 |
| kah6imi9xy |
 Wysłany: Pon 11:46, 13 Gru 2010 Temat postu: Puma Ferrari The Marshall Court Affirm Puma Footwe |
|
The Georgia Yazoo Land Fraud Case Puma Ferrari
Fletcher v Peck and the Spirit of Judicial Nationalism
The Marshall Court Voids the Georgia Law Rescinding the Land Grant
Article 1, Section 10 declares that Puma Footwear, “No state shall…pass any…ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts…” Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion, broadly interpreted this clause in applying it to the Georgia law rescinding the land grant. He did not, however, address the issue of bribery.
By applying the contract clause to states Puma Complete, some Constitutional scholars believe that Marshall was going beyond the scope of what the Founding Fathers intended, namely the contractual obligations between private individuals. In this case, however, Marshall used the Constitutional contract clause to uphold property rights.
States’ Rights Advocates Resisted the Decision
Similar arguments, usually originating in Southern states, involved federal tariff laws as well as the power and influence of the national bank, tested by the Marshall Court in the 1819 case McCulloch v Maryland. States’ rights would ultimately lead to the nullification crisis and play a part in the decision by Southern state
Read on
The Equal Protection Clause
McCulloch v. Maryland 1819
GOP Under Fire for Criticism of Justice Thurgood Marshall
The protection of property rights by government has been a fundamental aspect of personal liberties since the founding of the United States. Even before the existence of federal statutes passed after the forming of the Republic, English common law protected property rights through the Doctrine of Vested Rights. In 1810, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of John Marshall, upheld property rights in the case Fletcher v Peck. The court’s rationale was based on the contract clause in Article 1, Section 10, and paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
The Marshall Court is often equated with the notion of Judicial Nationalism. Fletcher v Peck represented the first time the high court claimed jurisdiction over state laws, subjecting such laws to Constitutional scrutiny. Although using some of the same principles that defined the English Doctrine of Vested Rights, the court’s decision in Fletcher did not intend to weaken legislative power at the expense of the federal judiciary.
During the next legislative session, however, Georgia law-makers passed another measure rescinding the original land grants. Innocent third parties found themselves without a remedy and the land companies argued that the original Georgia law amounted to a legal contract. The case involved a dispute over a clear title to land conveyed by John Peck to Robert Fletcher.
Marshall, a Federalist, believed strongly that the new central government under the Constitution existed to ensure personal liberties and this included property rights. The Georgia law that was declared unconstitutional represented a legislative abuse of private property.
Fletcher v Peck dated to a measure passed by the Georgia state legislature in 1795. Georgia legislators, tied to bribes offered by land companies, granted millions of acres of public land for a fraction of the actual value. Subsequent to the Georgia law, these land companies sold plots of land to innocent third parties.
Republican-Democrats that followed Thomas Jefferson’s strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution viewed the Fletcher case as an infringement on states’ rights. For them, the broader picture envisioned a strong central government that arbitrarily interfered in the affairs of individual states.
相关的主题文章：
Puma Speed Cat 2.9 The Mayerli Puma Complete Vecta
Puma Ducati Sir Samuel Hood, First Bar Puma Footwe
Puma Ducati Dorothy O'Grady, Superspy Puma Espera |
|
|
|
|
|