Most Important Supreme Court Case in American History?

[Pox]

Because this subforum gets no action

Marbury V Madison- Establishes Judicial review

McCulloch V Maryland- Congress has implied constitutional powers/the federal government is supreme and states cannot impede its lawful use of power.

Gibbons V Ogden- Congress can regulate commerce, including shipping.

Scott V Sanford- Blacks can never be citizens.

Brown V Board of Education- Wait, yes they are. And they can't be segregated.

NYT V Sullivan- Press can only be guilty of libel if they purposefully run false/malicious stories

Tinker V Des Moines- Students have a right to symbolic free speech.

Miranda V Arizona- Suspects in custody must be informed of rights.

Roe V Wade- Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

South Dakota V Dole- Federal Gov can withhold state funds to force them to do stuff.

[taters]

No Marbury, no Supreme Court.

[Pharon]

While certainly important, I don't think Marbury created power out of thin air. It was simply the first time the concept of judicial review came up. But there is plenty of evidence in the Constitution that already establishes the Supreme Court as the body of ultimate judicial review in the first place. That's what the separation of powers is all about.

No, when I think "important" -- I think of cases that significantly altered, or shifted power from the states (and the people) to the federal government. And in that respect, there are several that should be on this list that were omitted.

McCulloch was certainly one of them (and yes, I realize it was on the list). It established that "necessary and proper" was a power in itself -- prior to that, enumerated and limited powers meant something. Not anymore.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) certainly belongs on this list. That was the ruling that established that "interstate commerce" could be, effectively, anything -- that Congress assumed the power to regulate anything that affected commerce, not just commerce itself.

Or what about Kelo v. City of New London (2005)? That's the ruling that expanded the definition of "public use" -- now if the government thinks it can make more money in taxes from having a Burger King on your property, it has the power to take your house via eminent domain.

Or, if you're a freedom of speech nut, there's always the gem McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) -- this one upheld McCain-Feingold in its entiretly -- a law which made it illegal to badmouth an incumbent within 60 days of an election. Our founding fathers would be so proud.

For me, though, the one that takes the cake was United States v. Butler (1936). Because this is the first case that recognized that taxes could be spent on things other than the enumerated powers of Article I §8 -- namely anything that Congress, in their infinite wisdom, deemed "general welfare." The 16th Amendment allowed unlimited taxation, and Butler allowed unlimited spending. With those two things in place, the federal government was legally able to expand way beyond what the Constitution initially intended.

[Phil Theehor]

Pharon's post

You're a smart guy. You should post once in a while.

But back on topic... I haven't followed all you mentioned closely, so I can't speak to which offends me the most, although they do. All have moved the US away from the principles on which we were founded.

But, I did watch Kelo pretty closely and can tell you it offended me to my core. I'll only touch on the back story, since you covered it well, but will speak to the aftermath, which is glorious.

Basically, the court upholds New London, Conn's abuse of eminent domain, not to build a road or a hospital, or save orphans or puppies, but to remove "blight" (which was a joke. It was a mid to lower middle class neighborhood, not a slum). So, they take people's homes and land and turn it over to a private company that plans to build offices, higher-end condos and strip malls. My girl Sandy did her best to fight it, but ultimately could not stem the misguided tide of central planning.

The aftermath? Well, I can report that New London is still a shithole. The thieving brokedicks are getting what they deserved, too. The shifty developer to whom they gave the land has not been able to fund the project. They are out $78 million and have yet to break ground. If they ever do retrack the project, they are years away from seeing any tax revenue.

What's interesting is the national backlash. It seemed to evoke an instant, visceral backlash among citizens who fear government power.
Within weeks of the court's decision, Texas, Alabama and Delaware passed bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins limiting the right of local governments to seize property and turn it over to private developers. Since then, lawmakers in three dozen other states have proposed similar restrictions. More are likely.

[Stax]

Marbury. By a LOT.

But back on topic... I haven't followed all you mentioned closely, so I can't speak to which offends me the most, although they do. All have moved the US away from the principles on which we were founded.


False. Judicial review was established in no time after our country's founding and was accepted as a solution to a conflict that existed in the system with the lack of an enforcement/review wing for the Constitution. Every losing side calls the decision the work of activist judges, every winning side calls them a breakthrough for civil rights.

