#Chief Justice John Marshall

[quotesfromall]

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison

[deadpresidents]

Could you recommend books on the Supreme Court? I honestly didn’t think there were any.

There are countless numbers of books about the Supreme Court, so it really depends on what exactly you're interested in reading about, whether that might be a general history of the Court itself, biographies of the most influential justices, landmark cases, and so on.

By no means is this a complete list, but here's some suggestions that I can recommend:

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT •A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution by Peter Irons (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Nine Scorpions in a Bottle: Great Judges and Cases of the Supreme Court by Max Lerner and edited by Richard Cummings (BOOK) •The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This history of the Court is especially interesting because it was written by the incumbent Chief Justice. •The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

BOOKS ABOUT SPECIFIC JUSTICES OR COURTS •The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End by David N. Atkinson (BOOK) -- A unique book about Justices at the end of their time on the Court and how they ultimately left the Court. Most of them died in office because the Court is a lifetime appointment, but the book looks at how some Justices held on to their seats and remained on the bench despite failing health or faltering cognitive abilities. •First: Sandra Day O'Connor by Evan Thomas (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Sisters In Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World by Linda Hirshman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- An excellent dual biography about the first two women ever appointed to the Supreme Court and the impact they had on American law. •The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The legendary journalist from the Washington Post gives the Woodward treatment to the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. •The Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America by Wil Haygood (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The remarkable life of Thurgood Marshall, who was already a legendary figure in the annals of American justice as a civil rights lawyer who successfully argued the case the led to the Supreme Court striking down Brown v. the Board of Education. Marshall's place in history became even more important when President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him as the first-ever Black Supreme Court Justice. •Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by John Paul Stevens (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This is probably my favorite of the recommendations. John Paul Stevens, the third longest-serving Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, writes about the five Chief Justices (Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, and John Roberts) that he worked for or with throughout his long career, beginning as a law clerk under Chief Justice Vinson and eventually serving as Associate Justice alongside Chief Justice Burger, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Roberts.

BOOKS ABOUT JOHN MARSHALL (Longest-serving Chief Justice of the United States and arguably the most important judge in American history) •John Marshall: The Chief Justice Who Saved the Nation by Harlow Giles Unger (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times by Joel Richard Paul (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court by Richard Brookhiser (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

I also strongly recommend checking out James F. Simon's books about the Supreme Court and the Presidency, which focus on the impact that the Court and the Chief Justices at the time had on specific Presidential Administrations. These are all written by James F. Simon: •Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal (BOOK | KINDLE)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Actually, the President of the United States is powerful

US Presidents have lots of things they can do beyond signing or vetoing legislation. Their administrative agencies have broad powers that allow them to act without dragging Congress behind them.

For example, Jennifer Abruzzo, the ass-kicking superhero that Biden appointed as National Labor Relations Board General Counsel, has used her powers to establish a rule that companies that break labor law during union drives automatically lose, with the affected union gaining instant recognition.

For a followup, Abruzzo is using a case called Thrive Pet Care to impose a “duty to bargain” on companies. If a company won’t bargain in good faith for a union contract, Abruzzo’s NLRB will simply force them to adhere to the contractual terms established by rival companies that did bargain with their unions, until such time as a contract is signed.

But wait, what about the dastardly Supreme Court? What if those six dotards in robes use their stolen seats on the country’s highest court to block Biden’s administrators?

Well, Biden could do what his predecessors have done. Like Lincoln, Biden could simply ignore the court, embracing popular policies he was elected to enact, revealing the Supremes to be toothless, out-of-touch, undemocratic and illegitimate.

(Andrew Jackson was a monster, but when he ignored his own Supreme Court, he proved that the Supremes’ only leverage came from their legitimacy; recall the (likely apocryphal) quote, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”)

Like FDR, Biden could threaten to pack the court, creating a national debate about the court’s illegitimacy, which would add fuel to the court’s plummeting reputation amidst a string of bribery scandals.

-Joe Biden is headed to a UAW picket-line in Detroit: “I want to do it, now make me do it.”

Image: Fabio Basagni https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/:Sahara_desert_sunrise.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[whencyclopedia]

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review. In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the court struck down a congressional statute as unconstitutional for the first time in US history, thereby establishing the United States Constitution as a legal – not just a political – document.

Prior to the Marbury case, the Supreme Court was the weakest branch of the federal government. It had reviewed only 63 cases in the twelve years before 1801 and was viewed as a useless, aristocratic institution by many ardent Republicans, some of whom sought to do away with the federal judiciary entirely. In February 1803, the Court heard Marbury v. Madison, a case in which Secretary of State James Madison had withheld a commission for a federal office from a political opponent, William Marbury; Marbury had petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus, which would force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, ruled that while Marbury was legally entitled to the commission, the Supreme Court could not help him by issuing a writ of mandamus. The statute that empowered it to do so – Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – was, in fact, in conflict with Article III of the Constitution. For this reason, the Marshall Court took the unprecedented step of striking down Section 13.

By striking down a congressional statute, Marshall had established the principle of judicial review – that is, a court's ability to uphold or strike down a law based on its constitutionality. Another major consequence was that the US Constitution was now no longer just a political document – a statement of the political ideals of the United States – but was a legal document as well, one which all federal and state courts and legislatures must adhere to. The case is therefore considered the single most important decision in US constitutional law and remains one of the most significant cases in the history of the US Supreme Court.

