Today in Supreme Court History: July 10, 1832

7/10/1832: President Jackson vetoes the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. He wrote that the bill was unconstitutional.

President Andrew Jackson

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

AJ should be on Mount Rushmore, along with Ronaldus Maximus and “47” (after his third term of course)

[Chris Williams]

Jackson founded the Democratic party. I'm not sure that Reagan would appreciate the honor, much.

[Brett Bellmore]

A pity he didn't prevail on that.

[William of Brooklyn]

Andrew Jackson's veto message is one of the most prescient essays on our republic ever written.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp

[minus the clever name]

Joseph Stalin actually asked Winston Churchill "How many divisions did you say Pope has?" Reminds me of Jackson and should be done more often. SCOTUS says what? Just let them enforce that 😉

[JoeFromtheBronx]

President Madison earlier vetoed a bank bill on limited grounds:

Waiving the question of the constitutional authority of the Legislature to establish an incorporated bank as being precluded in my judgment by repeated recognitions under varied circumstances of the validity of such an institution in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by indications, in different modes, of a concurrence of the general will of the nation, the proposed bank does not appear to be calculated to answer the purposes of reviving the public credit, of providing a national medium of circulation, and of aiding the Treasury by facilitating the indispensable anticipations of the revenue and by affording to the public more durable loans.

He was relieved there was a congressional override option:

In discharging this painful duty of stating objections to a measure which has undergone the deliberations and received the sanction of the two Houses of the National Legislature I console myself with the reflection that if they have not the weight which I attach to them they can be constitutionally overruled, and with a confidence that in a contrary event the wisdom of Congress will hasten to substitute a more commensurate and certain provision for the public exigencies.

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-30-1815-veto-message-national-bank

Madison also vetoed a couple bills because he thought they violated the Establishment Clause.

[Mr. Bumble]

Anyone missing Capt. Dan?

[F.D. Wolf]

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-10-1832-bank-veto

Jackson's veto (to say nothing of the accompanying message) was controversial. His opponents believed (or at least hoped) it would lead to his defeat in the 1832 election. They were, of course, mistaken.

Jackson's veto message is rightly considered an important American historical document, a defense of "departmentalism", the idea that each branch of government has the authority to interpret the Constitution for itself. So, who is its true author? It is likely the product of several contributors, including Jackson himself, but the chief author was almost certainly Jackson's Attorney General Roger B. Taney, whom, of course, Jackson would later appoint Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Another substantial contributor was Secretary of the Navy Levi Woodbury, who himself would later be appointed to the Supreme Court by President James K. Polk.

Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not that person who first wrote or spoke them.

- Bishop Benjamin Hoadly, “Sermon Preached Before King George I” (1717) (Hoadly was making a typically Protestant theological argument, against the authority of church hierarchy to interpret Scripture.)

[wvattorney13]

That view sort of goes without saying, or better stated, a contrary view could not be enforced.

If a congressman believes a proposed bill is unconstitutional, no judge can force him to vote for it, nor can a judge prevent a president from vetoing a bill.

The President could refuse to enforce a law he believes unconstitutional, subject only to impeachment and removal by Congress. But the courts could not compel him to enforce the law.

[minus the clever name]

OKAY , finally you recur to common sense.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Gerard Magliocca argued that it was possible the McCulloch v. Maryland upholding the bank could have been overruled by the Taney Court. If President William Henry Harrison had not died, Whigs in Congress might have passed a bank bill that opened a path.

He did die, President Tyler (whose grandson recently died ... that is this year), opposed the bank, and it became more of an academic question. Another hypo: what if Taney adopted Jackson's nationalist opposition to secession in 1860?

[SMP0328]

Gerard Magliocca argued that it was possible the McCulloch v. Maryland upholding the bank could have been overruled by the Taney Court. If President William Henry Harrison had not died, Whigs in Congress might have passed a bank bill that opened a path.

The history of the Necessary and Proper Clause could have been fundamentally different if only William Henry Harrison had worn an overcoat or gave his inaugural address indoors.

[F.D. Wolf]

On January 15, 1835, President Jackson nominated Taney to the seat on the Court vacated by the resignation of Justice Gabriel Duvall. On March 3 (the last full day of the session), the Senate voted 23-22 to postpone a vote on the nomination. Chief Justice John Marshall would die on July 6, and Jackson nominated Taney to succeed him. The Senate, of course, would vote to confirm.

One vote. Talk about your hypotheticals.

[SMP0328]

From captcrisis.com

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (decided July 7, 1986): no separation of powers problem with statute allowing CFTC hearing reparations proceedings against brokers to also have (non-exclusive) jurisdiction over state law counterclaims even though not Article III court and no trial by jury

Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (decided July 7, 1986): separation of powers violated by Congressional agency official whose deficit reductions the President was required to follow (basically invalidated the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, an attempt to control Reagan-era deficits) (a cartoon at the time showed an overweight Congressman walking on a log to cross a river and then the log went “poof!”)

University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (decided July 7, 1986): District Court evaluating racial wrongful termination claim not bound by ALJ determination of no racial intent (not a state court judgment so 28 U.S.C. §1738, requiring federal court to give “full faith and credit”, does not apply)

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (decided July 7, 1986): First Amendment did not protect smartass student’s telling of dirty jokes at school assembly (or “Ass - sembly” -- cue Beavis & Butthead laugh huh-huh huh-huh)

Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (decided July 7, 1986): violation of FDA guidelines did not create federal law issue (esp. since Congress did not provide for a private right of action) and so no federal court jurisdiction over case alleging birth defects due to misbranded drug

Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc., 478 U.S. 697 (decided July 7, 1986): fact that premises used for soliciting prostitution also sold (adult) books did not create First Amendment issue when premises (signed as a bookstore) was closed by local police

Sam Fox Publishing Co. v. United States, 364 U.S. 801 (decided July 7, 1960): can’t intervene as of right (Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 24) to change a consent decree to which one is not bound (music publisher objected to court-approved agreement between other publishers and ASCAP, an association of songwriters)

O’Brien v. Brown, 409 U.S. 1 (decided July 7, 1972): during 1972 Democratic Convention, staying Court of Appeals judgment that Credentials Committee should not have unseated delegates (suit had been brought in District Court just four days before!) (re: that convention, see Hunter S. Thompson’s fascinating account in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail” of Humphrey’s attempt to game the rules so as to deny the nomination to McGovern, and how this was prevented by McGovern’s forces deliberately losing a vote on a point of order) (I remember Walter Cronkite on TV declaring that McGovern’s nomination was now in danger, then the cut to McGovern headquarters and the correspondent saying, “I don’t mean to disagree with you Walter -- but why are all these kids cheering?”) (Humphrey’s clueless aides were also jubilant, but Humphrey soberly said, “No, they pulled that deliberately”)