Constitutional Law (Spring 2014)
Welcome to Constitutional Law. Class will meet on Mondays and Wednesdays from 12:20 pm. – 1:50 p.m.
- Special course e-mail address (please use this instead of my STCL email): ConLawSpring2014@JoshBlackman.com.
- RSS Feed http://feeds.feedburner.com/JoshBlackmansBlog2014-spring-conlaw
- You can also view all the class videos by subscribing to the YouTube channel.
- Calendar Subscribe:
The Enforcement Powers of the 14th Amendment
- Enforcement Powers (1306-1307).
- The Civil Rights Cases (1307-1318).
- Notes (1318-1322).
- Note on 11th Amendment (1262-1263).
- Sovereign Immunity (557-558).
- 11th Amendment (558).
- Chisolm v. Georgia (558-566).
- Hans v. Louisiana (566-570).
- City of Boerne v. Flores (1327-1337).
- United States v. Morrison (1322-1327).
The Civil Rights Cases
The Grand Opera House in New York CIty, formerly known as Pike’s Opera House, was located on the Norhtwest Corner of 8th Avenue and 23rd Street, in Chelsea. It was was shut down in 1960.
I was not able to find photographs of Nichol’s Inn in Jefferson City, MO, the Topeka Inn in Topeka, Kansas, or the Tennssee Parlor Car.
This is Justice John Marshall Harlan I, who authored the solo dissent in the Civil Rights Cases.
United States v. Morrison
This is Christy Brzonkala, the plaintiff in what would become United States v. Morrison. I could not find a photograph of Antonio J. Morrison and James Crawford.
City of Boerne v. Flores
Here are photographs of St. Peter the Apostle Church in Boerne, Texas, the subject of City of Boerne v. Flores. I suppose this church makes an exception to the “Though Shalt Not Kill” Commandment for the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, which met its constitutional demise within the hallowed walls of this house of worship.
These photographs are courtesy of Hanah Volokh.
The Reconstruction Amendments
- The Text, Structure, and History of the Reconstruction Amendments (1265-1266).
- The Thirteenth Amendment (1266-1267).
- The Fourteenth Amendment (1267-1271).
- Slaughter-House Cases (1271-1287) (Skim majority but read the dissents).
- Notes (1288-1291).
- Early Interpretation of Equal Protection (1292).
- Bradwell v. Illinois (1292-1295).
- Minor v. Happersett (1295-1301).
- Strauder v. West Virginia (1301-1306).
The Slaughter-Houses Cases
Here is a wood-cutting of the New Orleans Slaughterhouse.
Bradwell v. Illinois
This is Myra Bradwell, who sought admission to the Illinois Bar, leading to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bradwell v. Illinois.
Bradwell would become the editor of the Chicago Legal News, the first legal publication in the United States edited by a woman. The publication launched in 1868. Here is the first issue.
The Library of Congress has a copy of the first volume of the Chicago Legal News, donated by Susan B. Anthony. Even cooler, it includes a hand-written note in Anthony’s hand, which alludes to Bradwell v. Illinois.
The first legal paper edited by a woman – Myra Bradwell – This file is from 1868 & 1869 - It was Mrs. Bradwell whose right to be admitted to the Bar of Illinois was carried up to the United States Supreme Court. Senator Matthew Carpenter made the argument for her.
Susan B. Anthony
Rochester – N.Y-
Minor v. Happersett
This is Virginia Louise Minor, who attempted to vote in an election. Her case wound its way all the way to the Supreme Court, which held in Minor v. Happersett that voting was not a privilege or immunity of citizenship.
This is the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments, authored by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other leading suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention in July of 1848. Relevant to our discussions are the provisions concerning coverture, and the inability of women to own, use, and dispose of property. Among the other “”injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman”:
- He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
- He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
- He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women—the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.
The 19th Amendment, which prevented states from denying the franchise to woman, was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Strauder v. West Virginia
Taylor Strauder, a black man, was convicted of murder by an all-white jury. Strauder challenged his conviction because West Virginia excluded all African-Americans from the jury. The Supreme Court held that this exclusion based on race violated the Equal Protection Clause.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (“Obamacare”)
- Enumerated Powers and Federalism (597-598).
- NFIB v. Sebelius (683-711).
- NFIB Notes (711-715).
Scope of Federal Powers III
- Taxing Power (637-643).
- The Spending “Power” (643-645).
- United States v. Butler (645-648).
- South Dakota v. Dole (648-656).
- New York v. United States (657-670).