Background: Creating a Federal Judiciary

The federal judiciary – conceived at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and enshrined in Article III of the resultant United States Constitution – proved to be a controversial institution in the first decade of its existence. Americans were generally predisposed to distrust judges, whose flowing robes, rigid court protocols, and high benches smacked of the monarchism all too recently cast aside. It was not lost on the people that the federal judges were modeled closely off the colonial magistrates they had replaced, who themselves had been selected by the king and had – in the patriotic memories of the Americans, at least – arbitrarily wielded their authority. Thomas Jefferson, in 1776, referred to judicial decisions as "the eccentric impulses of whimsical, capricious, designing men" who were looking after political interests rather than enforcing the law (Wood, 402). This suspicion was carried over to the new American courts, whose judges were, in many instances, appointed rather than elected and served life tenures rather than limited terms of office, neither aspect seeming to hint at an enlightened government institution.

The makeup of this controversial body was roughly outlined in Article III of the Constitution, which vested judicial power in "one supreme court" of the United States as well as "such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish". The Supreme Court was granted original jurisdiction – or the power to hear a case for the first time – over cases that involved ambassadors, public officials, or individual states as parties in the suit. It was also given appellate jurisdiction – or the power to hear cases on appeal – over a broader range of suits involving constitutional or federal law. Although Article III left things rather vague, the courts were fleshed out by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This act created a system of federal circuit courts and district courts under the Supreme Court and expounded on the powers of the judiciary. Section 25, for instance, allowed federal courts to overturn any state law or state court ruling that violated a federal treaty. Additionally, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act – which will become important later – allowed the judiciary to issue legal orders called writs of mandamus to government officials, which would force them to adhere to federal law.

While this expansion of judicial authority certainly ruffled a few feathers, the judiciary was still by far the weakest branch of the federal government. Neither Article III of the Constitution nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 had given the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. This refers to a court's ability to declare an act of the executive or legislative branch to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid, a function that the Supreme Court is best known for today and considered a vital part of the checks and balances of federal power. Without this authority, the Supreme Court wielded minimal influence in the first decade of its existence and was widely disregarded by the other two branches. In fact, between 1789 and 1801, it heard only 63 cases, none of which had any long-lasting importance. Since the federal courts were still seen as aristocratic bodies that hindered the rights of the states, some hardcore Republicans wanted to do away with the federal judiciary altogether. This was how matters stood when the US presidential election of 1800 swept such Republicans into power, placing the judiciary in jeopardy.

Continue reading...

[burlveneer-music]

Outer Spaceways Incorporated : Kronos Quartet & Friends Meet Sun Ra - another Sun Ra tribute album from Red Hot Org, and what a list of contributors:  Georgia Anne Muldrow, Laraaji, Laurie Anderson, Jlin, Sexmob, Moor Mother, Secret Chiefs 3, Terry Riley, the Arkestra's centenarian leader Marshall Allen, and more

Cover Artwork by Lorna Simpson Courtesy of the Artist and Hauser & Wirth, New York with special thanks to Jennifer Hsu and James Wang from Lorna Simpson’s studio Publishing: All Sun Ra compositions: © Enterplanetary Koncepts (BMI) This is the fourth in a series of albums dedicated to the music and spirit of Sun Ra. Red Hot’s mission is to promote diversity and equal access to healthcare. The Sun Ra series is focused on Climate Justice and advocating for the basic human right to a healthy environment. Special thanks to Irwin Chusid and the Sun Ra Estate. Kronos Quartet / Kronos Performing Arts Association extend special thanks to Jim Newman and Jane Ivory for their support of this recording. John Carlin thanks David Harrington for helping elevate Sun Ra to his rightful place as one of the great American composers of the 20th century. Thanks to: all the artists who participated; kronos quartet / kronos performing arts association team: Janet Cowperthwaite, Mason Dille, Dana Dizon, Sarah Donahue, Reshena liao; Lorna Simpon’s studio, Jennifer Hsu, Chuck Mitchell, King Britt, 3db, Renee Dossick, Amy & Conwy Phillips, Brandon Stosuy, Shaun MacDonald, Linda Brumbach, Mark Christman

[lenbryant]

O Alabama!

(LATimes) Column: Alabama’s highest court declared frozen embryos people. The U.S. Supreme Court is to blame

Tom Parker, now Alabama’s chief justice, announcing his campaign for the position.

(Jamie Martin / Associated Press)

The Alabama Supreme Court’s breathtakingly arrogant, slapdash and pernicious opinion conferring personhood on newly formed embryos vividly illustrates the consequences of another reckless decision: the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

The Alabama court held last week that fertilized ova cryogenically preserved for couples having difficulty conceiving are legally and morally equivalent to newborn babies and, for that matter, 20-year-old adults. According to the court, all are human beings protected under Alabama law to precisely the same extent.

The decision clears the way for wrongful death lawsuits brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed by a patient who wandered into an in vitro fertilization clinic through an unsecured entrance, picked up several frozen fertilized eggs and, shocked by their cryogenic temperature, immediately dropped them on the floor. Reversing the trial court, the Alabama Supreme Court held that this conduct could be subject to a wrongful death claim, rendering it indistinguishable from, say, the death of a 2-year-old negligently left in a sweltering car.

Astonishingly, the sole focus of the court’s analysis was whether Alabama’s wrongful death law encompasses “extrauterine children — that is, unborn children who are located outside of a biological uterus at the time they are killed.” The court did not even attempt to wrestle with the distinction between a just-fertilized egg — what biologists call a blastocyst, a ball of up to a few hundred cells measuring a fraction of a millimeter in diameter — and a fully formed child born at term.

It’s customary to note the parade of horribles that could be occasioned by such an extreme decision. But here the parade has already begun.

