The person I chose to introduce as my unsung hero is John Marshall. John Marshall, who was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, is best known for his opinion in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which he formalized the principle of judicial review. John Marshall qualifies as an unsung hero, because without his interpretation of what the judicial power of the court means, it is more than likely that the nation that we know today would be very a different place.
Unlike most other Chief Justices, prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall did not have a very impressive record as a lawyer nor was he considerable an exceptional legal mind. Born and raised in rural Virginia, Marshall left home in 1775 to join the Continental Army and fight in the Revolutionary War. Marshall served four years in the army and was known to be close to George Washington. Marshall retired from the armed forces in 1779 and immediately, toke up the study of law. His study of law, however, was not particular comprehensive. In fact, it consisted of taking a few College of William and Mary. Marshall’s legal training was, however, enough to allow him to pass the Virginia State bar examination in 1780. Marshall practiced law for two years before he ran for and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. While Marshall remained a practicing lawyer, even arguing a case before the Supreme Court, politics remained the focus of this professional efforts and activities. To be sure, Marshall turned down an offer to be the United States Attorney General in 1796 and a nomination for the Supreme Court in 1798. On the other hand, since his first election in 1782, Marshall’s political fortunes got better with each passing year. In 1788, Marshall was one of the key figure that persuaded the Virginia legislature to ratify the Constitution. In 1797, he served as one of President Adam’s diplomatic team sent to France to negotiate an end to the hostilities between France and the U.S. In 1798 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and in 1799, he was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of State. In short, for most of his adult life prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall was much more of a politician than a lawyer. Interestingly, it was most likely his political abilities and background rather than his legal experience and expertise that lead to his appointment to the Court.
The results of the presidential election of 1800 facilitated Marshall’s appointment to the court. In the elections, not only was Marshall boss and friend, John Adams, was defeated by Marshall’s fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson, but also Jefferson’s party gained a majority in both the House and Senate. Fearing that much of his past policies and initiative would be eliminated when Jefferson toke office, Adams and Congress attempted to appoint as many federal judges as possible that were friendly to or supportive of Adams’ policies. As Marshall was with Adam’s during the time that he was choosing the people he would nominate for judgeships, he asked Marshall if he would serve as the Chief Justice. Marshall was not Adams first choice but rather his most practical choice because he could be confirmed quickly before Adams had to leave office. On the other hand, Marshall was initially reluctant to serve on the Court. it was a position that he had turned down before, and the Court did not promise a very exciting job, especially with the understanding that Jefferson would be the next president. Marshall, nevertheless, accepted the nomination and was quickly confirmed as the new Chief Justice in 1801. As Chief Justice, Marshall’s political leaning most likely influenced his legal jurisprudence.
Marshall was a member of the Federalist Party. One of the key principles of the Federalist was that a strong federal government, including all three branches, was necessary to the continued existence and development of the nation. Accordingly, his initial interpretation of the Constitution was that of a lawyer rather than judge. In other words, he would first make the decision about what the interpretation should be then search for the legal precedents and authorities that would support his interpretation. This was most clearly exhibited in the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison. In Marbury, the issue was whether Congress could require the Supreme Court to issue orders requiring the Executive Branch to appoint certain officials. In writing the majority opinion, Marshall said first, that the power to interpret the law was the inclusive power of the courts. Second, Marshall said that because the court has the power to interpret the law, the courts had the power to review the laws and acts of the Legislative or Executive Branches, to determine if they complied with the law. If they did not comply, it was the courts duty and responsibility to invalidate the law or action. Lastly, Marshall said that the act of Congress saying that the Supreme Court had the power to issue the order to the President was unconstitutional and therefore invalid. While the Constitution did not specifically support Marshall’s interpretation in regards to the ability of the courts to reviews acts of the state, Marshall’s argument was persuasive and there was precedent in the development of the courts of the colonies and states up until that time.
In conclusion, John Marshal was an unsung hero of the American courts. He accidentally came to the job of the Chief Justice and never really seemed to want to be a judge. However, once appointed, he transformed the Supreme Court, and all American courts, into a viable tool in the system of checks and balances. In researching for this assignment, I learned that to be a good judge or at least an effective one, like Marshall requires legal knowledge and broad life experience. Marshall goes unnoticed as a legal hero because, as mentioned, his lack of a particularly impressive legal career prior to his appointment. Moreover, the issues that he helped establish, such as judicial review, are now taken for granted that few people know or understand the origins. I think one primary way that I can relate to Marshall is that he made the best of a less than good situation. In other words, he was a professional. Being on the Supreme Court was not what he wanted but. Having no choice, he performed to the best of his ability.
References
Franck, M.J. (2016). John Marshall: The great chief justice. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/01/john-marshall-the-great-chief-justice
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137
Smith, J.E. (1998). John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
