Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T23:28:34.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Marshall's Philosophy of Constitutional Republicanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Morton J. Frisch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

JohnMarshall was modest when he said in Cohens v. Virginia that The Federalist was “a complete commentary” on the American Constitution. His own ventures in constitutional exegesis—highlighted by his interpretations of the commerce and contract clauses and his liberal construction of the implied powers clause—secure his rank as a constitutional commentator and seriously rival the authors of The Federalist. Marshall was, however, operating at a distinct advantage over the influential Hamilton, Madison and Jay, who wrote commentaries on a constitution which was yet to be rendered workable; they composed pamphlets intended to secure acceptance of the proposed government by reluctant states. Such commentaries are bound to have more limited value than decisions meant to accomodate the constitutional instrument to the practical problems of government. Marshall's essential contribution lay in the fact that his expositions of the Constitution, as distinguished from the pamphleteering attempts of The Federalist, imparted momentum to those trends which were eventually responsible for the adjustment of our political institutions to the changing tempo of an industrial technology.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1958 , pp. 34 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Marshall was no builder of philosophic systems. Perhaps his intense political and judicial career prevented him from undertaking any systematic exposition of his ideas. But the fact that he did not present his thought to us in a systematic fashion should not lead us to assume that a clearly discernible approach to politics and a rather definite set of principles were absent from the man and his writings. This paper has drawn upon Marshall's constitutional decisions, his biography of Washington, his correspondence, public addresses and papers in an attempt to present a systematic exposition and analysis of his political ideas; in this sense it goes beyond such studies as those of E. S. Corwin, J. B. Thayer, T. S. Craigmyle, B. W. Palmer and A. J. Beveridge.

2 6 Wheat. 418 (1821).

3 Gibbons, v. Ogden, , 9 Wheat. 1 (1824)Google Scholar, Brown, v. Maryland, , 12 Wheat. 419 (1827)Google Scholar, Willson, v. The Black-bird Creek Marsh Company, 2 Pet. 245 (1829).Google Scholar

4 Fletcher, v. Peck, , 6 Cranch 87 (1810)Google Scholar, New Jersey v. Wilson, , 7 Cranch 164 (1812)Google Scholar, Sturges, , v. Crowninshield, , 4 Wheat. 122 (1819)Google Scholar, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, , 4 Wheat. 518 (1819)Google Scholar, Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat. 213 (1827).Google Scholar

5 United States v. Fisher, , 2 Cranch 358 (1804)Google Scholar, McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 316 (1819).Google Scholar

6 Marshall suggested (in McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 433Google Scholar) that some of the observations made by the authors of The Federalist could not always be applied to the peculiar problems of the American Constitution.

7 Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, , 5 Cranch 87 (1809)Google Scholar, Cohens, v. Virginia, , 6 Wheat. 387.Google Scholar

8 McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 406.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., 4 Wheat. 407.

10 United States v. Fisher, , 2 Cranch 396.Google Scholar

11 McCulloch, v. Maryland, , 4 Wheat. 406.Google Scholar

12 Case of the Brig Wilson, 1 Brock, Rep. 431 (1820).

13 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787, ed. by Elliot, Jonathan (Philadelphia, 1836), III, 555Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Elliot's Debates.

14 Jefferson, Thomas, “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank of the United States (February 15, 1791),” Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by Ford, Paul Leicester (New York, 1904), VI, 198.Google Scholar

15 Brown, v. Maryland, , 12 Wheat. 439–40.Google Scholar

16 Marshall, observed that amendments to the Constitution “would enfeeble and materially injure, the future operations of government” (Life of Washington, Philadelphia, 1834, II, 166).Google Scholar

17 Gibbons, v. Ogden, , 9 Wheat. 197Google Scholar. Though Marshall was willing to introduce the judicial review of congressional legislation (an idea intimately associated with a written constitution), he would never argue that if the majority of the legislature were corrupted that it would be “within the province of the judiciary to control their conduct” (Fletcher, v. Peck, , 6 Cranch 130).Google Scholar