Alabama’s largest hospital announced Wednesday that it would no longer offer would-be parents in vitro fertilization procedures due to the substantial threat of criminal liability for mishandling fertilized eggs. Other providers followed suitThursday. Medical personnel who try to help couples conceive have been suddenly recast by the courts as potential murderers.

The immediate consequences don’t end there. Women who use intrauterine devices or morning-after pills, which can affect fertilized eggs, are in the eyes of Alabama law rank baby killers.

The court’s supposed legal opinion in fact rests on the tenet that life begins at conception, a matter of religious faith to which only a small minority of the country subscribes.

Chief Justice Tom Parker’s concurring opinion employs quotations and teachings from Scripture as if they had the legal force of the Bill of Rights. Passages from Genesis and Exodus, various theological tracts, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards take their place alongside the writings of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil M. Gorsuch. All are marshaled in support of the view that “God made every person in his image… and human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.”

But apart from the wrath of God, there is no attempt to rationalize the legal equation of a frozen, formless collection of cells with a living person. The court simply assumes it away with the syllogistic reasoning that Alabama’s statutory law specifies that human life includes “unborn” life.

Such ham-handedness undermines the entire opinion. The critical question for the state is not whether an embryo of any particular age can be said to be, in some sense, alive; it’s whether it is a human being deserving of the rights and protections accorded to all of us, which is a far broader and more complicated designation.

A stadium full of theologians, philosophers, ethicists and politicians couldn’t come up with an authoritative answer to that question. And in the absence of such an answer, how can the state impinge so deeply on the liberty of women and aspiring parents?

It’s in that sense that the Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion can be traced directly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The idea of shoving this tendentious religious tract down Americans’ throats would have been a nonstarter under Roe vs. Wade, which asserted the constitutional liberty interests of women against an overreaching, moralistic state.

Post-Dobbs, those rights are featherweight. The outrage belongs with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ill reasoning and grotesque overreach.

Nor is Alabama the only state purporting to enshrine the fundamentally religious position that human life begins at conception in law. Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma issued similar proclamations in the wake of Dobbs.

The Alabama Supreme Court takes this malign presumption to its logical end, stripping every American in its jurisdiction of the right to make their own decisions on a matter of the highest moral and practical import. That’s the antithesis of liberty.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast. @harrylitman

[lonestarbattleship]

On June 1, 1940, crowds gathered for the christening and launching ceremony for USS WASHINGTON (BB-56), one of the first battleships to be built in 20 years.

"Quick dip, then back in dock"

She was christening by Miss Virginia Marshall, great-great-great granddaughter of John Marshall, 4th Chief Justice of the United States.

"Its launching pennants still waving gaily in the breeze, is pushed into Navy Yard dock for completion. It slid from the ways a short distance down the Delaware River."

Temple University Library: P565048B

source

[handeaux]

Westward Ho! Cincinnati Men Caught The California Gold Fever In 1849

It took a long time in 1848 for news to travel from California to Cincinnati. Gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill, northeast of San Francisco, in January of that year, but Cincinnatians remained blissfully unaffected by gold fever until the middle of September.

By December 1948, Cincinnati merchants were placing advertisements in the local papers, offering camping and mining supplies to young men heading westward. As the new year of 1849 dawned, Cincinnati was fully possessed by visions of gold. Local newspapers printed dozens of announcements similar to this one, from the Commercial Tribune [23 February 1849]:

“A party of enterprising gentlemen of this city, completed their arrangements yesterday, packed up their trappings, and took passage on the steamer Chief Justice Marshall, for California. They design to sail from New Orleans, and either cross the Isthmus, or take the land route, via City of Mexico. The choice of these routes depends on contingencies. The party is composed of the brothers Moses, Mr. Collins, jeweler, and Messrs. Varney, Light, Vater, and the brothers Fagan.”

The Cincinnati Commercial [9 March 1849] reported on a company of 20 Cincinnatians setting out on the overland route to California, with a plan to cover expenses by selling gunpowder:

“They take with them one hundred kegs of powder, which on their arrival will be distributed, five kegs to each man – thus furnishing each a handsome capital to start on.”

In April, the “Independent Pacific Dispatch Company,” composed of 25 Cincinnati men, departed, also on the overland route. They loaded their pack mules onto the steamboat John Hancock, bound for Independence, Missouri, where they would commence hoofing across the continent.

As a major port along the Ohio River, Cincinnati not only witnessed local boys departing for the gold fields, but steamboats full of similarly determined young men passing through town. The Commercial Tribune [14 April 1849] was agog at the mass of virility floating westward down the Ohio:

“The tide of emigration to California is, in its extent, beyond all historical parallel; and will, in future times, stand prominent as the great event of the Nineteenth Century.”

Many of those adventurers, especially those from rural districts, stopped in Cincinnati to stock up on the supplies required to operate a basic gold-mining operation. Our shopkeepers were delighted to welcome the business. Gustav Sellin, purveyor of tin goods, advertised a gold-washing machine “of the most ingenious construction,” along with wash bowls, scoops and strainers. Philip Pike touted his “Imitation French Brandies, Holland Gin, Rum and Wines,” guaranteeing that a thousand-dollar investment in his beverages could be recouped for twenty times that amount in the thirsty gold fields. Miller Cornelius Sanders Bradbury boasted about his novel “steam-dried flour” warranted not to sour or get moldy for two years – ideal for the long trail westward.

