On Feb. 4, 1801, John Marshall became the nation's fourth Chief Justice. This same year Thomas Jefferson succeeded John Adams as President. It was to be expected that the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive would come into conflict, because Marshall believed firmly in strong national government, and Jefferson as strongly in state sovereignty and the need to beware of intrusions on state power.

Before Jefferson took office the Federalists, who were then in power, had created a number of new federal judges by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Adams had appointed loyal party members to the positions. William Marbury was nominated and confirmed for one such post, but his commission was not delivered to him. The new Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to do so, and Marbury sought to obtain it by a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court. Marshall ruled that the applicant had a right to the commission, and having the legal title to the office, a refusal to deliver the commission was a plain violation of that right.The question was then whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to obtain the commission. The Judiciary Act authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the usages of the law (Sec. 13). However, the Constitution granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction only with respect to cases involving ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state is a party, not mentioning mandamus. In all other cases it gave the Court only appellate jurisdiction.

Marshall said that while mandamus was a part of the power given the Court under the Judiciary Act, the Constitution did not mention mandamus in its grant of original jurisdiction. The Constitution's grant of "appellate jurisdiction in all other cases" left the Supreme Court without this power, because appellate jurisdiction was basically only to allow review of cases from other courts. Therefore, though mandamus was included in the Judiciary Act, it was not given by the Constitution, and the Constitution controls. Hence, a mandamus could not be issued. The Court went on to pronounce:

"It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is. . . . If both the law and the Constitution apply in a particular case so that the Court must either decide that case, conformable to the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformable to the Constitution, disregarding law; the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of the judicial duty."

This is the leading precedent for judicial review of congressional acts by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether they are constitutional.

The opinion in Marbury v. Madison added strength and importance to the saving principle of federal supremacy set out in Article VI of the Constitution, providing that, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, Sec. 2.

In the Dartmouth College case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state-granted charter to a private institution was a contract, and New Hampshire could not impair the right of contract. It gave confidence to investors that state legislatures could not easily abolish corporations.

In the 1819 term the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland was decided. State banks were envious of the Bank of the United States because it seemed to preempt business. Maryland passed a law which required the Bank to print its money on stamped paper sold by the state, or pay a penalty tax of $15,000 a year. McCulloch refused to comply. The highest Maryland court gave judgment in favor of the state, and McCulloch appealed. Marshall read the decision, "To be sure, the states have certain powers. But the people made the Constitution and the laws of the United States the supreme law of the land."

The attorneys for the state had argued that Congress could not incorporate a national bank. Marshall replied, "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional." Thus, the enumerated powers were held to include certain implied powers - a very significant expansion of federal power under the Constitution. The right of Maryland to tax the bank was also denied, because "the power to tax is the power to destroy," and this could defeat the government's power to create.

The case of Gibbons vs. Ogden in the 1824 term was the first important case to interpret the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states. Fulton, the inventor of the steamboat, and his partner, acquired a monopoly from New York to operate boats on the state's navigable waters. Later, Ogden was licensed to operate a steam ferry between New Jersey and New York City. Then Gibbons began running steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Ogden obtained an injunction in New York courts. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The question was whether the New York steamboat monopoly law violated the congressional power to regulate commerce among the states. Ogden argued that commerce had a limited meaning, and did not include navigation. Gibbons replied that the power to regulate commerce was in the Constitution for a purpose, and that the United States must be supreme in this area.

Marshall ruled for the Court that the power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. "States may pass laws which, although in themselves proper, become invalid if they interfere with the national law." For whenever state and national laws conflict, the national Constitution must be supreme as well as the laws made in pursuance of it. This decision has been referred to as "the emancipation proclamation of American commerce."

These cases are only representative of a 34-year career of significant issues ruled on by Marshall.

Chief Justice Earl Warren said of him:

"In accordance with his beliefs, stone by stone, Marshall built the foundation of our constitutional structure. And he constructed it sufficiently strong to support everything we have since built upon it. He left at his death a greater imprint on our legal institutions than any American to this day has made."

Justice Joseph Storey, a famous judge who served with Marshall, said of him:

"Providence grants such men to the human family only on great occasions to accomplish its great ends. Such men are found only when our need is the greatest. Marshall's proudest epitaph may be written in a line: `Here lies the expounder of the Constitution."'

In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Savior declared, "I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose." (D&C 101:80)

Chief Justice John Marshall was one of those great men who helped preserve and establish the Constitution.

It is hoped that all Americans will seek to become better acquainted with the work of the courts under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and to contribute in a meaningful way to protect our rights thereunder.