John Marshall’s Legacy of Independence

On every Fourth of July, Independence Day,  we celebrate what makes the United States of America different from other countries.  200 years ago the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme court, John Marshall, was appointed by President John Adams.   For 34 years he headed the nation’s federal judiciary, which helps insure our independence.

Marshall was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and was Secretary of State before being appointed Chief Justice.  He served during seven different presidential terms, dying in 1835 during Andrew Jackson’s second term.  He still holds the record for longest serving Chief Justice.

Before Chief Justice Marshall’s term , the Supreme Court was considered a minor part of the government.  Marshall not only made the judicial branch co-equal to the two other branches , as it is today, but he also presided over a case that announced the Supreme Court’s  authority to overrule the executive branch, legislative branch, states, and lower courts, when necessary.

In the significant case of  Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, the Supreme Court said that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that conflicting laws cannot be enforced. The Marshall court clarified that federal law supersedes state law, and that the Supreme Court is the federal court of last resort.  Marshall wrote opinions about the meaning of  ‘commerce’ in the Constitution, the protection  of private institutions from state interference, and explained that the Bill of Rights applied to states as well as the federal government.  These cases remain some of the most important in the court’s history.

So, as we watch the fireworks around the country this year, take time to think about those who contributed to today’s independent nation.  Although the judicial branch is sometimes overlooked, 200 years ago John Marshall’s influence changed the government, and gave federal courts power to enforce constitutional law.  Marshall is a giant of the judiciary and one of the many who have allowed our nation to flourish  and  to celebrate Independence Day for years to come.

In Boston-- A Second Test of Justice

Once again, Boston, Massachusetts will test American principles of criminal justice in its response to a public crime involving many victims. The public wants answers to important questions: Why should someone accused of a horrific crime be allowed the presumption of innocence and a defense attorney. When guilt is “obvious?” Why should there even be a trial? 

Although we remember the recent tragedy involving the Boston Marathon, the city was the site of another case, one in which the National Archives has captioned in a lithograph as “the bloody massacre perpetrated in King Street, Boston, on Mar. 5, 1770.” Eight British soldiers stood trial for killing five civilians and wounding six others by firing on a crowd in the so-called “Boston Massacre.” 

Five years before the American Revolution and nearly 30 years before he served as our nation’s second president, John Adams, as a lawyer in private practice , was the defense attorney for the soldiers. Although emotions ran high due to the tension between the colonists and British, the government was insistent on a fair trial for the accused. 

Fundamental to a fair trial was the idea that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. To hold the government to proving its case ensures that the innocent are protected, potentially allowing some guilty to go free; rather than ensuring the guilty are punished, with some of those who are innocent unjustly convicted. As Benjamin Franklin expressed the thought, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. 

Adams’ law practice suffered from his defense of the British soldiers, but later he was to remark that despite the anxiety he suffered it was “one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country.” The jury acquitted six of those accused and two were convicted of manslaughter, a verdict Adams thought “exactly right.” 

The attorney who decides to defend the surviving brother accused of bombing the 2013 Boston Marathon may face misunderstanding and even hostility. But he or she will be in the company of John Adams in upholding a principle that protects us all.