Some Cincinnati businessmen just surrendered and joined the migration. Real estate mogul Thomas Hurst put a flour mill out near Sedamsville up for sale along with eight houses in the city. He was, as they say in the trade, a motivated seller. He closed his advertisement with this explanation:

“As I am making preparations for California, application should be made soon.”

Once folks arrived in California, they often discovered that panning for gold was not exactly as advertised. For instance, Benjamin Cory (Miami University Class of 1842, Medical College of Ohio Class of 1845) was busily engaged trading clothing to Native Americans in exchange for gold. Called to attend to a wealthy ranchero, Doctor Cory found himself trapped. In a letter home, Cory complained:

“My patient is quite smart this morning; he says I shall not leave him till all danger is over. ‘Charge what you please, Doctor,’ he says, ‘and it shall be paid; here is my ranch, with its horses, cattle, &c. &c. and I have a good large bag of gold.’ I am sorry, dear brother, that I ever had doctor stuck to my name; it is more trouble than profit; I am vexed to death; I tell people that I can get more gold in the mountains by digging and trading, than my conscience will permit me to charge my patients.”

Doctor Cory ended up doing okay for himself. The 1909 Miami University alumni directory notes that, before he died in 1896, he was elected to the first legislature of the new state of California in 1850 and had a distinguished medical career in Santa Clara and San Jose.

Joseph Talbert, a carpenter, who left Cincinnati in February 1849, wrote home that his traveling party of fifty had arrived safely in the gold fields. Talbert, however, after trying to mine gold for a couple of weeks, learned he could make more money as a carpenter, building cabins and gold-washing sluices than he could actually trying to find gold.

The Guysi brothers quit their jobs at B.F. Greenough’s lamp oil distillery on Main Street and endured a sea voyage of 160 days to round the tip of South America. They arrived in a San Francisco of 30,000 souls mostly housed in tents and suffering from dysentery. The only water available was polluted with copper, a spot of ground large enough to pitch a tent rented for $150 a month, and gambling was rampant. At least one of the brothers, Jacob, stuck it out; he was buried in the hills overlooking San Francisco Bay when he died at age 79 in 1906.

Joe Heywood had a solid career and sterling prospects here in Cincinnati. He was a butcher by trade, and regularly made the newspapers for the quality of his provender and the skill with which he decorated his shop. He was repeatedly referred to as a very handsome man who cut a dashing figure as a volunteer fireman. He was also known as a dependable “b’hoy” – a tough character – in the days when volunteer fire companies battled over which would put out the fire and collect the insurance money. Still, the Cincinnati Commercial of 9 January 1849 recorded the westward emigration of Heywood, along with Mathias Oliver, James Wilson, Alexander Burns and James McAlpin, all stalwarts of the “Rovers” fire company.

While most young men trudged west in hopes of sending pounds of bullion home, Heywood had no intention of digging anything once he got to California. Instead of packing a pick and shovel, Heywood had 1,500 cards printed to announce his business as a butcher and provision merchant. He seems to have succeeded admirably. After a sea voyage of 156 days, Heywood arrived in San Francisco and set up shop. A letter from a fellow firefighter reported that Heywood replicated the annual Cincinnati Christmas meat parade at his shop that December. Heywood himself wrote a long letter home describing his adventures aboard the ship and promising to write as soon as he could to “Lizzy.” He must have been persuasive. Joseph Heywood and Miss Eliza L. Hensley of Cincinnati were joined in matrimony on 1 July 1856 at San Francisco’s International Hotel.

[rabbitcruiser]

Thomas Jefferson became the 2nd Vice President of the United States on March 4, 1797.

Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as the third US president by Chief Justice John Marshall at the new Capitol in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1801.

[theworstfoundingfathers]

Who is the worst founding father? Round 2: John Marshall vs Alexander Hamilton

Note: Sorry. This one is the longest yet.

John Marshall (September 24, 1755 – July 6, 1835) was an American politician, lawyer, and Founding Father who served as the fourth chief justice of the United States from 1801 until his death in 1835. He remains the longest-serving chief justice and fourth-longest serving justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and is widely regarded as one of the most influential justices ever to serve. Prior to joining the court, Marshall briefly served as both the U.S. secretary of state under President John Adams, and a representative, in the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia, thereby making him one of the few Americans to serve on all three branches of the United States federal government.

In the early 1790s, the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party emerged as the country was polarized by issues such as the French Revolutionary Wars and the power of the presidency and the federal government. Marshall aligned with the Federalists, and at Alexander Hamilton's request, he organized a Federalist movement in Virginia to counter the influence of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Like most other Federalists, Marshall favored neutrality in foreign affairs, high tariffs, a strong executive, and a standing military.

Marshall believed that slavery was an evil, opposed the Atlantic slave trade, and feared increasing Southern focus on slavery would fracture the Union, as ultimately occurred; however, he owned slaves for most of his life. In 1783, his father Thomas Marshall as a wedding present gave John Marshall his first slave, Robin Spurlock, who would remain Marshall's manservant as well as run Marshall's Richmond household and upon Marshall's death receive a now-seemingly cruel choice of accepting manumission on the condition of emigrating to another state or to Africa (at age 78 and leaving his still-enslaved daughter Agnes) or choosing his master/mistress from among Marshall's children.

Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804) was a Nevisian-born American military officer, statesman, and Founding Father who served as the first United States secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1795.

