In the election of 1800, President John Adams was defeated by Thomas Jefferson, a Republican. The new administration did not take their offices until March of 1801. The Federalists wanted to ensure a continued Federalist presence in the government so they packed the judgeships with loyal Federalist supporters, some positions which had been created for this specific purpose by Congress in 1801. Adams signed the commissions for these at the end of his term. When the new administration took office, the new Secretary of State, discovered that some of these commissions had not yet been delivered. President Jefferson, angry with Federalists, ordered that they not be delivered. One of the people, whose commission had not yet been received, applied to the Court for a writ of mandamus to force Madison to complete the delivery of the commissions, as per the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court this power. The Court found that although he was entitled to his position, they did not have jurisdiction over the case since it came to them on original jurisdiction as per a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This case did not fit any of the types of cases they could except on original jurisdiction as per Article III, Section 2, and Clause 2. The Court decided that that part of the Judiciary Act giving them those powers was null and void (unconstitutional). Through this case, the Supreme Court assumed the power of judicial review, the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional. Early in the history of this nation, Congress established a federal bank better deal with federal monetary issues. The State of Maryland, wanting banking business to be done with the state banks, placed a tax on "all banks not chartered by the state," including a branch of the federal bank. An individual who worked in the Baltimore Branch of the Bank of the United States of America, refused to pay the tax to the state. Maryland brought suit against him. The two issues in this case were whether the United States government had the right to set up a national bank and whether the State of Maryland had the power to tax it. The Court stated that as per the "necessary and proper clause" and Congress' expressed powers to lay and collect taxes and borrow money, Congress has the power to create a federal bank. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the federal bank because the "power to tax involves the power to destroy" and that a state did not have that power over the institutions of the national government. Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston had been granted by the State of New York exclusive navigation rights to their waters. These two gave _______ a permit to navigate between New York City and the New Jersey shore. Ogden found himself competing with _______ who was operating a similar steamboat under license by the United States government. ___ acquired an injunction against ___who then appealed it. The Supreme Court held that Congress' interstate commerce powers did not just apply to "traffic" but was unlimited except as prescribed in the Constitution. "Commerce" was redefined as intercourse and Congress has the power to regulate any such intercourse. Additionally, any time federal law and state law come into conflict over this matter, federal law takes precedence. Congress has the power to regulate any interstate commerce. A slave owned by a Dr. Emerson, was taken from Missouri to a free-state and then back to Missouri again. Scott sued, claiming that his residence in a free territory granted him freedom. In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, making the already repealed Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. Furthermore, the Court went on to state that blacks were not citizens of the United States and could not become citizens and therefore they could not sue in a court. A Louisiana state law required separate accommodations on railroads for white passengers and black ones. A black citizen was jailed for refusing to leave a car that was reserved for white passengers. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the principle of "equal but separate" violated his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court, in a 7-1 vote, upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine which lasted until they reversed it in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Justice Harlan's stated in his famous dissent in the 1896 case that: "The Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." The Warren Court of the 1954 case echoed his sentiments. During World War I, when the United States was at war with Germany, Congress passed the Espionage Act, outlawing any attempt to foster insubordination or obstruct the draft. Charles general secretary of the Socialist Party was arrested for conspiring to print and circulate leaflets that would obstruct and hinder the enlistment service of the United States. He argued that the Espionage Act violated his rights to freedom of speech and press. The Supreme Court held that in a time of war, extraordinary conditions may take effect where Congress has the right to forbid printed materials or speech aimed at hindering the war effort. The test for "a clear and present danger" was formulated to deal with questions regarding freedom of speech. Benjamin a member of a radical faction of the Socialist Party was charged with violating the New York State Criminal Anarchy Act of 1902 for writing "The Revolutionary Age" and the "Left Wing Manifesto." He appealed, claiming that the Act violated the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment and his rights to freedom of speech and press under the First Amendment. The Court ruled that the Act did neither of these things. However, in their ruling, the Supreme Court incorporated the freedoms of speech and press, beginning two decades worth of cases which ultimately incorporated the entire First Amendment and many others. In an Alabama Court, seven indigent, ignorant, minor African-Americans had been falsely charged with the rape of two white girls and convicted in a one-day trial in a mob-dominated atmosphere without the benefit of proper defense counsel. The Supreme Court incorporated the right to counsel through the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause." An African-American girl, Linda Carol was not allowed to attend a school four blocks from her house because it was for white students. Instead, she had to walk twenty-one blocks to the nearest all-black school. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision saying that separate but equal is inherently unequal. In a follow up case one year later, the Court stated that local school systems should develop their own plans for desegregation to take effect "with all deliberate speed." The state of Alabama had ordered the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to disclose its membership lists. At the time, the NAACP was involved in a bitter civil rights struggle. The Court thought that if these lists were made public, violent acts might be made against its members. