but it is john marshall. he really does deserve primacy. he is the babe ruth of supreme court judging, a great batter and a great pitcher as well and he did dominate his court only one constitutional the cent in 34 years. my boss, william o. douglas, roddick constitutional dissent about every 44 minutes near the end of his career but they were short and often not very well thought out. and, of the title of my buck really does express its thesis, that the supreme court is highly influenced by the opinions of american elites, and there is no more elite group of americans than politicians for this purpose. the famous sadrist, peter finley dunn you the turn of the 20 a century had a great column with this fictitious the irish-american bartender, mr. duly and mr. dooley always speaks with his irish brogue which unfortunately i cannot imitate but his most famous of his statements referred to cases growing out of the spanish-american war, and the issue was, did the american constitution apply in the territories that we acquired from spain? and in

you find yourself in the solicitor general's office being more of an echo of john marshall then you doof john c. calhoun. you believe in the national economic union and our federal system. my personal one came in very early. after studying a position, a particular statute passed by the congress of the united states was facially unconstitutional. i could not take that position and we did not take that position. the most enjoyable part was the sense of community within the office. there was a sense that this was really special. we knew we would not be there for a very long time. i would say that erwin griswold said to me, not long after i was privileged to take the office, that there was not one thing long -- was only one thing and wrong. the office does not enjoy article 3 life tenure. i knew that i was on worthy and that he should be there -- on were the and that he should be there -- and were the -- unworthy and that he should be there. >> is there unanimity that justice marshall was right? thank you, everyone. >> the supreme court historical society hosted this discussion on tuesday

he saw them -- john marshall took the job seriously and served for three decades. he has stated that the court has the responsibility to review acts of congress for constitutionality. he established the court as one of the three coequal branches of government. >> who is the most influential modern chief justices? >> my predecessor had a great influence on how the court looked at legal questions. earl warren was famous for bringing the court together and decide and one of its most important decisions, brown vs. the board of education. >> how many justices did the earliest courts have? >> i think they started with six. it is an interesting thing. it was hard to bring them together. the very first session of the court had to be adjourned immediately because they did not have a quorum. the second time, they convened, they did some administrative business and adjourn pretty quickly because they did not have -- adjourned pretty quickly because it did not have any cases. the current number of nine was established shortly after the civil war. it has remained intact since t

and that's john marshall. he was the first person to take the job seriously. most lawyers, i think, have this image of him as the first chief. but he wasn't. he was the fourth. the three before him, each only served for a couple of years. didn't regard the court as an important institution. in fact, spent most of their time doing other things. john jay is famous for a treaty he did with the english. but john marshall saw the job differently. he served in it for three decades. he's responsible for establishing the principle that the court has the sthort and responsibility to review acts of congress for constitutionality. so he really established the court in a prominent position as one of the three co-equal branches of government. among the chief justices who was the most influential. >> chief justice rehnquist had influence on the court. earl warren famous for bringing the court together in deciding one of its most important decisions, brown vs. board of education. so i think the two of them would have to stand out among the modern chiefs. >> how many justices

john marshall, when he became chief justice, have no constitutional authority for declaring half of thestate laws on constitutional. nothing in the constitution gives the supreme court the right to declare laws on constitutional. it does give converse the right to pass the laws that negative state law we put it doesn't get supreme court that right. and every supreme court, every president and africom chris, every senate and house of representatives has usurped power is not granted by the constitution. sadly most of them do indeed think as our former vice president said the constitution's are a current document but it is impractical at times of emergency and in practical in day-to-day politics. thank you very much for coming. [applause] and i will be happy to sign books for you. [inaudible conversations] >> harlow unger is the author of biographies of john hancock and noah webster. he served as a for an editor at the new york herald tribune overseas service and as a foreign correspondent for the times and sunday times of london. get more at harlowunger.com. >>> i am here with professor o

