Early Supreme Court cases that shaped federal power

Grade 11 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to C on Worcester v. Georgia (the excerpt is exact; the summaries are in our words). Card A, "Worcester v. Georgia, in brief". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Georgia passed a law saying white people living in Cherokee territory needed a state license. Samuel Worcester, a white man living in the Cherokee Nation, did not take one, and a Georgia court sentenced him to four years of hard labor. In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled for Worcester. Card B, "Worcester: what came after". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Georgia did not obey the ruling and did not free Samuel Worcester until January 1833. President Andrew Jackson did not enforce the decision against Georgia. A small group of Cherokee leaders signed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, and most of the Cherokee Nation opposed it. In 1838 and 1839 the Cherokee Nation was removed from its homelands, to land in what is now Oklahoma. Card C, "Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court. When: 1832. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain and justify the Court's decision. Excerpt (Worcester v. Georgia, opinion of the Court): "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States."

2. 1.

   Card C says Georgia's laws "can have no force" in Cherokee territory. Compare it with card B. What changed between the opinion and 1839, as Bo sees it?

   • The opinion ordered the removal in 1832, and by 1838 the Nation had agreed to it through the Treaty of New Echota
   • The opinion gave the Nation legal support in 1832, but by 1838 removal began, so the law and events came apart
   • Georgia obeyed the opinion at first and changed course in 1838, when the federal government stopped enforcing it
   • Worcester was freed in January 1833, about a year after the opinion, so the opinion did help the man in the case
3. 2.

   Card C says Georgia's laws "can have no force" in Cherokee territory. Card B says Georgia did not obey. How should Esme reconcile them?

   • The Court states what the law was and events show what officials did, so the two can differ without either being false
   • They describe one fact in two ways, since Georgia's disobedience was a reading of the opinion by Georgia's courts
   • Card B shows the opinion was not law, since an order that officials ignore did not become binding on them, and so it was not really the law
   • Card C shows the Nation controlled its territory in practice, since the Court said Georgia's laws had no force there
4. 3.

   A classmate says Worcester shows the Supreme Court had no real power. Using Cards B and C, how should Jun reply?

   • The classmate is wrong, since Georgia freed Worcester after the opinion, which shows the Court's ruling was carried out
   • The classmate is right, since a court whose ruling the President would not enforce held no authority to decide the case
   • The ruling depended on others to enforce it, and card B shows they did not, but the opinion still stated the law
   • The classmate is right about Jackson but wrong about Georgia, since Georgia obeyed the Court and Jackson did not

5. Use this

   Cards A to C on two principles (the excerpts are exact; the summary is in our words). Card A, "Marshall on a written constitution". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court. When: 1803. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain and justify the Court's decision. Excerpt (Marbury v. Madison, opinion of the Court): "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount [highest] law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant [opposed] to the constitution, is void." Card B, "Marshall on a state tax on the bank". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court. When: 1819. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain and justify the Court's decision. Excerpt (McCulloch v. Maryland, opinion of the Court): "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance [clash] in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied." Card C, "Marbury: the ruling and its reach". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The Court said Marbury had a right to his commission, but it could not order Madison to deliver it. Marbury never received the commission. Marshall's opinion also said that courts may decide whether a law of Congress fits the Constitution. The National Archives says the Court next declared a law of Congress unconstitutional in 1857.

6. 4.

   Kira weighs Marshall's reasons for holding that Maryland could not tax the bank. Which judgment does card B support?

   • He held that Congress may tax Maryland, since one government's power to tax can destroy what another made
   • A state with the power to tax could destroy what Congress created, which he calls a plain clash between governments
   • He relied on the size of the tax, since a high tax could close the bank's branch in Baltimore or any other business there
   • He held that no state may tax any business, since the power to tax involves the power to destroy
7. 5.

   Compare Marshall on a written constitution (card A, 1803) with card B (1819). What does card B add, as Luz sees it?

