Within this basic decision-making framework the issues that this book discusses arise. How has the public come to accept the Court’s decision-making role as legitimate—to the point where it will typically follow even Court decisions with which it strongly disagrees? What can the Court do to merit the public’s confidence in the institution and to help maintain it?
Acknowledgments
SOME PORTIONS OF THIS BOOK HAVE PREVIOUSLY APPEARED AS lectures at the University of Oklahoma (the Henry Family Lecture), the Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona, Yale University, the New York Public Library, the American Academy in Berlin (the Cutler Lecture), and the Supreme Court Historical Society.
I should like to thank Charles Nesson, with whom I worked in the 1970s at Harvard bringing together materials that evolved into the chapters about the Cherokee Indians and Korematsu. Similarly, material that Charles Ogletree gathered for a seminar about Dred Scott at Harvard in 2007 helped me write the chapter on that case. I owe a great intellectual debt to my teachers and my colleagues at Harvard Law School, who helped teach me how to think about law, for example, Paul Freund, Al Sacks, Henry Hart, Ben Kaplan, Louis Jaffe, John Hart Ely, Richard Stewart, and Charles Fried; to judges and legal scholars, such as Arthur Goldberg, Ronald Dworkin, Michael Boudin, and Richard Posner; and to many others as well.
I should like especially to thank Michael Bosworth for his great help with this book, for tirelessly devoting much time and effort to reading manuscripts and making enormously constructive comments. I also thank my friends, former law clerks, and others who have had the patience to read ever-changing manuscripts and the willingness to provide structural insights, numerous helpful comments, and useful suggestions. They include Georges de Ménil, Lois de Ménil, Strobe Talbott, Lisa Bressman, Sally Rider, Paul Gewirtz, and Elizabeth Drew.
They include as well members of my own family: Joanna, Chloe, Nell, and Michael.
I thank my research assistants at Yale for their helpful footnoting work: Hunter Smith, Elina Tetelbaum, Thomas Schmidt, and Benjamin Ewing.
And, of course, I very much thank my editor, Pat Hass, for her continuous encouragement, her perseverance, and her fine editing work.
Notes
Introduction
1. Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty 468 (2009).
2. Stephen Breyer, Active Liberty (2005).
Chapter One / Judicial Review
1. For a description of the “Commonwealth model” of judicial review and its operation in Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, and elsewhere, see Janet L. Hiebert, Parliamentary Bills of Rights: An Alternative Model? 69 Mod. L. Rev. 7, 11–16 (2006); Stephen Gardbaum, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 707 (2001).
2. See, e.g., David Johansen & Philip Rosen, Parliamentary Information and Research Service Background Paper BP-194E, The Notwithstanding Clause of the Charter 10–13 (2008), www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp194-e.pdf (describing limited usage, outside of Quebec, of the “notwithstanding clause” of the Canadian Charter).
3. Reference to the “people drunk” and the “people sober,” common among constitutional law scholars, may find its origin in an ancient discussion of an appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. See Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, bk. 6, ch. 2 (A.D. 32).
4. James Madison, Speech in Congress Proposing Constitutional Amendments (June 8, 1789), in James Madison, Writings 437, 449 (Jack N. Rakove ed., 1999).
5. Federalist 78 (Alexander Hamilton).
6. 1 The Records of the Federal Convention 97 (Max Farrand ed., 1966) (Madison’s notes, June 4, 1787); id. at 109 (Pierce’s notes, June 4, 1787); Speech of James Wilson at Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, in 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 451 (Merrill Jensen et al. eds., 1976); Saikrishna B. Prakash & John C. Yoo, The Origins of Judicial Review, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 887, 952 (2003). For a book with an excellent history of judicial review at the founding and in the early Republic, see Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves (2004).
7. Federalist 78 (Alexander Hamilton).
8. Id.; Federalist 81 (Alexander Hamilton).
9. Federalist 78 (Alexander Hamilton); Federalist 81 (Alexander Hamilton).
10. Federalist 78 (Alexander Hamilton); Federalist 81 (Alexander Hamilton).
11. Federalist 78 (Alexander Hamilton).
12. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 398–99 (1798) (Iredell, J., concurring in judgment).