On February 15, 1781, while working as Washington's chief of staff, Hamilton was reprimanded by Washington after a minor misunderstanding. Although Washington quickly tried to mend their relationship, Hamilton insisted on leaving his staff. He officially left in March, and settled with his new wife Elizabeth Schuyler close to Washington's headquarters. He continued to repeatedly ask Washington and others for a field command. Washington continued to demur, citing the need to appoint men of higher rank. This continued until early July 1781, when Hamilton submitted a letter to Washington with his commission enclosed, "thus tacitly threatening to resign if he didn't get his desired command."

In 1784, Hamilton founded the Bank of New York.

Early during the Constitutional Convention Hamilton made a speech proposing a President-for-Life; it had no effect upon the deliberations of the convention. He proposed to have an elected president and elected senators who would serve for life, contingent upon "good behavior" and subject to removal for corruption or abuse; this idea contributed later to the hostile view of Hamilton as a monarchist sympathizer, held by James Madison.

During the Revolutionary War, affluent citizens had invested in bonds, and war veterans had been paid with promissory notes and IOUs that plummeted in price during the Confederation. In response, the war veterans sold the securities to speculators for as little as fifteen to twenty cents on the dollar. Hamilton felt the money from the bonds should not go to the soldiers who had shown little faith in the country's future, but the speculators that had bought the bonds from the soldiers.

Strong opposition to Hamilton's whiskey tax by cottage producers in remote, rural regions erupted into the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794; in Western Pennsylvania and western Virginia, whiskey was the basic export product and was fundamental to the local economy. In response to the rebellion, believing compliance with the laws was vital to the establishment of federal authority, Hamilton accompanied to the rebellion's site President Washington, General Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee, and more federal troops than were ever assembled in one place during the Revolution. This overwhelming display of force intimidated the leaders of the insurrection, ending the rebellion virtually without bloodshed.

During the election of 1796, Hamilton urged all the northern electors to vote for Adams and Pinckney, lest Jefferson get in; but he cooperated with Edward Rutledge to have South Carolina's electors vote for Jefferson and Pinckney. If all this worked, Pinckney would have more votes than Adams, Pinckney would become president, and Adams would remain vice president, but it did not work. The Federalists found out about it and northern Federalists voted for Adams but not for Pinckney, in sufficient numbers that Pinckney came in third and Jefferson became vice president.

In the summer of 1797, Hamilton became the first major American politician publicly involved in a sex scandal. After engaging in an affair with 23-year-old Maria Reynolds, Hamilton was blackmailed by Reynolds's husband and ended up paying over $1300 in payments to him. After being arrested for counterfeiting and speculating, James Reynolds implied he had evidence of illegal activity by Hamilton during his time as Treasury Secretary. Threatened by attacks against his integrity as a public servant that claimed his business with James Reynolds had to with improper speculation, Hamilton published a 100-page booklet, later usually referred to as the Reynolds Pamphlet, and discussed the affair in indelicate detail for the time.

Hamilton served as inspector general of the United States Army from July 18, 1798, to June 15, 1800. If full-scale war broke out with France, Hamilton argued that the army should conquer the North American colonies of France's ally, Spain, bordering the United States.

To fund this army, Hamilton urged passage of a direct tax. The eventual program included taxes on land, houses, and slaves, calculated at different rates in different states and requiring assessment of houses, and a stamp act like that of the British before the Revolution, though this time Americans were taxing themselves through their own representatives.

Hamilton is not known to have ever owned slaves, although members of his family were slave owners. At the time of her death, Hamilton's mother owned two slaves and wrote a will leaving them to her sons. However, due to their illegitimacy, Hamilton and his brother were held ineligible to inherit her property and never took ownership of the slaves. He occasionally handled slave transactions as the legal representative of his own family members, and one of his grandsons interpreted some of these journal entries as being purchases for himself. In 1840, his son John maintained that his father "never owned a slave; but on the contrary, having learned that a domestic whom he had hired was about to be sold by her master, he immediately purchased her freedom."

[batboyblog]

You better vote the Supreme Court

So it's March 2023 right now, hi to people in the future, right now there's a fair bit of talk around the US Presidential election next year. I'm sorry to any non-Americans who might read this. But for us Americans, we're hearing speculation about if Trump will be the Republican nominee or Ron DeSantis and if President Biden will run for a second term.

I just want to get everyone thinking about an issue thats likely to not get enough coverage in the 2024 election and not effect enough people's votes (because it never seems to) The Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed for a life time term its not uncommon for Justices to serve for 20 to 30 years on the Court which gets to rule on all aspects of Americans lives.

In March of 2016 Hillary Clinton predicted that the next President would get to appoint as many as 4 Justices to the Court. She was sadly not taken seriously at the time. President Trump ended up getting to appoint 3 Justices empowering a 6-3 Conservative majority and appointing two of the most radically conservative Justices we've ever ever had.

Thankfully we've elected a Democratic President, Joe Biden so that 84 year old liberal Justice Stephen Breyer was able to retire be replaced by the Court's first black woman Justice, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (who is 52, so likely will be on the court for 30+ years)

Many people will say the Court is hopeless as none of the Justices are now in their 80s (or older) so there's no likelihood of a change during a second Biden term in office. I don't think thats true or at least not an open and shut surety.

