Administering Native Peoples 1824

Administering Native Peoples 1824

Administering Native Peoples 1824 USA
Administering Native Peoples 1824 USA – This 1939 mural, Indian & Soldier by Maynard Dixon, adorns a wall of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C.

John Marshall (1755–1835), James Monroe (1758–1831)

In Johnson v. M’Intosh case decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Chief Justice John Marshall can exercise sovereignty over new lands whenever they are found. You can read the details o this case below.

The creation of the Office of Indian Affairs inside the War Department establishes the bureaucracy that would oversee the nation’s “manifest destiny” goals—the belief that the nascent nation has the right to expand to the Pacific. As the US military defeats American Indian tribes, the government will establish treaties with them, and the tribes will be sent to reserves.

“Under the regulations set by the department, the management of the fund for Indian civilisation is likewise entrusted to your responsibility.” You are also in charge of investigating claims resulting from legislation governing relations with Indian tribes, and will submit them to this Department after analyzing and briefing them, endorsing a proposal for their permission or disallowance.”

Read more

Congressional Regulation of Commerce 1824

Congressional Regulation of Commerce 1824

Congressional Regulation of Commerce 1824
Congressional Regulation of Commerce 1824 – Daniel Webster, pictured in this c. 1851 photograph, argued the case on behalf of Thomas Gibbons in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gibbons v. Ogden, Thomas Gibbons (1757–1826), Aaron Ogden (1756–1839), John Marshall (1755–1835)

Gibbons v. Ogden, a U.S. Supreme Court decision from 1824 that established the idea that states cannot interfere with Congress’s jurisdiction to regulate trade by legislative action. In 1798, the state of New York promised to give Robert Fulton and his backer, Robert R. Livingston, a monopoly on steamboat navigation in state waters provided they produced a steamboat capable of moving upstream on the Hudson River at 4 miles (6.4 km) per hour.

In 1807, Fulton and Livingston fulfilled the grant’s conditions. Following that, Aaron Ogden bought the rights to operate steamboats between New York City and New Jersey from Fulton and Livingston. In 1819, Ogden filed a lawsuit against Thomas Gibbons, who was operating steamboats in the same waters without Fulton or Livingston’s permission. In the New York Court of Chancery, Ogden prevailed in 1820.

Read more

The Supremacy of Federal Courts 1821

The Supremacy of Federal Courts 1821

The Supremacy of Federal Courts 1821
The Supremacy of Federal Courts 1821 – Chief Justice John Marshall—one of the most important figures in the history of the judiciary— depicted in an 1862 engraving by Alonzo Chappel.

Cohens v. Virginia, John Marshall (1755–1835)

In Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the United States Supreme Court confirmed its power to review any state court verdicts in situations arising under the federal Constitution or a federal statute.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 mandated that the Supreme Court review final judgments of any state’s highest court in cases “where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is called into question and the decision is against its validity” or “where the validity of a statute of any state is called into question on the ground that it is repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity.”

Fairfax’s Devisee v. Hunter’s Lessee (1813), a case concerning a property dispute, saw the Supreme Court overturn Virginia’s highest court and order it to file a judgment in favor of the party initially found against.

Read more

The Supremacy of Federal Law 1819

The Supremacy of Federal Law 1819

The Supremacy of Federal Law 1819
The Supremacy of Federal Law 1819 – The Old Supreme Court Chamber, where Chief Justice John Marshall presided. The North Wing is pictured here in 1800.

McCulloch v. Maryland, John Marshall (1755–1835)

McCulloch v. Maryland – 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

RULE: A solid design of the Constitution must provide the national legislature the discretion to choose the ways by which the powers it confers are to be carried out, allowing that body to carry out the great responsibilities it has been entrusted with in the most advantageous way for the people.

All measures that are acceptable, that are clearly tailored to that purpose, that are not forbidden, but comply with the language and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.

FACTS: The state of Maryland sued McCulloch to recover fines imposed under a Maryland law that levied a levy on all banks in the state of Maryland that were not chartered by the Maryland legislature.

Read more

The Superiority of Possession 1805

The Superiority of Possession 1805

The Superiority of Possession 1805
The Superiority of Possession 1805 – A Fox Hunt (c. 1735) by English painter John Wootton.

Pierson v. Post (1805), Popov v. Hayashi (2002)

PIERSON v. POST – 3 Cai. R. 175, 1805 N.Y. LEXIS 311

RULE: Pursuit alone does not confer property rights in feroe naturoe animals. As a result, no action will be taken against a guy who kills and takes a person who was being pursued by, and in the view of, the person who first discovered, started, chased, and was about to seize it.

FACTS: Lodowick Post was hunting a wild fox with his hounds when Pierson, seeing the fox was being pursued, shot and killed it. Plaintiff Post filed a trespass suit against defendant Pierson, and the trial court found in his favor. Plaintiff had no rights in the fox just because he was chasing it, according to the defendant.

Read more

The Napoleonic Code 1804 – France

The Napoleonic Code 1804

The Napoleonic Code 1804 - France
The Napoleonic Code 1804 – France – Napoléon Crossing the Alps (1801) by Jacques-Louis David.

Napoléon Bonaparte (1769–1821)

After four years of deliberation and planning, French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte enacts the “Napoleonic Code,” a new legal foundation for France.

The civil code was the first comprehensive collection of rules governing property, colonial affairs, the family, and individual rights in post-revolutionary France.

As the new dictator of France, General Napoleon Bonaparte began the difficult process of reforming the country’s old and confusing legal system in 1800. He formed a special committee, chaired by J.J. Cambaceres, that convened over 80 times to debate the revolutionary legal amendments, with Napoleon presiding over about half of the meetings. The Napoleonic Code was ultimately passed in March 1804.

Read more

Marbury v. Madison Case – Power of Judiciary

Marbury v. Madison Case – Power of Judiciary

John Adams (1735–1826), William Marbury (1762–1835), Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), James Madison (1751–1836), John Marshall (1755–1835)

Marbury v. Madison Case – Power of Judiciary
Marbury v. Madison Case – Power of Judiciary – John Vanderlyn painted this 1816 portrait of James Madison, President Jefferson’s secretary of State and the fourth president of the United States.

On February 24, 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, rules in William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States, confirming the legal principle of judicial review—the Supreme Court’s ability to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional—in the new nation.

The court found that the new president, Thomas Jefferson, was improper to block William Marbury from taking office as judge of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia through his secretary of state, James Madison. The court did, however, decide that it lacked jurisdiction in the case and that it could not compel Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Supreme Court was given jurisdiction by the Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Marshall court concluded that it was an unconstitutional expansion of judicial power into the executive branch.

Read more