- Printz v. United States (670-683)
Baiely v. Drexel Furniture Co. (The Child Labor Tax Case)
The Drexel Furniture Company was established on November 10, 1903 in Drexel, North Carolina. B
By 1968, after several acquisitions, the company became known as the Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc. It is still known as that today.
Here is a photograph form 1906 of the Drexel Furniture Company in Drexel, North Carolina that employed child laborers.
The company’s first plant burned in 1906. The plant pictured was built in two weeks after the fire and was identical to the first one. The plant consisted of two buildings. In 1917, the building got electricity. An addition was added in 1918.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937)
The Steward Machine Company, based in Birmingham, Alabama, challenged the constitutionality of the social security tax cases. The company was founded in 1900. Here is one of their first facilities.
I think this photograph is dated February 19, 1900, but it is too blurry to make out for sure.
Here is their modern-day image.
United States v. Butler
This is President Roosevelt signing the Agricultural Adjustment Act into law.
And some cartoons.
South Dakota v. Dole
This case involved Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole, whose husband (Viagra spokesman) Bob Dole, was a long-time Senator from Kansas, and Republican nominee for President in 1996.
Printz v. United States
The case of Printz v. United States was brought by two sheriffs. Sheriff/Coroner Jay Printz of Ravali County, Montana, and Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County, Arizona. Both were the Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO), subject to the background-check mandate of the Brady Act’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Printz was represented by Stephen Halbrook, and Mack represented by David Hardy.
I’ve spoken to both plaintiffs, and they are very interesting officers–they certainly look the part of CLEOs. Mack insists that the case should be called Mack v. United States, because his name came first alphabetically (docket numbers be damned!).
Following this case, Jay Printz would serve as Sheriff until 1999, and then became a member of the Board of the National Rifle Association. Richard Mack ran unsuccessfully for Congress in Arizona and Texas.
From left to right: Atty. Dave Hardy; Sheriff Richard Mack, Arizona; Sheriff Sam Frank, Vermont; Atty. Stephen Hallbrook; Sheriff Printz, Montana.
Sheriff Richard Mack at the Utah Capitol.
Stephen Halbrook arguing Printz v. United States. Note Justice Scalia has a hipsteriffic beard.
More pictures of Sheriff Printz
Scope of Federal Powers II
- Wickard v. Filburn (607-612).
- The modern debate (612).
- Hearts of Atlanta Motel (612-617).
- United States v. Lopez(617-637).’
Wickard v. Filburn
This is farmer Roscoe Filburn.
This is Secretary of the Agriculture Claude Wickard.
This is Wickard, flanked by New Dealers, in front of various charts and projections about the price of agriculture.
Hearts of Atlanta Motel v. United States
The Hearts of Atlanta Motel, located at 255 Courtland Street NE in Atlanta, was owned by Atlanta lawyer Moreton Rolleston Jr. This was a segregate hotel. Rolleston represented himself all the way to the Supreme Court. The location is currently a Hilton.
Katzenbach v. McClung
This is Ollie’s Bar-B-Q, the site of Katzenbach v. McClung in Birmingham, Alabama.
And because I am insane, I purchased an entire case of Ollie’s Bar-B-Q sauce.
United States v. Lopez
This is Thomas Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas, the site where Alfonso Lopez, Jr., brought a gun to school in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
I obtained these (blurry) photographs from Lopez’s high school yearbook.
The caption reads “Rushing down the field, Alfonzo Lopez warms up before the game.”
Gonzales v. Raich
This is Angel Raich, the lead plaintiff in Gonzales v. Raich.
Here is a photograph of Raich using a marijuana vaporizer.
Right to Left: Robert Raich, Angel McClary Raich, (a younger) Randy Barnett, Diane Monson, and David Michael at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.
Here is Raich finding out that the Supreme Court ruled against her cause.
Scope of Federal Powers I
- Federalism (577-578).
- Federalism Map (578-581).
- Federalist No. 10 (581-587).
- National Powers (588).
- The Ninth and Tenth Amendment (1258-1262).
- Early Disputes over National Power (588-591).
- Gibbons v. Ogden (591-597).
- History of Commerce and Necessary and Proper (598-605).
- United States v. Darby (605-607).
The Judicial Power
- Judicial Power – Article III (486-491).
- Correspondences of the Justices about Advisory Opinions (501-503).
- “Case or Controversy” requirement (504-507).
- Summers v. Earth Land Institute (513-519).
- Political Question doctrine (519-520).
- Luther v. Borden (520-528).
- Art. III Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts (537).
- Congressional authority over federal jurisdiction (544-548).