Right now the two most conservative Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito are 74 and 72 respectively. At the end of Biden's current term they'll be 76 and 74 and at the end of the next Presidential term they'll be 80 and 78 respectively. If we look at the ages when Justices have left the Court in the last 20 years:

2005: Chief Justice William Rehnquist: Death age 80 2006: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Retired age 75 2009: Justice David Souter: Retired age 69 2010: Justice John Paul Stevens: Retired age 89 2016: Justice Antonin Scalia: Death age 79 2018: Justice Anthony Kennedy: Retired age 82 2020: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Death age 87 2022: Justice Stephen Breyer: Retired age 83

for an average age of leaving the court in the 21st Century of 80 years old... Now I don't expect that Justices Thomas and Alito if they're alive would willingly retire under a Democratic President, however I think it's nearly a sure thing that like Justices O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy and Breyer at least one of them if not both would retire under a Republican President who would then appointed a radically conservative Justice in their 40s who we'd have for 35 to 40 years. While Justices Thomas and Alito might want to hang on till a Republican President even if they don't die they might not be able to keep going like Justice Thurgood Marshall's health failed and he was forced to retire (and died 16 months later) or Justice William O. Douglas who suffered a stroke and was pushed into retirement by the other 8 Justices.

So In short if you want any hope for a liberal, at even "not radically conservative" Court in our life times it's very very important to vote the Court next year no matter who the nominees are

[deadpresidents]

Has any president ever not been given the oath of office by the chief justice of the supreme court

Yes. The Constitution does not specify who must administer the oath of office to the President and government officials who are required to swear (or affirm) an oath can essentially be sworn in by any federal or state judge or even a notary public.

The oath of office has been administered eight times by someone other than the Chief Justice of the United States -- usually when a Vice President has assumed office upon a President's death and it was necessary to quickly locate somebody who could administer the oath. George Washington was also sworn in by someone other than the Chief Justice at both of his inaugurations. In fact, not only was there no Chief Justice at the time of Washington's first inauguration but there was literally no federal judiciary (and, obviously, no federal judges). The Judiciary Act establishing the Supreme Court wasn't enacted until September 1789 -- almost five months into President Washington's first term -- and that's when the first members of the Supreme Court were nominated and confirmed.

Of course, the Chief Justice of the United States has been the person swearing in the President the vast majority of the time. John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice in American history (1801-1835), administered the oath of office more times than anyone else -- nine times to five different Presidents. However, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (served from 1836-1864) administered the oath to more individual Presidents than anyone else -- seven times to seven different Presidents. The nation's first two Chief Justices -- John Jay (1789-1795) and John Rutledge (August-December 1795) -- are the only two Chiefs who never administered the oath to a President.

Here is the list of Presidential Inaugurations not conducted by the Chief Justice of the United States along with the person who administered the oath of office: •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 1st Inauguration (April 30, 1789): Robert Livingston, Chancellor of New York (The Chancellor of New York was the presiding judge of the New York Court of Chancery, the highest court in New York State from 1701-1847) •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 2nd Inauguration (March 4, 1793): William Cushing, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court •JOHN TYLER's Inauguration (April 4, 1841): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Tyler assumed office upon the death of President William Henry Harrison. Interestingly, Cranch was the nephew of John and Abigail Adams.) •MILLARD FILLMORE's Inauguration (July 9, 1850): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Fillmore assumed office upon the death of President Taylor.) •CHESTER A. ARTHUR's Inauguration (September 20, 1881): John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court (Arthur assumed office upon the death of President Garfield. Brady was the first judge that could be tracked down to administer the oath at Arthur's home in New York City after notification of Garfield's death arrived shortly after midnight on Sept. 20, 1881. After returning to Washington, D.C. on September 22, 1881, Arthur was administered the oath of office again in a formal ceremony by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.) •THEODORE ROOSEVELT's 1st Inauguration (September 14, 1901): John R. Hazel, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Roosevelt assumed office upon the death of President McKinley.) •CALVIN COOLIDGE's 1st Inauguration (August 3, 1923): John Calvin Coolidge Sr., Justice of the Peace and Notary Public in Plymouth, Vermont (Coolidge assumed office upon the death of President Harding. Coolidge was staying at his father's home in Vermont when he was notified shortly after midnight on August 3, 1923 that President Harding had died a few hours earlier in San Francisco. Since Coolidge's father was a Notary Public, he administered the oath of office to his son in the sitting room of the family home. After being sworn in by his father, President Coolidge promptly went back to sleep.) •LYNDON B. JOHNSON's 1st Inauguration (November 22, 1963): Sarah T. Hughes, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Johnson assumed office upon the death of President Kennedy. Johnson was in Dallas with Kennedy when the President was assassinated, and he was sworn in as President aboard Air Force One on the airport tarmac of Love Field before leaving Texas to return to Washington with Kennedy's body.)

[sexcromancy]

so hard to explain ultimate history high school. so many reasons I'm glad my high school is not a major thing people know about me but like. in ninth grade I refused to have a crush on Alexander Hamilton like everyone else bc I wanted to make an edgy choice and have a crush on chief justice John Marshall. and it was like that for four years

[whencyclopedia]

John Marshall

John Marshall (1755-1835) was an American lawyer and statesman, who served as the fourth chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until his death in 1835. Considered one of the most influential chief justices in US history, Marshall participated in over 1,000 decisions, including Marbury v. Madison, which established the principle of judicial review.

Early Life & Revolution

John Marshall was born on 24 September 1755 in a log cabin in the frontier community of Germantown, in Fauquier County, Virginia. He was the eldest of 15 children born to Thomas Marshall, a land surveyor who, over the course of his career, would accumulate some 200,000 acres (81,000 ha) of land spread out across Virginia and Kentucky, making him one of the largest landowners along this frontier. Thomas Marshall, who had worked alongside a young George Washington to survey the land that would become Fauquier County, eventually became one of the county's most prominent citizens, serving as its first sheriff and later as its representative to the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg. In 1754, Thomas married Mary Randolph Keith, a reverend's daughter who was related to both of Virginia's leading families, the Randolphs and the Lees. She gave birth to John a year after her marriage; through her, John Marshall was a distant cousin of Thomas Jefferson, his future political rival.