18 Crosskey, William Winslow, Politics and the Constitution (Chicago, 1953), I, 11.Google Scholar

19 Franksfurter, Felix, The Commerce Clause Under Marshall, Taney and Waite (Chapel Hill, N. C., 1937), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

20 Wright, Benjamin F. Jr., The Contract Clause in the Constitution (Cambridge, Mass., 1938), p. 243.Google Scholar

21 Boorstin, Daniel J., “The ‘Real’ Constitution,” Commentary (12, 1953), p. 604.Google Scholar

22 United States v. Maurice, , 2 Brock. Rep. 100–1 (1823).Google Scholar

23 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1789),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 196Google Scholar. Marshall was the author of the correspondence between the American envoys and the French Minister.

24 Life of Washington, II, 366.Google Scholar

25 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III , 560–61.Google Scholar

26 Life of Washington, II, 293.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., II, 259.

28 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1789),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 195.Google Scholar

29 Life of Washington, II, 235.Google Scholar

30 Ibid., II, 447.

31 “Speech on the Basis of Representation (November 29, 1829),” Proceedings and Debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829–30 (Richmond, 1830), p. 498.Google Scholar

32 Address of the Minority in the Virginia Legislature to the People of that State; containing a Vindication of the Constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Laws (Richmond, 1799), p. 2.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., p. 14.

34 Life of Washington, II, 365.Google Scholar

35 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 233.Google Scholar

36 Life of Washington, II, 362.Google Scholar

37 Ibid.

38 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (January 27, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 169.Google Scholar

39 “Marshall to Archibald Stuart (March 27, 1794),” William and Mary Quarterly (10, 1925), p. 287.Google Scholar

40 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 562.Google Scholar

41 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 562.Google Scholar

42 Life of Washington, II, 151.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., II, 76; “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 195Google Scholar; Mitchel, v. United States, 9 Pet. 723 (1835).Google Scholar

44 “Speech on the Basis of Representation (November 29, 1829),” Proceedings and Debates, p. 489.Google Scholar

45 “Speech on Taxation (June 10, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 170.Google Scholar

46 Life of Washington, II, 447.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., II, 239.

48 “Speech on the Judiciary (June 20, 1788),” Elliot's Debates, III, 560.Google Scholar

49 Address of the Minority, p. 13.Google Scholar

50 Murdock and Co. v. Hunter's Rep., 1 Brock. Rep. 140–41 (1808).Google Scholar

51 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, , 4 Wheat. 518.Google Scholar

52 Life of Washington, II, 117.Google Scholar

53 “Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry to Talleyrand (April 3, 1798),” American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 196.Google Scholar

54 Life of Washington, II, 447.Google Scholar

55 “Address to the President (December 9, 1799),” Annals of Congress 6th Cong., p. 196.Google Scholar

56 “Marshall to Joseph Story (May 3, 1831),” The Political and Economic Doctrines of John Marshall, edited by Oster, John E. (New York, 1914) p. 133.Google Scholar

57 Life of Washington, II, 253.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., p. 239.

59 The Venus, 8 Cranch 297 (1814).

60 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch 198 (1815).

61 Johnson, and Lessee, Graham's v. M'Intosh, , 8 Wheat. 572 (1823).Google Scholar

62 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 120 (1825).

63 Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat 347.Google Scholar

64 “Marshall to Joseph Story (October 29, 1829),” Political and Economic Doctrines of Marshall, p. 125.Google Scholar

65 United States v. Percheman, , 7 Pet. 87 (1833).Google Scholar

66 Meade v. Deputy Marshall, 1 Brock. Rep. 328 (1815).

67 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch 198.

68 Johnson, and Lessee, Graham's v. M'Intosh, , 8 Wheat. 572.Google Scholar

69 Brown, v. United States, 8 Cranch 128 (1814).Google Scholar

70 The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 121.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., 10 Wheat. 121.

73 Ogden, v. Saunders, , 12 Wheat. 338 (1827).Google Scholar

74 United States v. Maurice, , 2 Brock. Rep. 109.Google Scholar

75 Cohens, v. Virginia, , 6 Wheat. 422.Google Scholar