But, I did watch Kelo pretty closely and can tell you it offended me to my core. I'll only touch on the back story, since you covered it well, but will speak to the aftermath, which is glorious.

Kelo is the direct and correct product of the precedent of Hawaii Housing Authority. If you're so big on maintaining principles you'd love Kelo because it directly maintained a 20 year old standard that had developed through decades more of case law before that.

I agree the principle of eminent domain applied beyond public construction or the removal of truly blighted neighborhoods (as in DC in the 60s/70s) is silly. But suggesting that it was some radical new decision shows you did NOT follow it that closely because even a passing familiarity with the standing law would lead you to assume the Kelo outcome as the expected one.


What's interesting is the national backlash. It seemed to evoke an instant, visceral backlash among citizens who fear government power.
Within weeks of the court's decision, Texas, Alabama and Delaware passed bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins limiting the right of local governments to seize property and turn it over to private developers. Since then, lawmakers in three dozen other states have proposed similar restrictions. More are likely.

Yes. On that existing issue that the people disagreed with. Great. You tell me a better way to mediate Constitutional issues and enforce Constitutional principles and maybe we've got something to work with. I'd say 9 people who are as a-political as is possible in a political system who's one and only motivation is a protection of those principles are as good a method as any.

[Phil Theehor]

You missed my point, boss. I was not refering to having a supreme court as the ultimate arbiter when I said "moving away from principles on which we were founded". Rather, I refered to the US's formation as a federation of independent states. What the court has done in the last 200 years is consistently appropriate power for the central government. Our framers were fearful of an overly powerful central government. What has transpired has been a gradual realization of those fears.

Our original social contract was struck to limit government powers and protect private property. My point is that Kelo is representative of the continued degeneration of that contract.

[taters]

Marbury. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand that its Marbury that allows 99% of another important case that followed to even occur.

[Morfin]

Let me throw out another case which I believe is up there in the handful of "most important" Supreme Court cases: U.S. v Nixon.

This was a case that told the President that he is not above the law, that separation of powers is a reality, that no one branch is above the others or above the law. At a time of great political upheaval, with the government crumbling, the Supreme Court stood firm -- unanimously -- and showed the President that he was not above the law. At a time when Americans were wondering whether they could trust their government and President. If the Supreme Court had ruled differently, Americans would have lost faith in their government, the Supreme Court, and become cynical about a President -- who would have been above the law, a despot.

This decision, as much as any, held our country together, shot down the President, and re-affirmed to every American that the Constitution was more important than a President.

[hatepoppy]

taters is a kopek!

[gillkonam]

Marbury is tops probably, but I think Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person. Kind of fucked up the rest of American history, leading to the establishment of our current problems, where the only true US citizens are corporations. How do you like your 14th Amendment?

[Stax]

Rather, I refered to the US's formation as a federation of independent states. What the court has done in the last 200 years is consistently appropriate power for the central government. Our framers were fearful of an overly powerful central government. What has transpired has been a gradual realization of those fears.

Our original social contract was struck to limit government powers and protect private property.

Jefferson also thought we would be an agrarian republic. How's that working out?

The Founding Fathers were great men, but do not carry mystic power. The United States would not have survived to this day without programs that would make the Founding Fathers turn over in their grave. The value of the Constitution is that it can change.

[Phil Theehor]

Jefferson also thought we would be an agrarian republic. How's that working out?

The Founding Fathers were great men, but do not carry mystic power. The United States would not have survived to this day without programs that would make the Founding Fathers turn over in their grave. The value of the Constitution is that it can change.

Yikes, kid. You are argumentative this morning. I'm guessing that this is due to either a) a welling up of self-loathing from picking against your school and losing or b) having some ties to New London and being pissed that I called it a shithole. (EDIT: To the rest of the world, it's not really a shithole. I called it such because I am still so very offended by what they did).

And yes, the beauty of our system is that it can change with the times. I think we can all agree on that. My gripe is with what we have done with that ability.

And you, sir, have surprised me. The guy who only argues in cold, hard, measurable facts busting out "would haves" in argument? You're better than that.

[freegood]

Let me throw out another case which I believe is up there in the handful of "most important" Supreme Court cases: U.S. v Nixon.