Despite the pedigree of his mother's side of the family, John Marshall did not receive a gentleman's education. Instead, he was raised on the frontier, first in the wilderness of Fauquier County and later in the Blue Ridge Mountain region. He was easy-going, with simple tastes in clothing and food, and a manner that was rustic yet pleasant. His black eyes were said to have been full of intelligence and good humor, and his boisterous laugh was enough to put anyone at ease; one future colleague would later recall that Marshall's laugh was "too hearty for an intriguer" (Wood, 434). He was mostly home-schooled by his parents, although he did receive a few months of formal education at an academy where he befriended future president James Monroe. His education was cut short, however, by the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. His father had supported the Patriot cause and joined a militia regiment leaving John, dutiful to both father and homeland, to quickly follow suit.

In 1776, Marshall was incorporated into the Continental Army as a lieutenant. In the autumn of 1777, he served under General Washington in the Philadelphia Campaign, seeing action at the Battle of Brandywine and the Battle of Germantown. When the army hunkered down for a bitter winter at Valley Forge, Marshall suffered through the cold and the hunger, shivering side by side with the other men; when the winter snows thawed into springtime mud, he drilled with them as well. In 1780, having risen to the rank of captain, Marshall was furloughed from the army and went off to the College of William & Mary to study law. As he left the military behind, Marshall reflected on his wartime experiences and came away with two beliefs that would greatly impact his career. The first was a fierce admiration for George Washington, whose integrity and determination led Marshall to believe that he was "the greatest man on earth" (Wood, 434). Second was a belief that the nation, were it to survive, needed a strong central government; Marshall's experience at Valley Forge, where Congress had struggled to keep the army supplied with adequate food and clothing, had been enough to convince him of that. Armed with these convictions, Marshall set out to embark on a legal career, one that would shape the destiny of the infant United States.

Continue reading...

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Kevin Siers cartoon: Unaffirming Action | Charlotte Observer

* * * *

IT'S NOT AS BAD AS "PLESSY V FERGUSON" (MAYBE) - THE END OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

TCINLA

JUN 29, 2023

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional, once again demonstrating this court’s complete disregard of stare decisis as they overturned decades of precedent and three previous SCOTUS decisions that ruled the exact opposite way.

“Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. This harkens back to the way the Court used the Fourteenth Amendment prior to the court revolution in 1936 to declare corporations “persons” and to rule in the exact opposite to what the amendment meant in the “due process” clause.

Justice Sotomayor took direct aim at the majority for feigning colorblindness in a way that will inevitably drain colleges and universities of minority students.

“The Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter,” she writes. “The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.”

Justice Sotomayor was clear in her dissent: “The devastating effect of this decision cannot be overstated.” She continued, “Equal educational opportunity is a prerequisite to achieving racial equality in our nation,” adding, “The court’s precedents authorizing a limited use of race in college admissions are not just workable — they have been working.” She said that, by upsetting the existing framework, the court had established “a set of novel restraints that create troubling equal protection problems and share one common purpose: to make it impossible to use race in a holistic way in college admissions, where it is much needed.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has credited affirmative action with opening the door for her to attend elite universities. “I am a product of affirmative action,” she has said. In her dissent, she pushed back against Justice Thomas, writing: “The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality. The court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.”

She emphasized her view that the “limited use of race has helped equalize educational opportunities for all students of every race and background and has improved racial diversity on college campuses.” She said that “progress has been slow and imperfect,” but that “race-conscious college admissions policies have advanced the Constitution’s guarantee of equality and have promoted Brown’s vision of a nation with more inclusive schools.”

She becomes particularly sharp when knocking down the majority’s characterization of the Brown v. Board of Education litigation. “The Court’s recharacterization of Brown is nothing but revisionist history and an affront to the legendary life of Justice Marshall, a great jurist who was a champion of true equal opportunity, not rhetorical flourishes about colorblindness.”

During some of her more scathing criticism which she read from the bench, Justice Thomas, who sits directly to her left, fidgeted with his glasses, and Chief Justice Roberts shot her periodic glances. Toward the end, she said several times that the pursuit of racial equality would go on “despite the court.” She concluded, “Society’s progress toward equality cannot be permanently halted.”

Roberts spent considerable time critiquing the liberals’ dissents, at one point saying of Sotomayor’s position that the programs should continue: “That is a remarkable view of the judicial role - remarkably wrong.”

But it’s Justice Jackson’s dissent that speaks the loudest to anyone who is truly listening. She begins by writing: “Gulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens. They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations. Every moment these gaps persist is a moment in which this great country falls short of actualizing one of its foundational principles—the ‘self-evident’ truth that all of us are created equal.” “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she writes. And then, her ringing criticism of the majority: “Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

While the majority knocked down the schools’ use of race as one of many factors in determining eligibility, Roberts allowed for some consideration of applicants’ race in the process:

“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

Sotomayor dismissed Roberts’ attempt to project moderation, calling it a “false promise to save face.” “No one is fooled,” she wrote.

Michelle Obama wrote in a statement, “My heart breaks for any young person out there who’s wondering what their future holds — and what kinds of chances will be open to them.” She noted that as one of the few Black students at her college, “I sometimes wondered if people thought I got there because of affirmative action. It was a shadow that students like me couldn’t shake.” But she said affirmative action “helped offer new ladders of opportunity for those who, throughout our history, have too often been denied a chance to show how fast they can climb.”