- Ex Parte McCardle (550-557).
Summers v. Earth Land Institute
This suit was brought by various environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the Earth (Is)Land Institute, and others.
The case concerned the sale of burned timber in the Sequoia National Forest. The tallest tree in that area is “General Sherman,” which is 274 feet tall!
Luther v. Borden
This is Thomas Dorr, who lead the insurrection in Rhode Island.
Ex Parte McCardle
The Executive Powers III – Detention
- Ex Parte Quirin (444-454).
- Korematsu v. United States (454-468).
- Authorization for Use of Military Force (434-435).
- Hamdi v. Rumsfield (468-475).
Pictures of these cases are below the jump.
The Executive Powers II- Foreign Affairs and War
- Inherent Executive Powers (308).
- Executive Powers for Foreign Affairs (383-385).
- Curtiss-Wright (385-390).
- Dames & Moore v. Regan (392-399).
- The War Power (411-413). Practice and Precedent (415-416).
- Prisoners of War and Civilian Detention (439-440).
- Ex Parte Milligan (440-444).
Curtiss-Wright was a manufacturer of aircrafts and other military equipment, founded in 1929.
This is Curtiss-Wright’s headquarters in Caldwell, New Jersey (circa 1941).
Curtiss-Wright got in trouble by selling weapons to Bolivia during the Chaco War (1932-1935), where Bolivia was fighting against Paraguay. The Chaco region was thought to contain oil. Bolivia and Paraguay, both poor landlocked countries, had difficulty obtaining arms. This was largely due to the fact that Congress, through a joint resolution, gave President Roosevelt the power to embargo arms shipments to any country engaged in the Chaco war. Curtiss-Wright sent bombers and fighter planes to Bolivia, notwithstanding the embargo, and was indicted.
Here are Paraguayan (not Bolivian) soldiers manning a machine gun during the Chaco war.
This is Thomas Regan, who was the secretary of the treasury in Dames & Moore v. Regan.
This is the logo for the Dames & Moore Group Company.
Justice Rehnquist wrote Dames & Moore v. Regan in a short span of 8 days. There are several remarkable aspects of this opinion. First, Rehnquist cites as the definitive statement of executive power Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
Of course, Rehnquist clerked for Jackson that term. As Judge Bybee noted in this article:
Rehnquist’s first professional brush with the separation of powers came soon after the start of his legal career as a junior law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson. It was an auspicious start. Rehnquist began his clerkship in February 1952, just months prior to the famous Youngstown separation of powers litigation at the Supreme Court . . . . On May 16, 1952, the Court voted 6-3 in conference to reject Truman’s claim of authority to seize the steel mills.15 As Justice Jackson described the vote to his then-law clerks William Rehnquist and C. George Niebank, Jr., “Well boys, the President got licked.’
Yet, Youngstown was written by Jackson himself, with little involvement by his clerks. In fact Rehnquist and his co-clerks suggested resolving the case on non-separation of powers grounds.
To begin, Jackson’s law clerks had very little hand in drafting his opinions generally and little role in preparing the Youngstown concurrence specifically. 30 Thus, the Youngstown concurrence represented Jackson’s, not Rehnquist’s, work product. In fact, archival materials indicate law clerk Rehnquist suggested alternate non-separation of powers grounds on which Youngstown might have been resolved. In an apparently unsolicited memorandum to Justice Jackson, William Rehnquist and his co-clerk proposed they undertake additional research for Youngstown. Interestingly, all the issues proposed non-separation of powers grounds for resolving the appeal–e.g., by balancing equities on the preliminary injunction, etc.31 To be sure, the 1952 clerk memorandum, standing by itself, would be a thin reed to support a claim that Rehnquist had doubts about resolving the separation of powers question in Youngstown against the President. It might merely suggest Rehnquist favored the parsimonious adjudication of constitutional cases by resort to avoidance. The memorandum, however, does not stand by itself. In his book The Supreme Court, Rehnquist, without mentioning his prior memorandum, expressed doubts about how Youngstown was resolved. Noting that the separation of powers issue was not well settled, but in his view “more or less up for grabs,” he believed Youngstown might have been resolved on the balancing of equities and that the law on those issues favored the executive.32
When pressed to write Dames & Moore v. Regan in a short span of 8 days, Rehnquist elevated Jackson’s concurrence to the effect holding of the case (and modified it along the way). And guess who was clerking for Justice Rehnquist in 1981 when Dames & Moore was decided.
A young pup names John G. Roberts (first from the right), who would go on to replace his boss as the Chief Justice of the United States.