chief justice john marshall, the very famous marbury v. madison stated, "the powers of the legislature are defined and limited and that those limits may nolt be mistaken or forgotten. the constitution is written." it is written. it is written in the constitution that that's the case. and we can't violate that. the federal government limited and enumerated powers granded by the stuvment the founding fathers, who drafted and ratified the u.s. constitution, were unwavering in their desire to restrict the powers of states and limit the powers of congress. to achieve their goal, they created a system that splits state and federal authority so that one government, federal or state, does not maintain too much power over the liberty of the american people. therefore, the framers created a system with a legislature of limited and enumerated powers -- that's the congress -- to enact laws that shall be necessary and proper for the excuse of powers. one of them is the commerce clause that i just read to you, which grants congress the authority to regu

it's going toing held at the high school where he coped, at john marshal just a tremendously loved kid. >> unfortunately, gone too soon. honey... the credit fairy... doesn't exist. what? it's make-believe. nobody left anything under your pillow. if there's no credit fairy then who will make our credit score go up? we will. by doing things like paying our bills on time. announcer: there's no magic to improving your credit. but there's help and it's free. go to creditfairy.org what? >> mike: it's half time here at the ud arena. let's take a closer look at the university of dayton. plan >> mike: welcome back to the university of dayton arena, mike hartsock with derek duke. derek, you look at the first half numbers. they are not very pretty on either side but somehow, dayton managed to eek out a league. >> dayton shooting 50% from the field. the challenge is that they have not taken any shots in the first half but when they had good shots, they were able to knock them down. they have been able to keep their lead largely due to the monarchs' inability to make free throw, only shooting 29%.

you find yourself in the solicitor general's office being more of an echo of john marshall then you doof john c. calhoun. you believe in the national economic union and our federal system. my personal one came in very early. after studying a position, a particular statute passed by the congress of the united states was facially unconstitutional. i could not take that position and we did not take that position. the most enjoyable part was the sense of community within the office. there was a sense that this was really special. we knew we would not be there for a very long time. i would say that erwin griswold said to me, not long after i was privileged to take the office, that there was not one thing long -- was only one thing and wrong. the office does not enjoy article 3 life tenure. i knew that i was on worthy and that he should be there -- on were the and that he should be there -- and were the -- unworthy and that he should be there. >> is there unanimity that justice marshall was right? thank you, everyone. >> the supreme court historical society hosted this discussion on tuesday

the spirit that has descended on the senate is one described by chief justice john marshall back in the burr trial, those malignant and vindictive passions which rage in the bosoms of con tending parties struggling for power. two-time pulitzer prize winner captured this in an essay called the paranoid style. vindictive passions often arise, he points out when an aggrieved minority believes that america has been taken away from their kind. though they are determined to try to repossess it and try to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. does that sound familiar, madam president, in this health debate? 40 years ago he wrote that. hoffstetter continued those aggrieved fear what he described as the now familiar conspiracy. familiar then. 40 years ago. persistent now. whose supposed purpose hoffstetter is to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government and to pave the way for socialism. again, familiar words here today. more than 50 years ago he wrote of the dangers of an aggrieved right-wing minority with the power to create what he called a political climate i

you find yourselves in the solicitor general's office being more of an echo of john marshall than john c. calhoun. you believe in fervently in our federal system and so forth and so you're going to have these tensions. and my personal one came very early when i was being a asked a pro or antifederalism or the position that i thought was quite wrong after studying it that a particular statute passed by the congress of the united states was facially unconstitutional and i could not take it -- take that position and we did not take that position. the most enjoyable part i would say was really the sense of community within the office. that sort of sense of shared traditions. that this is really special. we know we're not going to be here for a very long time. and i would say in that respect, that our dear irwin griswold said to me not long after i was privileged to take the oath of office that there was only one thing wrong with the office of the solicitor general. i said, dean, what's that? it does not enjoy article 3 life tenure. [laughter] >> so i knew that irwin dean griswold thought y

marshall. and two current justice served in the office of the solicitor general, chief justice john roberts with, and associate justice samuel alito. now justice marshal said that being solicitor general was quote, the best job he ever had and he had some good jobs. i hope we'll learn this evening if our panel agrees with justice marshal's statement. gentlemen, let me begin by asking paul as the most recent occupant of the office of the solicitor general, to briefly explain the job of the solicitor general in today's justice department and if it's possible to do so, to describe what an average day is like in the life of the solicitor general? >> i would be happy to try, ken. i think as to the average day in the life of the solicitor general, there probably isn't an average day and that is part of what makes the job so interesting and so fascinating. the job's basic responsibility in a nutshell, i think is to probably start with the most public role of the solicitor general and that is, his representation of the united states of america, which most often means the executive branch of the united s