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the freedom of association as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Cleveland police, without a warrant, raided a home and found obscene material even though the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process clause," protected her from improper law enforcement procedures. The Supreme Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to citizens in State courts, stating that condemning unreasonable searches would be useless unless the evidence obtained in these searches was excluded. At Abington High School, as part of morning exercises, verses from the Holy Bible were read over the loudspeaker. The students were asked to stand and repeat the Lord's Prayer rights before the flag salute. Parents were informed that students had the right to leave the room and not participate in the reading or stay in the room and participate. A family, who were of the Unitarian faith, challenged the state law claiming that it was unconstitutional in supporting religion and specific denominations at that. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the First Amendment's forbiddance of laws building the establishment of a religion. Clarence a man in Florida was charged with breaking into a pool hall and taking money from vending machines there. In Florida, this was considered a felony. At his hearing, he asked that the court appoint a lawyer to represent him since he could not afford one. The court denied him this, noting a Florida law which allowed counsel only in capital-offense cases. He went to trial and did the best he could, defending himself, but was found guilty and sentenced to five years in jail. He appealed to the Supreme Court, stating his right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and reversed his conviction, allowing him to be retried, this time with the help of counsel. He went back to trial and this time he was found innocent of the charges. A group of voters in Georgia charged that population variations among the legislative districts of Georgia were as great as to violate Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that one person's vote in a Congressional election should be worth as much as another's; this is known as the "one man, one vote" standard. A physician had been arrested for giving information about contraception to a married couple because Connecticut law prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article, or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." The Court overturned the Connecticut law stating that it infringed upon people's right to privacy. This decision raised more questions concerning the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. The Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection clause." They could find no reasonable relationship between voting and paying a tax. This paved the way for eliminating all restrictions on voting. A man was arrested at his home in Arizona and taken to the local police station, where he was questioned for two hours before confessing to crimes of rape and kidnapping. In a decision of 5-4, the Court held that an individual held for questioning must be clearly informed of their rights to talk with counsel and have a lawyer present during their interrogation. If a lawyer cannot be afforded then the court must appoint one for the defendant. Furthermore, information obtained from someone who has not been informed of his or her rights cannot be used against them. Nowadays, when someone is arrested, they are read their rights which go something like this: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand each and every one of these rights as they have been presented to you?" Gerald, a juvenile, had been sentenced to six years in an industrial court after he was found guilty of having made obscene phone calls. As an adult, he would have been entitled to representation by a lawyer and would have had the opportunity to be confronted by the person who charged him. However, since he was a juvenile, he was not entitled to these rights. In fact, the maximum sentence for an adult who committed the same act would have been $50 or two months in jail. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court granted children some but not all of those in the Bill of Rights. A single, pregnant, Texas woman challenged anti-abortion laws by stating that they violated her rights under the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Supreme Court had to decide whether a fetus was a person or not. The Court upheld the claim that her right to privacy entitled her to an abortion. However, they went on to say that the right to privacy is not absolute. "A state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health [of the mother], in maintaining medical standards [how and by whom abortions are performed], and in protecting potential life." The Court ruled on this by saying: 1. Abortions in the first three months of pregnancy cannot be limited by the states excepting that they may require that doctors perform them. 2. The state may set the conditions under which abortions may perform during the second three months of pregnancy to safeguard the health of the mother. 3. The state may outlaw abortions during the last three months of pregnancy to protect the "viable fetus," excepting cases in which the mother's life or health is threatened. During the trial of those who had been accused of the 1972 break-in at the Watergate Complex, the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, it was discovered that someone had been taping conversations in the Oval Office. A subpoena was issued for these tapes but the he refused to turn them over on grounds of "executive privilege." The Supreme Court heard the case. His lawyer argued that the issue at stake was the philosophy of separation of powers while the prosecutor argued that if the he is wrong in how he reads the Constitution, who is going to tell him? The Court unanimously decided against him stating that even he had to stand trial in some circumstances. An ironic note to this case is that the Chief Justice Burger, who delivered the Court's decision, was his personal choice for Chief Justice. Allan, a Vietnam veteran, wanted to become a doctor. However, he had been turned down by eleven medical schools. He then learned that the University of California at Davis, a local medical school, had accepted minority students who were less qualified academically. In suing them on grounds of reverse discrimination, it was brought to light that the University, as part of their affirmative action program, held sixteen places each year for "disadvantaged students." The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action. However, it also ruled that he must be accepted to U.C. at Davis Medical School because they used race as the sole reason for reserving sixteen places for minority students. The University could consider race in admitting students. So, while upholding the policy of affirmative action, the Court decided that a system of strict quotas based on race was in violation of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and thus unconstitutional.