Political Science

The period between American Revolutionary War and ratification of the Constitution and subsequent passing of the American Bill of Rights was a time that formed political philosophies of a newborn nation. These philosophies originated from sharp debates of the Founding Fathers, whose personal views and ideas became views and ideas of America. The famous dispute of Federalists and Anti-Federalists was combined with less-known confrontations inside these two political camps. This paper discusses one of those controversies namely the controversy between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson with regard to division of authorities between states and federal government, the construction of the Constitution, the national bank and other issues, which later marked the difference between Federalists and Republicans. The paper argues that political philosophies of Marshall and Jefferson to a great extent originated from their general intellectual background as well as living experience they shared.

The roots of a political philosophy of a particular individual (including such prominent individuals as Marshall and Jefferson) can be found in his living experience. This experience was very different for Marshall and Jefferson. As noted by Smith, the biographies of American revolutionists were somehow similar and the ancestral parallel between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson is especially striking (Smith, 1998). However, Jefferson spent his early years in scholastic studies, while Marshall lived in an uninhabited borderland which provided few opportunities for study and many opportunities for work and risk. This was the beginning of Jefferson as theorist of ideal state and Marshall as practitioner of nation-building.

Later the paths Marshall and Jefferson crossed each other during Revolutionary War and later when they together worked over constitutional projects and finally when Jefferson served as President while Marshall was a Chief Justice. At that Jefferson showed himself as idealist attempting to apply the ideas of European Enlightenment on the American soil. Those ideas, which Jefferson learned during his schools, were accepted as basis for the American Constitution. In contrast, Marshalls approach was very pragmatic. Jefferson cared of the remote prospective, while Marshall worked to resolve current problems.

This strange mixture of controversy and complementarity is notable in their view of powers to interpret Constitution.  In Marbury vs. Madison (1804), Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Supreme Court should have an authority to determine the constitutionality of laws which came before the court. As long as the judges deal with application of laws, they necessarily need to expound and interpret those laws. In this case Marshall created a simple logical construction a Constitution is a superior act which cannot be voided. In the case of conflict between a law and the Constitution courts always have to support the Constitution. In case a judge is unable to determine whether a law is constitutional or not, he will not be able to effectively protect the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court should have an authority to determine the constitutionality of laws. This is a matter of law enforcement, not legislature. As Marshall put it, the judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution, so it would be impossible to judge those cases without interpretation of the Constitution.

Jeffersons counterargument to this Marshalls position can be found in his letter to Spencer Roane. At his opinion, by this ruling Marshall assigned an exclusive right of Constitution interpretation to the Supreme Court thus undermining the checks and balances principle. The Constitution turns out to be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please (Ellis, 1998). The alternative Jeffersons solution was to make each authority truly independent, providing each branch with power to determine the meaning of the Constitution. This Jeffersons position caused Mayer to label Jefferson as utopian idealist (Mayer, 2008). 

Another issue which demonstrates the difference of Marshalls and Jeffersons philosophy in relief is their debate concerning division of authority between the central government and the states including the one concerning banking and finance. On the one hand, both Marshall and Jefferson advocated creation of a strong army and navy guided by the central government. Their position was revealed after the famous XYZ Affair, so the central government would obtain stronger powers granted by military power and matters of common self-defense would fall under its exclusive jurisdiction. On the other hand, as for the peaceful matters, Marshall and Jefferson opposed each other in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The latter case concerns both division of powers between states and division of authority between branches of central power. Marshalls position in the case was that the Supreme Court can act as a court of appeals revising the judgments of state courts in the cases where constitutional rights have been violated (Smith, 1998).

Yet another mighty Marshalls strike at Jeffersons ideals was his judgment in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Considering the rights of central bank to operate in the states Marshall determined two important principles 1. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitutions express powers, in order to create a functional national government 2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government (Smith, 1998). The words implied powers should be noted here. In fact, Marshall used his own interpretation of the Constitution by asserting that something can be implied in it without direct wording. This implication, under Marshalls opinion, granted more powers to the central government than to the states.

Commenting on these and other judgments judgment Jefferson could only melancholically note that the federal judiciary is advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all shall be consolidated into one (Mayer, 2008). This reflects the fear of Jefferson as republican idealist that once the republic can turn into a tyranny, in case powers are centralized. In his letter to William Johnson Jefferson wrote the Chief Justice says, There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere. True, there must but does that prove it is either party The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs (Ellis, 1998).

Ironically, the last sentence of this Jeffersons tirade concerned Marshall himself. Marshall was a man of the people to much greater extent than Jefferson was. Thus, Jeffersons utopian, idealistic, anti-capitalist and Jacobinic idea was broken by a person whose interests Jefferson was so willing to serve and who, in his common sense, preferred practice to idealism.