Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Also, in contrast to most of the Board, Marshall charged that the prosecution of thirty-two right wing opponents of Roosevelt's pre-war foreign policy in the Sedition Trial of 1944 violated the First Amendment. [10] In the years after 1945, Marshall resumed his offensive against racial segregation in schools.
Marshall's opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related doctrine of discovery. However, the vast majority of the opinion is dicta ; as valid title is a basic element of the cause of action for ejectment, the holding does not extend to the validity of McIntosh's title, much less the ...
In essence, Roosevelt's Monroe Doctrine would be the basis for a use of economic and military hegemony to make the U.S. the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere. The new doctrine was a frank statement that the U.S. was willing to seek leverage over Latin American governments by acting as an international police power in the region. [7]
If Marshall was suggesting that the power over interstate commerce is an exclusive federal power, the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine eventually developed very differently: it treats regulation that does not discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce as a concurrent power, rather than an exclusive federal power, and it treats ...
Supreme Court of the United States Marshall Court Ellsworth Court ← → Taney Court Chief Justice John Marshall February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835 (34 years, 152 days) Seat Old Supreme Court Chamber Washington, D.C. No. of positions 6 (1801-1807) 7 (1807-1835) Marshall Court decisions The Marshall Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1801 to 1835, when John Marshall ...
The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823).
Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power is given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details." Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional.
Marshall observed that the Constitution is "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation", and that it cannot be altered by an ordinary act of the legislature. Therefore, "an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." [54] Marshall then discussed the role of the courts, which is at the heart of the doctrine of judicial ...