Secure What Kind Of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, And The Epic Struggle To Create A United States Written By James F. Simon Readable In Edition

for my con law class, A really interesting look at the tense conflict between Marshall and Jefferson, which you don't see too often, Summary: Simon's book summarizes the struggle between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson to define the character of American Federal government, focusing particularly on Marshall's role in creating a strong judicial branch.
A good book for anyone interested in postRevolutionary War American history or in early constitutional law,

About the only thing John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson had in common was that both were Virginians, Jefferson was enamored of all things French while Marshall broke off talks with France following the XYZ Affair, in which French officials basically demanded bribes in order to enter into treaty negotiations with the young country.
Marshall risked war rather than be party to this, although he characteristically stopped short of calling for war, showing the measured judgment that would characterize his career.


More than this Jefferson's agrarian vision was for a limited federal government that allowed to states all power not expressly given the federal government.
Likewise, Jefferson wanted to limit the Federalist dominated judiciary, Marshall had a very different vision of the needs of the country, and as Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court a very different vision for the place of the court as a coequal branch of the government rather than the poor stepchild he inherited.


James F. Simon gives us a vivid account of the tension between the Jefferson the Republican and Simon the Federalist, Unlike Adams and Jefferson, these two men would never be reconciled to one another, Perhaps the most famous encounter, which Simon covers in detail is that resulting in the Marbury v, Madison decision, that uphold the Jefferson administration's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission to serve as Justice of the Peace of the District of Columbia.
This was one of a number of last minute appointments by John Adams, While this appeared to be a victory for Jefferson, Marshall based his decision on the ruling that the provision of the Judicial Act ofunder which Marbury brought his suit was in fact unconstitutional.
What Marshall's decision for the Court did was establish the principle of judicial review, which allowed the Supreme Court an expanded role in determining the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress.
No longer was the court the poor stepchild or "least dangerous branch, "

The book goes on to describe further clashes between the two over attempts to impeach judges including fellow justice Chase, and in the treason trial of Aaron Burr.
In each instance, Simon portrays a Jefferson who attempts to use political influence toward these ends only to be countered by the careful legal reasoning of Marshall.
In the Burr trial, Marshall made a key ruling against Jefferson's claim of executive privilege in withholding key evidence against Burr.
Even after Jefferson was out of office, they continued to be on opposite sides of a series of states rights cases Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee and McCulloch v, Maryland that established precedence of federal over state law, nurturing the tensions that would eventually flare up in America's Civil War.


In Simon's account, Marshall comes out looking far better than Jefferson, I suspect some historians with a stronger states rights bias would see things quite differently, But what Simon makes clear is the distinctive contribution of Marshall to this day in the form of a strong federal government, limits on executive privilege and states rights, and a doctrine of judicial review which truly established the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government.
Although there isn't a lot of new information here, it is a good read, The author's affinity for John Marshall is however very clear, A bit of hero worship going on here I am afraid, Never questioning any decision Marshall made, Simon does a disservice to the reader, in my opinion, For example, in his discussion of Marbury v Madison, the author explains the meaning of the decision but never delves into Marshall's justification for it in terms of the constitution.
Today many people tend to imagine America's forefathers as a monolithic, Republican group who agreed upon the clear meanings of the Constitution.
This book looks at two main views of what the Constitution might mean and intend, It reveals the reasonable and unreasonable disagreement between members of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, Although Jefferson author of the Declaration of Independence and Madison the father of our Constitution often served closely together, they tended to stress different visions of government.
The book shows how Jefferson's vision generally lost in court to his cousins John Marshall Federalist vision, This remained the case even when Republican justices came to be the majority on the Supreme Court, The Federalist constitutional interpretation also turned out to be more realistic, unifying and longrange, While pointing out how much the Jeffersonian vision of State's rights was mitigated and overruled by the courts, we can also imagine how state's rights values may lead to secession and Civil War.

I enjoyed this book even though I didn't prefer the author's style of writing, Judicial review of congressional law is presently taken for granted but this hasn't always been so, Before Marbury v. Madison, the judicial was seen as the ugly stepchild whom nobody paid attention to while the other two branches of government fought for supremacy.
John Marshall, arguably the greatest jurist in the history of America, managed to outmaneuver that great populist, Thomas Jefferson and thus ensured that the Supreme Court was destined to play a HUGE part in shaping American history.
These battles still endure and are felt today in the battles over Roe and the confirmation of judges, This book outlines the struggle for the American soul between two of the greatest politicians of the era and how ultimately Marshall's vision of America has proven to be more enduring.
I really had to go through pains to finish this book, The book is well researched but it's as dry as a bone, This book hit my historybook sweet spot, I am inclined to like most history books with lengthy, but welltold, discussions of legal cases, This book is essentially just that: a sophisticated, yet easy to read, narrative about the cases at the Supreme Court that shaped Constitutional Law regarding the powers of the federal government, the separation of powers among the three branches of government, and the limits of what the states can do viz a viz the federal government, nearly every one of which pitted Marshall against Thomas Jefferson.


I had read most of these cases for my Con Law classes in law school, but this book put the controversies into much greater historical and political context than my case books did.
I loved the author's use of opinion pieces from contemporary newspapers to demonstrate how the politically divided public reacted to each of the controversies underlying the cases.
I was struck by how politically polarized the nation was at that time and by how close we were to dividing, even decades before the Civil War.
I'm not sure I would recommend this book to nonlawyers or to people without a serious interest in the scope and limits of the power of the federal government, but I find those topics very interesting.
And I think this book did a pretty good job of explaining technical concepts in a way that nonlawyers would understand.
Great details about epic battles between Federalists John Marshall and those in favor of States' rights Jefferson, Marbury v. Madison and what it means to this nation, and how it still is applicable today, Amazing book about amazing thinkers, I really wanted more information about the Marshall court, and less background information about Jefferson and Marshall, Also, did Jefferson like ANYONE James Madison, maybe This book, a closer look at the legal battles between the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Supreme Court from, is for the reader who wants to read the legalistic details of key decisions of the Marshall Court.
In that sense, this is really a book about the Supreme Court, and because of the scope on Marshall, how the Supreme Court truly became a third, coequal branch of the US government.
If you don't like to readpages going into the details of landmark cases, almost like the summary of the facts of the case like a legal brief, this might not be the book for you.
However, for those who read about this era in history through historical surveys or Jefferson biographies, and want to read more about the legal cases that established the Supreme Court and the supremacy clause of the Constitution that allows the federal government to overrule state laws when they conflict, this is your book.


The firstpages are essentially a dual biography of Marshall and Jefferson leading up to Jefferson's election inas therd President.
Marshall was appointed Chief Justice by John Adams in the last days of his Presidency, after the election, a fact that rankled Jefferson the rest of his life.
The book springs to life for the finalpages where Simon, a professor of law at New York Law School, goes into the intricacies, complications, and legalities of the key decisions in Marshall's court room: Marbury v.
Madison, the attempted impeachment of Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase defeated on political grounds, the treason trial of Vice President Aaron Burr, which established on what stringent grounds a citizen can be charged with high treason, Martin v.
Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and Gibbons v. Ogden. These cases established judicial oversight in interstate commerce, conflicts between state and national governments, as well as the precedent of applying for remedy in the courts in conflicts between private citizens and their government.


Absolutely essential for those who want to understand the historical precedent established by one of the very great Supreme Court Chief Justices, John Marshall.
.