13. James Iredell to Richard Spaight (Aug. 26, 1787), in 2 Life and Correspondence of James Iredell 172, 175 (Griffith J. McRee ed., 1858).
14. James Iredell, To the Public (1786), reprinted in id. at 145, 146; Iredell, supra note 14 at 173.
15. Id. at 175.
Chapter Two / Establishing Judicial Review
1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
2. See Louise Weinberg, Our Marbury, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1235, 1255–57 (2003) (describing the Court’s business around the time of Marbury as modest in volume and importance and noting the onerous circuit-riding duties of the justices); 1 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 171–74 (1922); John A. Garraty, Marbury v. Madison: The Case of the “Missing” Commissions, Am. Heritage (June 1963), at 6, 84.
3. Garraty, supra note 2, at 7; Warren, supra note 2, at 185–215; Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty 415–20 (2009); see generally id. at 400–68.
4. Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane (Sept. 6, 1819), in The Essential Jefferson 250, 252 (Jean M. Yarbrough ed., 2006) (emphasis added); Larry D. Kramer, Marbury at 200: A Bicentennial Celebration of Marbury v. Madison, 20 Const. Comment. 205,224 (2003).
5. 4 The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States 292–94 (Maeva Marcus & James R. Perry eds., 1992).
6. Mark Tushnet, Introduction to Arguing Marbury v. Madison 3–4 (Mark Tushnet ed., 2005); Weinberg, supra note 2, at 1264–65; id. at 1287–93. On the impeachment of Justice Chase, see William H. Rehnquist, Grand Inquests 15–113 (1992).
7. Warren, supra note 2, at 200–201.
8. See Susan Low Bloch, The Marbury Mystery: Why Did William Marbury Sue in the Supreme Court? 18 Const. Comment. 607 (2001); Weinberg, supra note 2, at 1303–10 (2003); Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 13, 1 Stat. 73 (emphases added).
9. Garraty, supra note 2, at 86.
10. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 163.
11. Id. at 164–66 (emphasis added).
12. Id. at 173. But see William W. Van Alstyne, A Critical Guide to Marbury v. Madison, 1969 Duke L.J. 1, 14–16 (suggesting that Marshall may have been wrong to assume that the Judiciary Act intended to grant the Supreme Court original jurisdiction).
13. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 (emphasis added); Marbury, 5 U.S. at 176.
14. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 176–78.
15. Id. at 177–78.
16. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; id. art. III, § 3; id. art. I, § 9; id. art VI; 1 Stat. 76 § 8; Marbury, 5 U.S. at 179–80. On the oath of office, see Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Curator, Information Sheet, Text of the Oaths of Office for Supreme Court Justices (Aug. 10, 2009), www.supremecourtus.gov/about/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.pdf.
17. See, e.g., Warren, supra note 2,at 249–52 (quoting contemporary newspapers criticizing the Marbury opinion for reaching the merits). This criticism of Marshall’s opinion (Jefferson claimed it should be ignored as an “extrajudicial opinion”) has remained a common one. See letter from Jefferson to George Hay, June 20, 1807, in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul L. Ford, vol. 10 (New York: Putnam, 1905).
18. If a modern reader criticizes Marshall for failure to abide by jurisdictional rules, then why not defend him as I have done? For historical detail, see Bruce Ackermann, The Failure of the Founding Fathers (2005).
19. Marbury, 5 U.S. at 180 (second emphasis added); see Larry D. Kramer, The People Themselves 125–26 (2004) (arguing that though Marshall “was daring in finding a way to introduce judicial review into [Marbury],
he [was not] equally bold and imaginative in developing the doctrine”).
