What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
Proceedings of the Louisville Bar Association, John Marshall Day, Louisville ...
Louisville Bar Association
No preview available - 2016
action adopted amendment American appear authority bank became believe Burr called carry cause changed charter Chief Justice circuit citizens claimed clause close common Congress Constitution construction contract convention corporation course created Dartmouth College decided decision District doctrine duty early effect English ernment execution exist facts Federal Federal courts Federalist force governor grant hand held hold impairing important involved issue Jefferson John Marshall judges judgment judiciary jurisdiction land legislation legislature limits living Madison Marbury Marshall's Maryland matter McCulloch means ment nature necessary never obligation opinions passed period Peters political President principles question reason reference Reports Republic Republicans respect rule statute Supreme Court sustained things thought tion to-day trial unconstitutional Union United Virginia void Wheaton written York
Page 60 - That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that ; the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very means, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.
Page 42 - That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions, a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.
Page 58 - Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
Page 60 - ... an abuse, because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single state cannot give." The court said, in that case, that " the states have no power. by taxation, or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.
Page 7 - Th' applause of listening senates to command, The threats of pain and ruin to despise, To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, And read their history in a nation's eyes...
Page 43 - From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Page 41 - It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
Page 42 - ... intention of those who gave this power to say that in using it the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? "This is too extravagant to be maintained. "In some cases, then, the construction must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
Page 74 - On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.
Page 42 - The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that in using it the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.