On the last day of the term in 1981, for instance, Justice Rehnquist wrote for a unanimous court to say that Presidents Carter and Reagan had the legal authority to nullify court orders and suspend private lawsuits as part of the agreement with Iran that ended the hostage crisis there. The decision, Dames & Moore v. Regan, took an exceptionally deferential view of executive power.
Judge Roberts cited the decision last year in an opinion accepting the Bush administration’s position that it could block claims against Iraq from American soldiers who had been tortured there during the Persian Gulf war.
Ex Parte Milligen (1866) resolved the question of whether the United States could try citizens in military tribunals even though civilian courts were still operation. The defendant in the case was one Lambdin Milligan, who was accused of attempting to invade Union prisoner of war camps to recruit soldiers to fight against the United States, and topple state governments in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.
This is the 12-member military commission that presided over Milligan’s treason trial.
Milligan was represented by a legal dream team before the Supreme Court, including future President James A. Garfield, future Governor of Indiana Albert G. Porter, Mr. codification himself David Dudly Field, and future Attorney General and Secretary of State Jeremiah S. Black. Arguing on behalf of the United States was Benjamin F. Butler, who would go on to serve as Governor of Massachusetts.
The concurring opinion in Milligan was authored by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, appointed by Lincoln, and formerly a Senator and Governor from Ohio, as well as Secretary of the Treasury.
He is the only Justice to appear on a piece of currency–the $10,000 bill!
And note back then it said “Ten Thousand Dollars in Gold. All currency could be transferred gold. But then FDR decided to single-handled change that policy, amount to a massive taking, but the Supreme Court upheld it in the Gold Clause cases because FDR wouldn’t listen.
The Executive Powers I – Appointments Power
- The Executive Power – Article II (296-297).
- Notes (306-308).
- The Appointment Power (334-335).
- The “Removal” Power (348-351).
- Myers v. United States (351-366).
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (366-370).
- Morrison v. Olson – Removal (370-382).
- National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014): Case overview in plain english, and oral argument recap
- The “Faithfully Executed” Clause (316-318).
- The “Take Care” clause (330-331).
- Impeachment (475).
The majority opinion Myers v. United States was authored by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously served as President of the United States (the only person to serve in both offices). Taft is in the first row in the middle. One dissent was authored by Justice Brandeis (first row, first on the right), who was the first Jewish Justice appointed to the bench. The other dissent was penned by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (first row, second from left). The other dissent was by Justice James McReynolds (first row, first from the left).
This is Justice Taft, who had the second-nicest mustache on the Court.
This is Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who had the nicest mustache on the Court.
This is Justice Louis Brandeis.
Justice Joseph Story, who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845, published in 1833 his commentaries on the Constitution, that offered explanations for many constitutional questions.
This is Justice George Sutherland, one of the “Four Horsemen” who opposed President Roosevelt’s agenda, who authored Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
This is William E.Humphrey, who served as the commissioner of the FTC, and who was removed by President Roosevelt.
This is Alexia Morrison, the independent counsel in Morrison v. Olson.
This is Ted Olson, who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and was subject to investigation by Morrison.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion for the Court.
This is the Justice Scalia bobblehead. Note the wolf, because of his famous line that “this wolf comes as a wolf.”
The Legislative Powers
- Bicameralism & Presentment (260-261).
- INS v. Chadha (261-272).
- Clinton v. City of New York (272-281).
- Read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (3-4).
- Enumerated Powers in Article I, Section 8 (281-283).
- Bills of Attainder (283-284).
- Note 5 – Nixon v. GSA (293-294).
- Ex Post Facto Clause (294-295).
- Contracts Clause (295).
This is Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who wrote the majority opinion in INS v. Chadha.
This is Jagdish Chadha.
Justice Louis Powell authored a concurring opinion.
Justice White dissented.
The City of New York was led, at the time by Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who opposed President Clinton’s usage of the “Line Item Veto.”
The majority opinion was authored by Justice John Paul Stevens.
Justice Anthony Michael Kennedy concurred.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, in part.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, in other parts.
Nixon v. GSA concerned President Nixon’s attempts to keep secret tapes he recorded privately in the White House.
The Separation of Powers
- Separation of Powers (173-175).
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube (175-190).
- The Powers of Congress – Article I (190-192).
- Enumerated Powers (192-193).
- M’Culloch v. Maryland (193-209)
This is a postcard of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Mill.
Here are photographs of the actual steel mill at issue in Youngstown, Ohio.
This is Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer, whom Truman ordered to seize the steel mill.
The lead opinion in Youngstown was authored by Justice Hugo Black.