This was a case that told the President that he is not above the law, that separation of powers is a reality, that no one branch is above the others or above the law. At a time of great political upheaval, with the government crumbling, the Supreme Court stood firm -- unanimously -- and showed the President that he was not above the law. At a time when Americans were wondering whether they could trust their government and President. If the Supreme Court had ruled differently, Americans would have lost faith in their government, the Supreme Court, and become cynical about a President -- who would have been above the law, a despot.

This decision, as much as any, held our country together, shot down the President, and re-affirmed to every American that the Constitution was more important than a President.

Cheney did get the memo. He just didn't give a flying fuck.

[redsox39]

Marbury. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand that its Marbury that allows 99% of another important case that followed to even occur.

If it weren't for Marbury, we'd never have Scott, if we never had Scott, Tater's wouldn't have a chip on his shoulder...

[Pharon]

No Marbury, no Supreme Court.
This is a ridiculous statement. What the fuck do you think Article III is then?

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"

"Judicial Power" is the power to review and rule. Marbury was simply the acknowledgement of this power -- it didn't create or expand anything. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the concept of judicial power in the first place.

Judicial review was established in no time after our country's founding and was accepted as a solution to a conflict that existed in the system with the lack of an enforcement/review wing for the Constitution.
This couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution was specifically created for two reasons: (1) to limit and contain federal control, but also not make it impotent like it was during the Articles of Confederation, and (2) to create a separation of powers in the federal branch to make sure no one body had too much control within it. The Legislative: to make Constitutional laws, the Executive: to enforce Constitutional laws, and the Judicial: to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws when people directly affected brought forward a grievance about them. A simple concept that was NOT created by the Marbury ruling.

Every losing side calls the decision the work of activist judges, every winning side calls them a breakthrough for civil rights.
This is a naive generalization. We, as Americans, have an obligation to raise issues when we think our leaders got something wrong. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Kelo is the direct and correct product of the precedent of Hawaii Housing Authority. If you're so big on maintaining principles you'd love Kelo because it directly maintained a 20 year old standard that had developed through decades more of case law before that.
Hawaii Housing Authority (aka Midkiff) was not the only case law precedent -- Berman v. Parker (1954) came before that. But these two cases were exceptions to the previous "public use" requirement, and only because ultimately they fulfilled it if not technically, at least in spirit. In Berman, it was a severe public safety issue, and in Midkiff it was to correct an oligopoly in land ownership. Kelo was the first case, however, to use a broad sweeping brush to allow economic development to be considered public use, as a general principle. And it was severely wrong. Which is probably why it was a 5-4 decision.

I agree the principle of eminent domain applied beyond public construction or the removal of truly blighted neighborhoods (as in DC in the 60s/70s) is silly. But suggesting that it was some radical new decision shows you did NOT follow it that closely because even a passing familiarity with the standing law would lead you to assume the Kelo outcome as the expected one.
O'Connor's dissent (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html) explains extremely well not only why the logic was faulty, but also why the decision is an extremely dangerous precedent going forward.

Marbury. Anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand that its Marbury that allows 99% of another important case that followed to even occur.
Your grasp of the legal system is horrific. Did you fail out of law school yet?

[taters]

This is a ridiculous statement. What the fuck do you think Article III is then?

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court"

"Judicial Power" is the power to review and rule. Marbury was simply the acknowledgement of this power -- it didn't create or expand anything. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the concept of judicial power in the first place.


I dont know what community college political science class you took that made you think you understand legal history, BUT ITS MARBURY THAT CREATED ACTUAL JUDICIAL FEDERAL POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Before that, the supreme courts role was considered to only pertain to federal matter between states, and its rulings had no bearings on state and local law. That means without MvM, any federal case with law that applied to the states would not have happened, or been enforceable.

Did you attend one of those California unaccredited law schools, or take some correspondence law courses and now you think you understand constitutional law?

[hatepoppy]

Marbury is tops probably, but I think Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a privatecorporation is a person. Kind of fucked up the rest of American history, leading to the establishment of our current problems, where the only true US citizens are corporations. How do you like your 14th Amendment?
fuck me if this man hasnt hit the nail on tha mothafuckin head.

