIson, eleeted 1809; dieil JUDe !18th, J836, aged 84. James Monroe,.elected 1817; dled July" 1831, aged 72. William Henry Harriaon, eleeled In 1841 ; died April .. 1841, ",ed 68. John Tyler, 1841. Yiu-Pr.,i4D&U of 1M l7aiUd /4tu.-Thomas JeJI'enon, elected 1797. John Tyler, eleel8d 1841. 8u:rlt4riu of 814t1.-Tbomu Je1!enon, 1789. Edmund Randolph, 179t ; died Sept. J2, 1813. Joh.. Man.... U. J800; died JUIT 6, 1835, a&ed 79. James MadIson, 18)1. James Monroe, 18l1. Henry Clay (born In Va.,) 1825. Abe P. Upshur, 1843; died Feb. 28, 18«. John Fonyth, (born In Va.,) 1834; died Oct. 22, )841, ~d 61. &cretariu of W",..-James Monroe, 1814. lames Barbour, 1825' died June 8, 1842, a&ed 66.
    [Show full text]
  • Governor Annapolis Convention Edmund Randolph * Did Not Attend
    Officers of the Commonwealth of Virginia 1787–1788 Governor Annapolis Convention Edmund * Did not attend Randolph James Madison Council of State Edmund Randolph Beverley St. George Tucker Randolph (Lt. Governor) Carter Braxton Walter Jones* Joseph Jones George Mason* James McClurg William Ronald* Boiling Stark David Ross* James Wood Meriwether Smith* Miles Selden (resigned 31 March 1788) Sampson Mathews (resigned, 7 April 1788) Delegates to Congress Elected 7 November 1786 William Heth Edward Carrington (first attended 2 June 1788) William Grayson Treasurer Joseph Jones (declined) Jaquelin Ambler Richard Henry Lee Auditor of Public James Madison Accounts John Pendleton Elected 23 October 1787 John Brown Receiver General Edward Carrington of Continental Taxes John Hopkins Cyrus Griffin (President) Attorney General Henry Lee James Innes James Madison Solicitor General Confederation Board of Treasury Leighton Wood Arthur Lee General Court Paul Carrington Constitutional Convention (Chief Justice) Peter Lyons John Blair James Mercer James Madison William Fleming George Mason Henry Tazewell James McClurg Elected 4 Edmund Randolph January 1788 Gabriel Jones George Washington (President) (declined) Richard Parker George Wythe Joseph Prentis Patrick Henry (declined) St. George Richard Henry Lee (declined) Tucker Alexander Thomas Nelson, Jr. (declined) White Court of Chancery Edmund Minister to France Pendleton (President) George Wythe Thomas Jefferson John Blair Court of Secretary to Thomas Jefferson Admiralty Richard Cary William Short James Henry John Tyler Cite as: The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution Digital Edition, ed. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber and Margaret A. Hogan. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009. Canonic URL: http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/RNCN-02-08-01- 0014 [accessed 06 Jan 2011] Original source: Ratification by the States, Volume VIII: Virginia, No.
    [Show full text]
  • John Leland and James Madison: Religious Influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights
    SCARBERRY.DOC 2/11/2009 9:11:22 AM John Leland and James Madison: Religious Influence on the Ratification of the Constitution and on the Proposal of the Bill of Rights Mark S. Scarberry* Leland’s self-written Epitaph: “Here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men.”1 “He played a substantial part in molding [an] American tradition that is full of meaning to all of us today—the separation of church and state in the United States. Much of Leland’s sixty-seven year career as a Baptist evangelist was expended in fighting to remove [religious] disabilities—not only for Baptists but for persons of all faiths, Christian and non-Christian, and even for those who held no recognized religious faith. [H]e was as courageous and resourceful a champion of the 2 rights of conscience as America has produced.” * Copyright © 2008 Mark S. Scarberry, Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. I would like to thank Professor Edward J. Larson for his helpful comments and encouragement. 1. L.F. Green, Further Sketches of the Life of John Leland, in JOHN LELAND, THE WRITINGS OF THE LATE ELDER JOHN LELAND 41, 50 (L.F. Greene ed., 1845), available on Google Books at http://books.google.com/books?id=bMAiAAAAMAAJ. The epitaph was written by Leland, except of course for the number sixty-seven, which could not be calculated until his death. See JOHN LELAND, Events in the Life of John Leland: Written by Himself, in JOHN LELAND, supra, at 9, 38 [hereinafter Events].
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts
    OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 68, NUMBER 2, 2007 Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts KURT T. LASH* ALICIA HARRSON** In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographerAlbert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim and the current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work. What was once an assumed (if controversial) episode in Marshall's career has disappeared from otherwise exhaustive accounts of his life and work. As in Philip K. Dick's story, Minority Report, an alternate view of events has been unceremoniously erasedfrom the official record. The authors of this Article challenge the decision to remove Marshall's name from the Minority Report. Marshall was the only person named at the time as the probable author, and Marshallhad both reason and opportunity to draft the Address. The arguments of the Report not only track Marshall's views on the Constitution, they utilize constitutional arguments that were * Professor of Law and W. Joseph Ford Fellow, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. B.A., Whitman College; J.D., Yale Law School. I thank the wonderful staff at the Huntington Research Library for their invaluable assistance locating innumerable primary documents.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bicentennial Symposium OUR MARBURY 89 Virginia LR 1235
    Marbury v. Madison: A Bicentennial Symposium OUR MARBURY* 89 Virginia LR 1235 (2003) ** Louise Weinberg INTRODUCTION. 1236 I. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL’S FIRST DECISION (AND HOW TO READ IT) . 1245 II. PROBING THE CONVENTIONAL NARRATIVE. 1260 A. Of Effrontery and Retreat. 1260 B. Burr. 1265 C. Of Guts and Federalism . 1267 D. Righteous Anger. 1272 E. Why Do We Think Jefferson Would Not Have Complied?. 1275 F. The Courage to Tangle with the Chief Justice. 1277 G. Stuart v. Laird . 1281 H. The Impeachment of Justice Chase. 1287 I. Noncompliance . 1294 J. Why Marbury Lost . 1296 III. MARBURY’S MISSING ARGUMENT: THREE FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLDING ON JURISDICTION . 1297 IV. MARBURY’S STRAINED AND IMPLAUSIBLE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION . 1303 A. Charles Lee’s Jurisdictional Problem . 1303 B. What Statutory Construction? . 1310 C. The Question for Decision . 1316 D. How Jurisdiction Cases Are Decided . 1317 E. Disembodied Mandamus: The Alleged Precedents . 1321 * This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools in Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2003. A faculty colloquium based on an earlier draft was presented at the University of Texas Law School. My thanks to co-symposiasts John Hart Ely, Robin West, Michael Dorf, Chris Eisgruber, and Ted White for valuable perspectives. I am grateful to Stuart Benjamin, Mitch Berman, Philip Bobbitt, David Cruz, Calvin Johnson, Doug Laycock, Sandy Levinson, Tony Lewis, and Scot Powe for generous comments and other helps. I would like to acknowledge the splendid resources now accessible to scholars. We have Maeva Marcus’s collection of documents on the history of the Supreme Court, including early unpublished opinions.
    [Show full text]