Chapter Three / The Cherokees
1. For a lengthier treatment of the events underlying the Cherokee cases, the reader is directed to the following sources that inform this account: Jill Norgren, The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty 11–86 (2004); Grace Steele Woodward, The Cherokees (1963); Annie Heloise Abel, The History of Events Resulting in Indian Consolidation West of the Mississippi, in 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1906, 233–450 (1908); Wilson Lumpkin, The Removal of the Cherokee Indians from Georgia (1907); Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Georgia and State Rights, in 2 Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1901, 66–86 (1902); 2 John P. Kennedy, Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt 240–64, 290–97 (1850). The early secondary sources, even those sympathetic to the Cherokees, present a somewhat benighted view of their subject; in other respects, however, they are valuable, detailed historical accounts.
2. Phillips, supra note 1, at 70; see generally id. at 69–86 (describing the presidents’ resistance to Georgia’s demands).
3. Id. at 68–71; Woodward, supra note 1, at 139–46 (describing the Cherokee nation’s establishment of a newspaper, schools, and a court system); id. at 157–91 (describing the leadership of Chief John Ross); Kennedy, supra note 1, at 245–46 (quoting an 1825 letter from a Cherokee man describing the Cherokee nation, including its public roads, villages, manufacturing, agriculture, religion, schools, and plans for a national library and museum); Samuel Carter III, Cherokee Sunset 103 (1976).
4. Phillips, supra note 1, at 72–73, 84; Woodward, supra note 1, at 158–60.
5. Abel, supra note 1, at 379, 375–81; Woodward, supra note 1, at 160.
6. Phillips, supra note 1, at 66–67; Norgren, supra note 1, at 26; U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 (emphasis added).
7. Kennedy, supra note 1, at 253–59 (quoting letters from Wirt describing the Cherokees’ case and his fears that Georgia might not obey an adverse decision of the Supreme Court); Phillips, supra note 1, at 63 (quoting Georgia’s governor, George Troup); see generally id. at 39–65 (describing the acquisition of the Creeks’ land); see also Lumpkin, supra note 1, at 42–43 (account of Lumpkin, Georgia’s governor from 1831 to 35, describing the “problem” for Georgia presented by the Cherokees); Joseph C. Burke, The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality, 21 Stan. L. Rev. 500, 508 (1969) (describing Wirt as an advocate).
8. Kennedy, supra note 1, at 256 (quoting letter from Wirt); Norgren, supra note 1, at 61–62, 97–98; Phillips, supra note 1, at 75–77.
9. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 2; Kennedy, supra note 1, at 293.
10. Cherokee Nation, 30 U.S. at 15–20; George Gilmer to S. S. Hamilton (June 20, 1831), in 2 Indian Removal Records, S. Doc. No. 23–512, at 22, 25.
11. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 537, 542 (1832); Phillips, supra note 1, at 78–81 (describing Worcester’s arrest and trial); Abel, supra note 1, at 396–403 (same); Samuel A. Worcester to George R. Gilmer (June 10, 1831), in 27 Missionary Herald 250, 251 (1831) (“I have the pleasure of sending to your excellency a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, of a hymn-book, and of a small tract … of excerpts from scripture” all translated into Cherokee).
12. Worcester, 31 U.S. at 541.
13. Id. at 548–54; id. at 575; id. at 557.
14. Id. at 561–62.
15. Id. at 562 (emphasis added).
16. 2 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 216–17 (1922).
17. Id. at 215–16; id. at 228; Lumpkin, supra note 1, at 104.
18. Lewis Cass to William Reed (Nov. 14, 1831), in Robert Sparks Walker, Torchlights to the Cherokees 285, 285–86 (1931); Andrew Jackson, Veto Message—Bank of the United States (July 10, 1832), reprinted in The Statesmanship of Andrew Jackson 154, 163–64 (Francis Newton Thorpe ed., 1909); Warren, supra note 16, at 217; cf. id. at 219 (characterizing it as “a matter of extreme doubt” whether Jackson ever uttered his famous dictum); id. at 229.
19. An ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, South Carolina (Nov. 24, 1832); Warren, supra note 16, at 234.
20. Andrew Jackson, Anti-nullification Proclamation (Dec. 10, 1832), in The Statesmanship of Andrew Jackson, supra note 18, at 232, 238 (emphasis removed); Warren, supra note 16, at 234–38.
