Anika Rusche
Mr. Smith & Mr. Persuad
Social Studies
8 June 2023
The Thirteen Major Court Cases
There are 13 major Supreme Court cases that have occurred which led the United States to how it is now. If our judges chose the other side of the argument would our world be different now? More Than 200 years ago our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published a series of essays prodding the ratification of the United States Federalist Papers now known as the Constitution. The Federalist Party came about around 1789 - 1790 as a group of businessmen who supported the same cause. This led to the U.S. Constitution and our National Laws. Our Laws hold the core values of the Nation and how the people in the Nation should
…show more content…
They can relate to businesses, education, safety, housing, food, public speech, environmental rights, etc. The laws could restrict us from doing things and keep us safe. How different would our world be now if we didn't have these laws, and how would we keep the nation from crumbling?
There are thirteen court cases that had an impact on the United States. The first case was Marbury v. Madison then it led to Fletcher v. Peck, McCulloch v. Maryland, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, Gibbons v. Ogden, Worcester v. Georgia, Commonwealth v. Hunt, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Slaughterhouse Case, U.S. v. Cruickshank, U.S. v. Reese, Munn v. Illinois, and Plessy v. Ferguson.
The first case, Marbury v. Madison, was held in 1803 as a John Marshall case. Chief Justice John Marshall established the judicial review. Information can be cited in
Infobase Learning - Login, online.infobase.com/HRC/Search/Details/2?articleId=358306&q=+Marbury+v.+Madison. Accessed 1 June
…show more content…
Commonwealth v. Hunt was used in American law in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the common law doctrine of criminal conspiracy did not apply to labor and the decision was made by Lemuel Shaw. Only 15 years after the court case Dred Scott v. Stanford was held. in 1857 Roger B. Taney was presented with a case of slavery. An enslaved Black man named Dred Scott and his wife Harriet Scott were sued for their freedom in St. Louis Circuit Court. Stanford owned Dred Scott, but later on, Stanford passed down ownership to his daughter who later moved to a Northern State where Slavery/owning of others was illegal. Stanford's daughter goes to the Supreme Court where Roger Taney runs the case and allows her to bring her slave as property. Although the North wasn't happy they couldn't do much as the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments didn't say you were free to do anything nor free to do nothing. This information can be found
Clinton respected this view, and appointed Breyer to the court. Breyer’s first major case was United States v. Lopez. This case was created to potentially eliminate weapons around schools. This case brought the idea of a strong government to the floor. This case was brought up by the Federalist Society, who had started a new movement called the Constitution in Exile.
The case of Scott vs. Sandford was a major factor in the movement for abolitionist. It empowered the newly republican party, and altered the constitution for the good. Till this day, U.S. colored citizens are now treated like citizens due to the Scott vs. Sandford case. Dred Scott, a slave who was purchased by a U.S surgeon -Dr. John Emerson- who worked for the army, moved together in the Wisconsin territory which was in the northern area.
Jessica Goodier CJUS 101 Kyung Jhi 6 November 2014 The Marbury versus Madison case in 1803 is one of the first Supreme Court cases to apply the judicial review rule. Judicial review is a document in which legislative and executive actions are sent to review the judiciary. This principle was written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803. His decision led the Supreme Court become a separated branch in the government.
Dred Scott was a slave who sued his owner. He claimed he was free because his previous owner had taken him to Illinois (a free state) where he argued before the court that Congress had banned slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The state of Missouri ended up finding Scott was going to be a slave, even though the previous decisions by Missouri favored the Emancipation Proclamation because slavery has become very popular within expansion issues and compromise issues. The Dred Scott v. Sanford case is an early example of the Court’s involvement in race relations, new attitudes arise that would be changed by the Civil War, and the civil rights movement. Abolitionists were livid.
The justices hearing the case were Hamilton, Gamble, William Scott and John Ryland. Prior to the hearing Alexander Field resubmitted the briefs of the 1850 trial. Mrs. Emerson’s attorneys never validated the ordinance of 1787 or the 1820 Missouri Compromise. Norris did question the legal principals of “once free always free”. Dred Scott’s trial was no longer just about becoming free but now was about the controversy about slavery.
During the early-to-mid 1800s, the North and South had begun to seriously argue on the issue of slavery. While the South were in favor of keeping slavery, the North could not wait to be rid of it. The decision of the Dred Scott case would be known as an important event which would spark the friction between the North and South to rise drastically. Dred Scott, an African American slave, sued for his freedom because he had lived in a free state for most of his time in the United States. In the ruling at Supreme Court, Chief Justice Taney had ruled that because he was an African American slave, Dred Scott could not sue for the reason that Scott was not a citizen and that he was property.
In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Marbury v. Madison. The most important judicial decision in U.S. history, the Supreme Court made itself to be the final authority on the legality of government actions. This changed the federal power to the judicial branch of government. This upset the federalist system. Now unelected officials can dominate public policy.
In 1833 the American Anti-Slavery Society was established. The group was a national alliance of abolitionist groups and The Compromise of 1850 was a settlement signed to avoid conflict between the North and South, like a civil war. Within the Compromise of 1850 was the Fugitive Slaw Law, which meant that any person in a free state who assists a runaway slave is violating the law and, therefore, will be punished along with the escaped slave (McMichael 287). Seven years downstream, the supreme court ruled, “that African Americans were not citizens and so could not expect the protection of the courts” (McMichael 287). This became known word wide as the Dred Scott Decision and is taught in today’s history classes as
In many ways the Supreme Court acts as both a moral and legal mediator for the nation. Supreme Court decisions have the potential to have a tremendous impact on the lives of Americans. Such as the Glossip v. Gross case, Obergefell v. Hodges case and lastly Elonis v. United States case. However, some of these decisions have transformed American society and influenced people’s lives today.
Accessed 10 May
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
Madison court case that took place in 1803. The law that was declared by the Supreme Court at this hearing was that a court has the power to declare an act of Congress void if it goes against the Constitution. This case took place because President John Adams had appointed William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia, and the new president, Thomas Jefferson, did not agree with this decision. William Marbury was not appointed by the normal regulation, which was that the Secretary of State, James Madison, needed to make a notice of the appointment. James Madison did not follow through and make a notice of Marbury’s appointment; therefore, he sued James Madison, which was where the Supreme Court came in place.