President Obama also issued a statement: “Like any policy, affirmative action wasn’t perfect. But it allowed generations of students like Michelle and me to prove we belonged. Now it’s up to all of us to give young people the opportunities they deserve — and help students everywhere benefit from new perspectives.”

After the Court surprised us all in recent weeks with decisions that supported democracy by keeping the Voting Rights Act Section 2 alive, people wondered if perhaps the court was reacting to the overwhelmingly negative public reaction to Dodd, where for the first time ever, the court took away a constitutional right, coupled with the negative publicity about Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the Billionaire Boys Club, and might be returning to “reasonable” decisions.

This decision on affirmative action shows where this court is at. If there is any shift on the Court, that shif is that it is pulling back from giving goodies to every rightwing idiot who has an ideological fixation and servicing every electoral need of the Republican Party. The blowback and backlash may have made the costs of that kind of bust-out jurisprudence too high. Rather, this court will now concentrate on the core stuff they really care about. Affirmative action has been one of the central half dozen fixations that the conservative judicial movement has cared about for decades. They have the power to get rid of it and they did it. It’s that simple, and so long as this 6-3 majority exists with half of them being far right wingnuts (Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch), they will take their opportunities to achieve their lifelong dreams whenever they find them. Depend on it.

While the majority knocked down the schools’ use of race as one of many factors in determining eligibility, Roberts allows for some consideration of applicants’ race in the process.

“Nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”

As President Biden and several others pointed out today in response to this decision, “Affirmative Action” has never meant what the Right has always claimed it does, that it is a way of giving places to the unqualified “Others” rather than to the “Qualified Applicant.” In fact, every applicant has to meet the school’s admissions standards in terms of grades and other factors. Affirmative Action has meant making the playing field fair for all those who are qualified to step onto that field.

“Affirmative action” has always existed, and here is how I know it will work in my own family three years from now:

My nephew has been interested in the space program for as long as he’s known about it. He looks at the space program the way I look at airplanes. When he was nine, he met Buzz Aldrin and engaged him in a 30-minute conversation about Apollo-11, that had Aldrin interested for every minute. It was around then that he declared he wants to go to Cal Tech.

Cal Tech is an extremely competitive school to get into, no matter who you are.

And so, when it comes time for him to make his application, his uncle - who happens to be very well-known in the fields he is involved in - will arrange a meeting with a fellow scale modeler and old friend for the past 30 years. This old friend is Ed Henry, who was team leader for the JPL Mars Lander program that sent Spirit and Opportunity to the red planet, where they lasted years longer than expected or planned. Ed’s a legend at Cal Tech/JPL. A letter of recommendation from him will Mean Something. With the grades he gets, and all the other things he does, my nephew will have a good shot at going to Cal Tech, and the Space Program will benefit from having another brilliant mind join the ranks of brilliant minds.

Notice how that works: talented young student has a relative who knows someone through “non-standard means” who can provide extraordinary help to achieve goal. That’s the way it has always worked, traditionally.

Nowadays, due to 50 years of Affirmative Action, some bright young black student whose family lives here in Baldwin Hills might just happen to have an Uncle (or an Aunt!) who went to Cal Tech, who knows Ed Henry, and might also be able to put things together for a similar letter of recommendation. And another brilliant young mind will join the others.

But what about some bright young black student whose family lives in Watts? Fat chance anybody that kid knows knows anybody who’s even heard of Ed Henry.

And “Affirmative Action” will continue to work for those for whom it has always worked. The ones who don’t actually need the help. And the class-based nature of Success in America will continue to operate as it has.

[Thats Another Fine Mess]

[sepdet]

Note the date of that thread: June 7, 2020. Black Lives Matter protests.

Context of thread:

"I think the sooner that you mass and dominate the battlespace, the quicker this dissipates and we can get back to the right normal," Esper said. "We need to dominate the battlespace."

[June 1] Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op (NPR)

[June 1] Trump threatens military force against protesters nationwide (AP)

[June 1] ‘The troops hate it’: John Kelly criticizes Trump threat to use armed forces to quell protests (CNBC)

[June 2] Army helicopter uses counterinsurgency tactics after protesters tear-gassed for Trump's photo-op (Salon)

[post Lafayette Square] United States, Use of Medical Helicopter to target protesters: International Red Cross discusses violation of Geneva Accords

[June 16] Trump admin used drones, helicopters to surveil George Floyd protests in 15 cities (The Hill)

[July 22, 2020] Trump’s Paramilitary Units Trained at the Border for the Assaults on Portland Moms (Slate)

[July 28, 2020] Fact check: Trump targets protesters by continuing to falsely describe laws protecting federal monuments and buildings (CNN)

[Oct 15, 2020] Trump gloats about US Marshals’ killing of Portland ‘antifa’ suspect (CNN)

[June 17, 2021] New Records About Trump Administration’s Response to Summer 2020 Racial Justice Protests (American Oversight discovers ICE, US Marshals deployed against protestors)

[May 9, 2022] Former Pentagon chief Esper says Trump asked about shooting protesters (NPR)

[Sep 2024] Trump asked when Seattle protesters would be prosecuted. Answer: They have been (KUOW Seattle)

Summary: Trump made unprecedented use of every branch of the military he could against peaceful protesters, sometimes invoking nonexistent laws or breaking existing ones. His team has spent four years combing through US laws to find excuses for unjust orders the military refused to follow last time.

And so we come to this.

LISTEN TO HARRIS. LISTEN TO TRUMP.

DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND.

If there's anything you think you might want to protest....think about it.