as the fourth chief justice of the supreme court john marshall stated the power to tax involves the power to destroy. well unfortunately, this could certainly be true in the context of this health bill. we in congress must zealously defend our citizens right and prevent this from happening. i believe that the legislation before us violates the greatest political document in the history of the world, the constitution of the united states. i urge my colleagues to think very carefully about the constitutional issues i've raised. malae no most people around here don't like to talk about whether something is constitutional. we just want to do what feels good because we think we are helping people. but our founders set forth in the enumerated powers limits on what this body and this federal government could do and as members of congress one of our most important responsibilities is to protect come to defend and preserve the constitution of the united states, and in that light is not only appropriate but essential for this body to question whether it is constitutional for the federal government

as the fourth chief justice of this supreme court, john marshall, stated, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. well unfortunately, this could certainly be true in the context of this health bill. we in congress must zealously defend our citizens' rights and prevent this from happening. libelee that the legislation before us violates the greatest political document in the history of the world, the constitution of the united states. i urge my colleagues to think very very carefully about the constitutional issues that i have raised. now i know that most people around here don't like to talk about whether something is constitutional. we just want to do what feels good. because we think we are helping people. but our founders set forth in the enumerated powers limits on what this body and this federal government could do. and as members of congress, one of our most important responsibilities is to protect, to defend and preserve the constitution of the united states. in that light is not only appropriate but essential for this body to question whether it is constitutional for the

marshall. two current justices serve. john roberts and samuel alito. ustice marshall said being solicitor general was the best job he ever hadñr, and he had se good jobs. i hope we learn this evening if our panel agrees with justice marshall's statement. let me begin by asking the most recent occupant to briefly explain the job of solicitor general, and if possible, describe what an average day is like in the life of the solicitor general? >> there probably is not an average day, and that is part of what makes the job so interesting and fascinating. the basic responsibility, in a nutshell, i think, is probably to start with the most public role of the solicitor devereaux, and that is his representation of the united states of america, which most often means the executive branch, but his representation before the supreme court of the united states. and i would think that one way of capturing the job is that the solicitor general in many ways sits at crossroads of the separation of powers, at the court, defending constitutionality of an act of congress or

the spirit that has descended on the senate is one described by chief justice john marshall back in the those malignant and vindictive passions which rage in the bosoms of con tending parties struggling for power. two-time pulitzer prize winner captured this in an essay called the paranoid style. vindictive passions often arise, he points out when an aggrieved minority believes that america has been taken away from their kind. though they are determined to try to repossess it and try to prevent the final destructive act of subversion. does that sound familiar, madam president, in this health debate? 40 years ago he wrote that. hoffstetter continued those aggrieved fear what he described as the now familiar conspiracy. familiar then. 40 years ago. persistent now. whose supposed purpose hoffstetter is to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government and to pave the way for socialism. again, familiar words here today. more than 50 years ago he wrote of the dangers of an aggrieved right-wing minority with the power to create what he called a political climate in which the

marshall. two current justices serve. john roberts and samuel alito. best job he ever hadñr, and he had se good jobs. i hope we learn this evening if our panel agrees with justice marshall's statement. let me begin by asking the most recent occupant to briefly explain the job of solicitor general, and if possible, describe what an average day is like in the life of the solicitor general? >> there probably is not an average day, and that is part of what makes the job so interesting and fascinating. the basic responsibility, in a nutshell, i think, is probably to start with the most public role of the solicitor devereaux, and that is his representation of the united states of america, which most often means the executive branch, but his representation before the supreme court of the united states. and i would think that one way of capturing the job is that the solicitor general in many ways sits at crossroads of the separation of powers, at the court, defending constitutionality of an act of congress or some executive branch policy, and you really see th