   • Card B repeats card A, since both hold that a law clashing with the Constitution is void
   • Card B limits the Constitution's supremacy, since it lets a state control the measures of Congress when it taxes
   • Card A comes from 1803 and card B from 1819, so card B shows how Marshall's thinking changed over sixteen years
   • Card A puts the Constitution above ordinary laws; card B applies it against a state's tax on a national bank
8. 6.

   Card C says the Court next declared a law of Congress unconstitutional in 1857. Read with card A, what does that suggest to Milo?

   • The principle was in doubt until 1857, since a power that goes unused for fifty years has not been settled in practice
   • Cards A and B say the same, since the power to void a law is the same as the power to void a state tax
   • Marbury set the principle in 1803, but the next use on a law of Congress came in 1857, so it was used rarely
   • The Court used the power on laws of Congress often between 1803 and 1857, since card A calls such laws void
9. 7.

   A classmate says card B means states may never tax anything federal. How should Noah reply, using cards B and A together?

   • Too narrow: the passage says the power to tax involves the power to destroy for any government and any tax
   • Correct: if the power to tax involves the power to destroy, no state may tax what a federal law has authorized
   • Too broad: card B concerns a state taxing a measure Congress made, not every federal thing
   • Correct: card A says laws opposed to the Constitution are void, so a state tax opposed to federal law is void

10. Use this

    Cards A to C on Congress's powers (the excerpts are exact; the summary is in our words). Card A, "Marshall on the power to regulate commerce". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court. When: 1824. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain and justify the Court's decision. Excerpt (Gibbons v. Ogden, opinion of the Court): "It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested [placed] in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution." Card B, "Marshall on Congress and the Indian nations". Who made it: Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the opinion of the Supreme Court. When: 1832. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain and justify the Court's decision. Excerpt (Worcester v. Georgia, opinion of the Court): "That instrument confers on congress the powers of war and peace; of making treaties, and of regulating commerce with foreign nations, … and with the Indian tribes. These powers comprehend [include] all that is required for the regulation of our intercourse with the Indians. They are not limited by any restrictions on their free actions." Card C, "Gibbons: what the ruling settled". Who made it: historians and government agencies writing today. When: today. For whom: readers today. Why: to sum up what is known. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Thomas Gibbons held a federal license; Aaron Ogden held rights under New York's monopoly law. The Court said federal law on commerce won where the two laws clashed. Federal power over trade among the states grew after the decision.

11. 8.

    Pia weighs why Marshall treats dealings with the Indian nations as national. Which judgment does card B support?

    • The Constitution gives Congress war, peace, treaty and commerce powers over Indian tribes, leaving no role for a state
    • The Constitution gives the states the treaty power with Indian tribes, and Congress just the power to regulate commerce
    • Congress's powers over the tribes are unlimited, since card B says they are not limited by any restrictions
    • The size of the Cherokee territory was the main reason, since a territory that large could not be governed by a state
12. 9.

    How does the commerce reasoning in Gibbons (card A) carry into Worcester (card B)? What does Ren see?

    • Both cases decided the same question, since the powers over commerce among the states and with Indian tribes are one clause
    • Both place a commerce power in the national government: over boats among states, and over dealings with tribes
    • Gibbons left commerce to the states, and Worcester moved it to Congress, so the reasoning changed between the two cases
    • Both opinions were written by the same Chief Justice, in 1824 and 1832, so the continuity is a matter of authorship
13. 10.

    A classmate says Gibbons made Congress's commerce power unlimited. How should Zee reply, using cards A and C?

    • The classmate is wrong, since card A limits the power to commerce between nations and not among the states
    • Card A says the power is complete but bound by the Constitution's limits; card C shows growth, not unlimited power
    • The classmate is right, since card A says the power may be exercised to its utmost extent and card C says it grew
    • The classmate is wrong, since card C says federal power over trade among the states shrank after the decision