There were also concurring opinions written by five Justices. This is Justice Felix Frankfurter.
This is Justice William O. Douglas.
This is Justice Robert H. Jackson. Justice Jackson, who would serve as the lead prosecutor at Nuremberg, authored what has been seen as the definitive opinion in Youngstown.
This is Justice Tom C. Clark (a graduate of University of Texas at Austin).
Chief Justice Vinson dissented, joined by Justices Reed and Minton.
You can read Executive Order 10340, Executive Order 10340 – Directing the Secretary of Commerce to Take Possession of and Operate the Plants and Facilities of Certain Steel Companiesm, here:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The Secretary of Commerce is hereby authorized and directed to take possession of all or such of the plants, facilities, and other property of the companies named in the list attached hereto, or any part thereof, as he may deem necessary in the interests of national defense; and to operate or to arrange for the operation thereof and to do all things necessary for, or incidental to, such operation.
2. In carrying out this order the Secretary of Commerce may act through or with the aid of such public or private instrumentalities or persons as he may designate; and all Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Commerce to the fullest extent possible in carrying out the purposes of this order.
3. The Secretary of Commerce shall determine and prescribe terms and conditions of employment under which the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall be operated. The Secretary of Commerce shall recognize the rights of workers to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, adjustment of grievances, or other mutual aid or protection, provided that such activities do not interfere with the operation of such plants, facilities, and other properties.
4. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce shall otherwise provide from time to time, the managements of the plants, facilities, and other properties possession of which is taken pursuant to this order shall continue their functions, including the collection and disbursement of funds in the usual and ordinary course of business in the names of their respective companies and by means of any instrumentalities used by such companies.
5. Except so far as the Secretary of Commerce may otherwise direct, existing rights and obligations of such companies shall remain in full force and effect, and there may be made, in due course, payments of dividends on stock, and of principal, interest, sinking funds, and all other distributions upon bonds, debentures, and other obligations, and expenditures may be made for other ordinary corporate or business purposes.
6. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary of Commerce further possession and operation by him of any plant, facility, or other property is no longer necessary or expedient in the interest of national defense, and the Secretary has reason to believe that effective future operation is assured, he shall return the possession and operation of such plant, facility or other property to the company in possession and control thereof at the time possession was taken under this order.
7. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to prescribe and issue such regulations and orders not inconsistent herewith as he may deem necessary or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this order; and he may delegate and authorize subdelegation of such of his functions under this order as he may deem desirable.
This was Marshall’s original draft opinion in M’Cullough v. Maryland.
Why is the Constitution Supreme?
- Constitutional Supremacy and Interpretation (123-124).
- Federalist No. 51 (128-129).
- Federalist No. 78 (133-138).
- Background of Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review (140-143).
- Marbury v. Madison (143-155).
- Stuart v. Laird (155-156).
- Judicial Supremacy and letters from Jefferson and Madison (159-161)
Today’s class will focus on these clauses of the Constitution:
Article II, Section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate . . . [to] nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United State, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.
Article II, Section 3: He . . . shall Commission all the Officers of the United States
Article III, Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . .
In addition, here is the Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (one of the first acts the First Congress voted on) at issue in Marbury:
And be it further enacted, That the Supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public minister, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues of fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.
The Federalist Papers were a series of 85 articles written jointly by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, under the pseudonym Publius, following the submission of the Constitution to the state conventions. The purpose of these papers were to raise support for ratification.
Here is a photograph of the Forrest-Marbury House in Washington, D.C., which was acquired by William Mabury in 1800. The house would remain in the Marbury family for the next century. It currently serves as the Embassy of Ukraine, located at 3350 M Street NW in Georgetown (not far from the Key Bridge).
There is a plaque in the front commemorating the location:
And here is the original copy of the opinion.
Thanks to Max K. for the photographs of the house.
Our Founding Documents
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Articles of Confederation (pp. 1633-1638)
- The Constitution of the United States (pp. 1-15).
- The Adoption of the Constitution (19-27).
- Six broad themes of the Constitution (35-39).
- Map of the Constitution (39-42).
Note: Read these documents in their entirety. They’re not long. And no one should graduate law school without reading them at least once.
This is the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776).
This is the first page of the Articles of Confederation (Ratified in 1781).
These are the four pages of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution was proposed on September 17, 1787, and ratified on June 21, 1788 with the ratification of New Hampshire, the 9th State to join the Union.
These are the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791 (the phrase “The Bill of Rights” only came into common parlance following the Civil War).
Welcome to Constitutional Law.