[Stax]

This couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution was specifically created for two reasons: (1) to limit and contain federal control, but also not make it impotent like it was during the Articles of Confederation, and (2) to create a separation of powers in the federal branch to make sure no one body had too much control within it. The Legislative: to make Constitutional laws, the Executive: to enforce Constitutional laws, and the Judicial: to rule on the Constitutionality of those laws when people directly affected brought forward a grievance about them. A simple concept that was NOT created by the Marbury ruling.


If judicial review was so obvious as you claim, why was it such a groundbreaking ruling that is read 200 years later? It's not like we care about a justice of the peace getting his appointment.

This is a naive generalization. We, as Americans, have an obligation to raise issues when we think our leaders got something wrong. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Right. But using something as simplistic as "Oh, those are activist judges" is just that, simplistic. One man's activism is another man's correct reading of the law.

Hawaii Housing Authority (aka Midkiff) was not the only case law precedent -- Berman v. Parker (1954) came before that. But these two cases were exceptions to the previous "public use" requirement, and only because ultimately they fulfilled it if not technically, at least in spirit.

Hawaii was taking land from private owners and redistributing it to other private owners, claiming that this redistribution was the public use (even if the land was given to private owners). This is precisely the same argument made in Kelo, that "public use" is satisfied not through actual public use of the land but from public gains through private use. You're obviously correct in also mentioning Berman, but Berman was establishing the far less controversial premise of taking blighted land. I mentioned Midkiff because it was another example (far earlier than Kelo) of the Court accepting the government taking perfectly healthy, clean, safely used land and redistributing it because they didn't like how it was used.

I completely agree that is a dangerous and wrongful standard. But it WAS the standard.

[Stax]

I dont know what community college political science class you took that made you think you understand legal history, BUT ITS MARBURY THAT CREATED ACTUAL JUDICIAL FEDERAL POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Before that, the supreme courts role was considered to only pertain to federal matter between states, and its rulings had no bearings on state and local law. That means without MvM, any federal case with law that applied to the states would not have happened, or been enforceable.

Did you attend one of those California unaccredited law schools, or take some correspondence law courses and now you think you understand constitutional law?

I think it's a fair bet that Pharon is way way smarter than you.

[hatepoppy]

I think it's a fair bet that Pharon is way way smarter than you.
no shit, he's white.is he?

[Da Raider]

Hawaii was taking land from private owners and redistributing it to other private owners, claiming that this redistribution was the public use (even if the land was given to private owners). This is precisely the same argument made in Kelo, that "public use" is satisfied not through actual public use of the land but from public gains through private use. You're obviously correct in also mentioning Berman, but Berman was establishing the far less controversial premise of taking blighted land. I mentioned Midkiff because it was another example (far earlier than Kelo) of the Court accepting the government taking perfectly healthy, clean, safely used land and redistributing it because they didn't like how it was used.

I completely agree that is a dangerous and wrongful standard. But it WAS the standard.

Stax is a "don't tread on me" kind of guy. With out all the hyper reactionary, venom, violence and platitudes.

[hatepoppy]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iERLtsBIqDg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iERLtsBIqDg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Pharon]

I dont know what community college political science class you took that made you think you understand legal history, BUT ITS MARBURY THAT CREATED ACTUAL JUDICIAL FEDERAL POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You'd be wrong. Even Marbury doesn't say that. Also, everything I know about the law I learned here at GMF, not in community college. That's why I'm right.

Before that, the supreme courts role was considered to only pertain to federal matter between states, and its rulings had no bearings on state and local law. That means without MvM, any federal case with law that applied to the states would not have happened, or been enforceable.
Bullshit. All Marbury did was explain in detail what the Constitution already gave the judicial branch the power to do -- namely to be the final arbiter on what the Constitution says and means. You should have your pot-smoking professors read Marshall's Opinion before spouting off the drivel you pretend to know:

The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present [5 U.S. 137, 174] case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States.

In the distribution of this power it is declared that 'the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction.'

It has been insisted at the bar, that as the original grant of jurisdiction to the supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause, assigning original jurisdiction to the supreme court, contains no negative or restrictive words; the power remains to the legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited; provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the legislature to apportion the judicial power between the supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power, and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction. If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance.