21. Warren, supra note 16, at 235–37; Norgren, supra note 1, at 127–28.
22. Norgren, supra note 1, at 136–37.
23. Woodward, supra note 1, at 193–94; Norgren, supra note 1, at 134–36; id. at 143; Charles C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation 164 (1975).
24. Royce, supra note 23, at 162.
25. Woodward, supra note 1, at 193–94.
Chapter Four / Dred Scott
1. Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857).
2. Id. at 397–98. For a more comprehensive account of the facts of Dred Scott, see Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case (1978), especially 240–49.
3. James F. Simon, Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney 13 (2007) (quoting Wirt); id. at 9; id. at 11 (quoting Taney’s opposition to slavery as expressed in oral argument at the trial of an abolitionist); id. at 16–17 (quoting Taney’s views on citizenship rights of the “African race” as expressed in a legal opinion to Secretary of State Edward Livingston).
4. 1 Benjamin R. Curtis, A Memoir of Benjamin R. Curtis, LL.D. 249–51 (Benjamin R. Curtis ed., 1879).
5. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 1; id. art. V; id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, amended by U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2.
6. See Mark A. Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil 124–27 (2006) (describing how, despite expectations, population growth in the Northwest greatly surpassed that in the Southwest).
7. See generally Fehrenbacher, supra note 2, at 250–83 (describing Dred Scott’s litigation in the Missouri courts and the federal circuit court); id. at 264 (quoting the Missouri Supreme Court opinion).
8. Id. at 281–82; id. at 293; Austin Allen, Origins of the Dred Scott Case 148–49 (2006).
9. Fehrenbacher, supra note 2, at 288–90; Simon, supra note 3, at 117–19; Fehrenbacher, supra note 2, at 314–21.
10. Scott, 60 U.S. at 403; id. at 427.
11. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Scott, 60 U.S. at 407; id. at 413–17; id. at 419–21.
12. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1; Scott, 60 U.S. at 423–25; id. at 426.
13. Scott, 60 U.S. at 572–76 (Curtis, J., dissenting); id. at 582; id. at 580.
14. Id. at 574–75.
15. Id. at 580.
16. For an account of the complex interaction between state and federal law in Dred Scott, see Allen, supra note 8, especially 52–67, 139–59.
17. Scott, 60 U.S. at 598–600 (Curtis, J., dissenting).
18. Id. at 432 (majority opinion); U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2; Scott, 60 U.S. at 451–52; U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 3, amended by U.S. Const. amend. XIII.
19. Scott, 60 U.S. at 452.
20. Id. at 611–19 (Curtis, J., dissenting); id. at 616.
21. Id. at 624–26.
22. Id. at 626–27.
23. Fehrenbacher, supra note 2, at 312–13; id. at 417 (quoting New York Tribune); 3 Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 27 (1922).
24. Report of the Joint Committee on Dred Scott (Apr. 9, 1857), reprinted in 3 Southern Slaves in Free State Courts 279, 280–81 (Paul Finkelman ed., 2007).
25. Frederick Douglass, The Dred Scott Decision: Speech Delivered Before the American Anti-slavery Society (May 11, 1857), in 2 The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass 407, 411–12 (Philip S. Foner ed., 1950).
26. Abraham Lincoln, Speech in Reply to Douglas, Chicago, Ill. (July 17, 1858), in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings 385, 397 (Roy P. Basler ed., 2d ed. 2001); Abraham Lincoln, The D
red Scott Decision, Speech at Springfield, Ill. (June 26, 1857), in id. at 352, 362; Abraham Lincoln, First Debate with Stephen Douglas, Ottawa, Ill. (Aug. 21, 1858), in id. at 428, 458.
27. Fehrenbacher, supra note 2, at 574–75; id. at 568.
28. Graber, supra note 6, at 15–16 (quoting sources).
29. Scott, 60 U.S. at 407; id. at 574 (Curtis, J., dissenting).
30. Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, supra note 26, at 579, 585–86.
31. See Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852).
Chapter Five / Little Rock
Making Our Democracy Work Page 27