If judicial review was so obvious as you claim, why was it such a groundbreaking ruling that is read 200 years later? It's not like we care about a justice of the peace getting his appointment.
It was groundbreaking because it was the first meaningful ruling. Just like Washington gets so much attention because he was the first President. But again -- I'm not saying it wasn't meaningful or important. All I'm saying is that it didn't create any power that didn't already exist.

Right. But using something as simplistic as "Oh, those are activist judges" is just that, simplistic. One man's activism is another man's correct reading of the law.
Right. But no one here said anything about judges being "activist." What do you think this is, the Rush Limbaugh show?

Hawaii was taking land from private owners and redistributing it to other private owners, claiming that this redistribution was the public use (even if the land was given to private owners). This is precisely the same argument made in Kelo, that "public use" is satisfied not through actual public use of the land but from public gains through private use. You're obviously correct in also mentioning Berman, but Berman was establishing the far less controversial premise of taking blighted land. I mentioned Midkiff because it was another example (far earlier than Kelo) of the Court accepting the government taking perfectly healthy, clean, safely used land and redistributing it because they didn't like how it was used.
That's funny, because I would suggest that Berman is far closer to what they did in Kelo than Midkiff was. But again, I'm not saying those two rulings didn't support Kelo -- all I'm saying is that there were plenty of rulings that happened before it that already defined what "public use" was -- Berman and Midkiff took it to a new level, but for exceptional reasons. Kelo was the decision that made those two exceptions the general rule. That's what makes Kelo so goddamn dangerous.

[Stax]

Stax is a "don't tread on me" kind of guy. With out all the hyper reactionary, venom, violence and platitudes.

What's weird is I'm vociferously liberal on some things. I don't get me.

[Stax]

It was groundbreaking because it was the first meaningful ruling. Just like Washington gets so much attention because he was the first President. But again -- I'm not saying it wasn't meaningful or important. All I'm saying is that it didn't create any power that didn't already exist.

Well, Washington also gets credit for not allowing himself to become a king, a rather unique opportunity among presidents. His own humility stopped the newly formed Republic from collapsing into itself before it even really started. And unless I'm mistaken the Court had already decided things before Marbury. Marbury clearly did something in terms of power creation. Why did Marshall have to walk such a fine line in writing it (recognizing both that Jefferson should have delivered the appointment BUT saying it's not the court's place to deal with this because the law that gave the court jurisdiction was unconstitutional) if it dealt with a clear power?

Altering original jurisdiction without Constitutional amendment is blatently and textually unconstitutional, if judicial review was a clearly defined power as you claim the decision would've been a page long and forgotten in the sands of time.

Right. But no one here said anything about judges being "activist." What do you think this is, the Rush Limbaugh show?

No. But I got a similar sense from Phil's post:


I haven't followed all you mentioned closely, so I can't speak to which offends me the most, although they do. All have moved the US away from the principles on which we were founded.


I hardly think respecting previous precedent is moving the US away from it's founding principles.

That's funny, because I would suggest that Berman is far closer to what they did in Kelo than Midkiff was. But again, I'm not saying those two rulings didn't support Kelo -- all I'm saying is that there were plenty of rulings that happened before it that already defined what "public use" was -- Berman and Midkiff took it to a new level, but for exceptional reasons. Kelo was the decision that made those two exceptions the general rule. That's what makes Kelo so goddamn dangerous.

What does Kelo do to make it a more general rule than already established in Midkiff/Berman?

[Stax]

Some of the most important words ever written in American history after the Constitution:

http://i41.tinypic.com/2ufcyko.jpg

[riseabove!]

marbury obviously... but these days it's all about roe

[taters]

Bullshit. All Marbury did was explain in detail what the Constitution already gave the judicial branch the power to do -- namely to be the final arbiter on what the Constitution says and means. You should have your pot-smoking professors read Marshall's Opinion before spouting off the drivel you pretend to know:

2x Bullshit. Before MvM, and even to some extent afterwards, the power of the constitution and the federal judicial was seen as SEPARATE from state powers, in that the fed had no power over what the state did when it was within themselves, EVEN on some constitutional matters that didnt touch federal issues directly.

The powers of the constitution were NOT seen as completely binding on the states and how they conducted themselves within themselves.

I HIGHLY suggest you sit in on the first week of ANY law school constitutional law class and learn a few things before making your wild eyed historically incorrect bullshit claims.
You cant make up history, and academia, and the legal practice is on MY side here. These are FACTS, not the bullshit you are spewing from your quick cite of wikipedia. Any 1st semester 1L student will tell you the same, or will have it down in their notes. Its among the first things you learn.

added: stax of course beat me to it

[Pharon]

Well, Washington also gets credit for not allowing himself to become a king, a rather unique opportunity among presidents. His own humility stopped the newly formed Republic from collapsing into itself before it even really started. And unless I'm mistaken the Court had already decided things before Marbury. Marbury clearly did something in terms of power creation. Why did Marshall have to walk such a fine line in writing it (recognizing both that Jefferson should have delivered the appointment BUT saying it's not the court's place to deal with this because the law that gave the court jurisdiction was unconstitutional) if it dealt with a clear power?
You answered your own question. It was a fine line because the concept hadn't been officially addressed yet. And the other branches could have thrown the whole balance into anarchy if they didn't accept it -- there was no faith and trust in the fledgling government at that point yet, so they had to tread lightly with the power sharing. What made Marbury so beautiful was that he gave the Executive branch exactly what they wanted -- and by doing so, they were less likely to bitch. Short term gain for them, and long term solidification of power for the Judicial branch. But again -- the power of judicial review was always intended to lie with the Supreme Court. This was simply the first time it was tested outside insignificant parameters. THAT'S what makes it meaningful. It was a FIRST. But it didn't create any power. That's just silly. What use would the Supreme Court serve if it didn't have original jurisdiction over all things federal? It would've been a paper tiger.

Altering original jurisdiction without Constitutional amendment is blatently and textually unconstitutional, if judicial review was a clearly defined power as you claim the decision would've been a page long and forgotten in the sands of time.
It was a clearly defined power, and the Constitution specifically states that the Judicial branch has original jurisdiction. This was simply the first time it was tested. But I think we're splitting hairs here, really.

What does Kelo do to make it a more general rule than already established in Midkiff/Berman?
O'Connor said it far better than I ever could:
The Court's holdings in Berman and Midkiff were true to the principle underlying the Public Use Clause. In both those cases, the extraordinary, precondemnation use of the targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society--in Berman through blight resulting from extreme poverty and in Midkiff through oligopoly resulting from extreme wealth. And in both cases, the relevant legislative body had found that eliminating the existing property use was necessary to remedy the harm. Berman, supra, at 28-29; Midkiff, supra, at 232. Thus a public purpose was realized when the harmful use was eliminated. Because each taking directly achieved a public benefit, it did not matter that the property was turned over to private use. Here, in contrast, New London does not claim that Susette Kelo's and Wilhelmina Dery's well-maintained homes are the source of any social harm. Indeed, it could not so claim without adopting the absurd argument that any single-family home that might be razed to make way for an apartment building, or any church that might be replaced with a retail store, or any small business that might be more lucrative if it were instead part of a national franchise, is inherently harmful to society and thus within the government's power to condemn.

In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use. It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public--such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure. But nearly any lawful use of real private property can be said to generate some incidental benefit to the public. Thus, if predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power.

Before MvM, and even to some extent afterwards, the power of the constitution and the federal judicial was seen as SEPARATE from state powers, in that the fed had no power over what the state did when it was within themselves, EVEN on some constitutional matters that didnt touch federal issues directly.

The powers of the constitution were NOT seen as completely binding on the states and how they conducted themselves within themselves.
Marbury had nothing to do with state vs. federal judicial power. It had to do with power sharing between the three branches, and how appellate control by Congress fit into the equation. You're thinking of the Fourteenth Amendment, which didn't occur until 63 years later. That's where the Constitution was binding to the states, per the "privileges or immunities" clause.

I HIGHLY suggest you sit in on the first week of ANY law school constitutional law class and learn a few things before making your wild eyed historically incorrect bullshit claims.
I highly suggest you blow me.

[Stax]

But it didn't create any power. That's just silly. What use would the Supreme Court serve if it didn't have original jurisdiction over all things federal? It would've been a paper tiger.

The court has and had plenty of powers beyond judicial review. The stated Constitutional powers of the Court are and were (along with some 11th amendment modification):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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.

The first bolded section is the only bit that even sounds slightly like a grant of power to review Constitutionality of laws. ALL the other stated powers (cases involving ambassadors, states, and just generally cases that fall under federal law) are the clear ones. The 2nd bolded section, I feel, makes it rather clear that judicial review was NOT an original power of the Court. The court is empowered in that section to appellate jurisdiction over law and fact under Congressional regulations, not to review the regulations themselves.

It was a clearly defined power, and the Constitution specifically states that the Judicial branch has original jurisdiction. This was simply the first time it was tested. But I think we're splitting hairs here, really.

I meant original jurisdiction with relation to the Judicial Act (which altered original jurisidction) at hand in Marbury. If judicial review was clearly a power then the Court could very simply have written "This law unconstitutionally alters our original jurisdiction through statute. It is overturned. Lets go bang some slaves."

[Pharon]

The first bolded section is the only bit that even sounds slightly like a grant of power to review Constitutionality of laws. ALL the other stated powers (cases involving ambassadors, states, and just generally cases that fall under federal law) are the clear ones. The 2nd bolded section, I feel, makes it rather clear that judicial review was NOT an original power of the Court. The court is empowered in that section to appellate jurisdiction over law and fact under Congressional regulations, not to review the regulations themselves.
The Marbury ruling discusses this concept in great depth -- part of what I cited earlier covers it, actually. I can go into more detail if you'd like. But that would take some time -- just let me know.

[Stax]

The Marbury ruling discusses this concept in great depth -- part of what I cited earlier covers it, actually. I can go into more detail if you'd like. But that would take some time -- just let me know.

Sure, but I still fail to see how you can say it was so obvious a power. Again, if it was so clear the Court would've written a one sentence decision (since the Judicial Act blatantly altered original jurisdiction in a not ok way that really didn't take any discussion to see) that said "No" and been done with it.

[Pharon]

Rather than go that route, how about looking at it like this -- every Supreme Court case I've ever read goes to great lengths to explain why their ruling is consistent with power granted by the Constitution. In Marbury, there is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that Justice Marshall was advocating for an expansion of power not already expressly granted to him and his body by the Constitution. So how can you argue that the power didn't exist previously? Just because it was yet to be tested doesn't mean it didn't exist all along.

I think that's the only point I'm getting at here. Of course it was a meaningful ruling -- but not because it granted additional powers. It was meaningful because it was the first significant test of the separation of powers. Powers that had already been granted and shared by the original text of the Constitution.

[Stax]

In Marbury, there is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that Justice Marshall was advocating for an expansion of power not already expressly granted to him and his body by the Constitution. So how can you argue that the power didn't exist previously? Just because it was yet to be tested doesn't mean it didn't exist all along.


No Justice in any ruling EVER says they are expanding power, they merely read the Constitution in a certain way and claim, as you are here, that the power existed all along. But the power simply does not exist in the text. The creation of judicial review was the first power created through the Courts, long before we'd see substantive due process rear it's head in the early 1900s and then 1970s over the 'rights' to contract and privacy.

[Pharon]

I still fail to see how you can say it was so obvious a power.
One of the arguments leading up to Marbury was that each branch should be allowed to interpret the Constitution independently of each other -- this was something that Marbury discussed in depth, but it was not a new concept. Federalist Paper #78 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm), which was written 15 years prior to Marbury, talks about the purpose of the judicial branch, and how it was meant to relate to the other branches, with respect to this issue:

If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

[taters]

Its like trying to explain high end calculus to a 5th grade geometry ace. Your arent getting it.

[Stax]

taters, he's way smarter then you. Shut up already.

[Pharon]

Its like trying to explain high end calculus to a 5th grade geometry ace. Your arent getting it.
Funny, this is how I feel every time I respond to you. I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago.

[taters]

Funny, this is how I feel every time I respond to you. I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago.

Seriously, you dont know wtf you are talking about. For a guy whos never set foot in a law school, never opened a con law book, and whos getting most of his info from Wikipedia and the history channel, you are way to assured of yourself at being right in this.

Really. I mean, what are you going to argue next? The pharmaceutical benefits of difference anti-depressants "Which one is best"? The best Rocket Sattelite trajectories in high orbit for retrograde sustainability? What subspecies of north pacific beluga whales are the most cold hard?

Youre talking out of your ass here. And its an opinion thread at that!

[Pharon]

I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago.