Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) - The Diigo Meta page

• 24 Aug 09
  

  Russell Dunlap
  • The defendant in error moves to dismiss this writ, for want of jurisdiction
  • In support of this motion, three points
  • 48 more annotations...
  • • 1st. That a State is a defendant.
    • 2d. That no writ of error lies from this Court to a State Court.
    • 3d. The third point
    • no right to review the judgment of the State Court, because neither the constitution nor any law of the United States has been violated by that judgment
    • They maintain that the constitution of the United States has provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of the laws or treaties of the nation; but that this power may be exercised in the last resort by the Courts of every State in the Union
    • 1st. The first question to be considered is, whether the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a State, and the other a citizen of that State?
    • If it be to maintain that a case arising under the constitution, or a law, must be one in which a party comes into Court to demand something conferred on him by the constitution or a law, we think the construction too narrow.
    • spirit and true meaning must be so apparent as to overrule the words which its framers have employed.
    • defendant in error have undertaken to do this
    • laid down the general proposition, that a sovereign independent State is not suable, except by its own consent.
    • its consent is not requisite in each particular case.
    • If, upon a just construction of that instrument, it shall appear that the State has submitted to be sued, then it has parted with this sovereign right of judging in every case on the justice of its own pretensions, and has entrusted that power to a tribunal in whose impartiality it confides
    • this government would be a mere shadow, that must disappoint all their hopes, unless invested with large portions of that sovereignty which belongs to independent States.
    • this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding
    • The powers of the Union, on the great subjects of war, peace, and commerce, and on many others, are in themselves limitations of the sovereignty of the States; but in addition to these, the sovereignty of the States is surrendered in many instances where the surrender can only operate to the benefit of the people, and where, perhaps, no other power is conferred on Congress than a conservative power to maintain the principles established in the constitution.
    • The mere circumstance, that a State is a party, gives jurisdiction to the Court
    • If these individuals may be exposed to penalties, and if the Courts of the Union cannot correct the judgments by which these penalties may be enforced, the course of the government may be, at any time, arrested by the will of one of its members. Each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole.
    • When we observe the importance which that constitution attaches to the independence of judges, we are the less inclined to suppose that it can have intended to leave these constitutional questions to tribunals where this independence may not exist, in all cases where a State shall prosecute an individual who claims the protection of an act of Congress
    • There is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which would justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the States was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legitimate measures of the Union
    • The requisitions of Congress, under the confederation, were as constitutionally obligatory as the laws enacted by the present Congress. That they were habitually disregarded, is a fact of universal notoriety. With the knowledge of this fact, and under its full pressure, a convention was assembled to change the system.
    • The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it
    • But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them
    • ut they were able to provide against the operation of measures adopted in any one State, whose tendency might be to arrest the execution of the laws, and this it was the part of true wisdom to attempt. We think they have attempted it
    • If jurisdiction depended entirely on the character of the parties, and was not given where the parties have not an original right to come into Court, that part of the 2d section of the 3d article, which extends the judicial power to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, would be mere surplusage.
    • 'in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.'
    • This distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction, excludes, we are told, in all cases, the exercise of the one where the other is given.
    • Among those in which jurisdiction must be exercised in the appellate form, are cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. These provisions of the constitution are equally obligatory, and are to be equally respected. If a State be a party, the jurisdiction of this Court is original; if the case arise under a constitution or a law, the jurisdiction is appellate. But a case to which a State is a party may arise under the constitution or a law of the United States. What rule is applicable to such a case?
    • the conclusion seems irresistible, that its framers designed to include in the first class those cases in which jurisdiction is given, because a State is a party; and to include in the second, those in which jurisdiction is given, because the case arises under the constitution or a law.
    • The constitution declares, that in cases where a State is a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; but does not say that its appellate jurisdiction shall not be exercised in cases where, from their nature, appellate jurisdiction is given, whether a State be or be not a party.
    • to give to its affirmative words a negative operation, in every possible case, would, in some instances, defeat the obvious intention of the article
    • every case between a State and its citizens, and, perhaps, every case in which a State is enforcing its penal laws.
    • The original jurisdiction of this Court cannot be enlarged, but its appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in every case cognizable under the third article
    • It cannot be presumed,' adds the Court, 'that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it
    • we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.
    • 11th amendment
    • 'The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.'
    • A writ of error, then, is in the nature of a suit or action when it is to restore the party who obtains it to the possession of any thing which is withheld from him, not when its operation is entirely defensive
    • It is, then, the opinion of the Court, that the defendant who removes a judgment rendered against him by a State Court into this Court, for the purpose of re-examining the question, whether that judgment be in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States, does not commence or prosecute a suit against the State, whatever may be its opinion where the effect of the writ may be to restore the party to the possession of a thing which he demands.
    • 2d. The second objection
    • America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects, it is competent. The people have declared, that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme
    • The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void.
    • The exercise of the appellate power over those judgments of the State tribunals which may contravene the constitution or laws of the United States, is, we believe, essential to the attainment of those objects.
    • hydra in government
    • he Federalist says, 'Here another question occurs: what relation would subsist between the national and State Courts in these instances of concurrent jurisdiction? I answer, that an appeal would certainly lie from the latter, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The constitution in direct terms gives an appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in all the enumerated cases of federal cognizance in which it is not to have an original one, without a single expression to confine its operation to the inferior federal Courts.
    • ONE WHOLE
    • We know that in the Congress which passed that act were many eminent members of the Convention which formed the constitution. Not a single individual, so far as is known, supposed that part of the act which gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over the judgments of the State Courts in the cases therein specified, to be unauthorized by the constitution.
    • we think the result must be, that there is nothing so extravagantly absurd in giving to the Court of the nation the power of revising the decisions of local tribunals on questions which affect the nation, as to require that words which import this power should be restricted by a forced construction.
    • The whole merits of this case, then, consist in the construction of the constitution and the act of Congress. The jurisdiction of the Court, if acknowledged, goes no farther. This we are required to do without the exercise of jurisdiction.
• 23 Aug 09
  

  Robert Bexley
  • 1st. The first question to be considered is, whether the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a State, and the other a citizen of that State?

  • In the first, their jurisdiction depends on the character of the cause, whoever may be the parties. This class comprehends 'all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.' This clause extends the jurisdiction of the Court to all the cases described, without making in its terms any exception whatever, and without any regard to the condition of the party. If there by any exception, it is to be implied against the express words of the article.

    
    

    
    

    
    153
    

    In the second class, the jurisdiction depends entirely on the character of the parties. In this are comprehended 'controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State,' 'and between a State and foreign States, citizens or subjects.' If these be the parties, it is entirely unimportant what may be the subject of controversy. Be it what it may, these parties have a constitutional right to come into the Courts of the Union.

• 26 Aug 08
  

  Bryant Rogowski
  • 11th amendment
  • 11th amendment
  • 12 more annotations...
  • • 'The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
      suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States,
      by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State
    • 11th amendment
    • 11th amendment
    • 11th amendment
    • 11th amendment
    • 11th amendment
    • 11th amendment
    • What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any State
      disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?
    • The constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain
      enumerated cases, and gives it appellate jurisdiction in all others
    • That the constitution or a law of the United States, is involved in a case, and
      makes a part of it, may appear in the progress of a cause, in which the Courts
      of the Union, but for that circumstance, would have no jurisdiction, and which
      of consequence could not originate in the Supreme Court. In such a case, the
      jurisdiction can be exercised only in its appellate form.
    • It is observable, that in this distributive clause, no negative words are
      introduced.

    • The whole reasoning of the Court proceeds upon the idea that the
      affirmative words of the clause giving one sort of jurisdiction, must imply a
      negative of any other sort of jurisdiction, because otherwise the words would be
      totally inoperative, and this reasoning is advanced in a case to which it was
      strictly applicable. If in that case original jurisdiction could have been
      exercised, the clause under consideration would have been entirely useless.
      Having such cases only in its view, the Court lays down a principle which is
      generally correct, in terms much broader than the decision, and not only much
      broader than the reasoning with which that decision is supported, but in some
      instances contradictory to its principle. The reasoning sustains the negative
      operation of the words in that case, because otherwise the clause would have no
      meaning whatever, and because such operation was necessary to give effect to the
      intention of the article. The effort now made is, to apply the conclusion to
      which the Court was conducted by that reasoning in the particular case, to one
      in which the words have their full operation when understood affirmatively, and
      in which the negative, or exclusive sense, is to be so used as to defeat some of
      the great objects of the article.

• 25 Aug 08
  

  Sangeetha Krishnakumar
  • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821)
  • MARSHALL
  • 25 more annotations...
  • • The first question to be considered is, whether the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a State, and the other a citizen of that State?
    • second section of the third article of the constitution
    • Jurisdiction is given to the Courts of the Union in two classes of cases. In the first,
    • jurisdiction depends on the character of the cause, whoever may be the parties.
    • controversies
    • In the second class, the jurisdiction depends entirely on the character of the parties.
    • If it could be doubted, whether from its nature, it were not supreme in all cases where it is empowered to act, that doubt would be removed by the declaration, that 'this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'
    • From this general grant of jurisdiction, no exception is made of those cases in which a State may be a party.
    • We think a case arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is cognizable in the Courts of the Union, whoever may be the parties to that case.
    • The constitution gave to every person having a claim upon a State, a right to submit his case to the Court of the nation.
    • Different States may entertain different opinions on the true construction of the constitutional powers of Congress.
    • How extensive may be the mischief if the first decisions in such cases should be final!
    • If a State be a party, the jurisdiction of this Court is original; if the case arise under a constitution or a law, the jurisdiction is appellate. But a case to which a State is a party may arise under the constitution or a law of the United States. What rule is applicable to such a case? What, then, becomes the duty of the Court? Certainly, we think, so to construe the constitution as to give effect to both provisions, as far as it is possible to reconcile them, and not to permit their seeming repugnancy to destroy each other. We must endeavor so to construe them as to preserve the true intent and meaning of the instrument.
    • The constitution declares, that in cases where a State is a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction; but does not say that its appellate jurisdiction shall not be exercised in cases where, from their nature, appellate jurisdiction is given, whether a State be or be not a party.
    • the very clause which is urged to prove, that the Circuit Court could give no judgment in the case, is also urged to prove, that its judgment is irreversible.
    • The Court may imply a negative from affirmative words, where the implication promotes, not where it defeats the intention.
    • the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in cases where a State is a party, refers to those cases in which, according to the grant of power made in the preceding clause, jurisdiction might be exercised in consequence of the character of the party, and an original suit might be instituted in any of the federal Courts; not to those cases in which an original suit might not be instituted in a federal Court. Of the last description, is every case between a State and its citizens, and, perhaps, every case in which a State is enforcing its penal laws. In such cases, therefore, the Supreme Court cannot take original jurisdiction. In every other case, that is, in every case to which the judicial power extends, and in which original jurisdiction is not expressly given, that judicial power shall be exercised in the appellate, and only in the appellate form. The original jurisdiction of this Court cannot be enlarged, but its appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in every case cognizable under the third article of the constitution, in the federal Courts, in which original jurisdiction cannot be exercised; and the extent of this judicial power is to be measured, not by giving the affirmative words of the distributive clause a negative operation in every possible case, but by giving their true meaning to the words which define its extent.
    • We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.
    • we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.
    • any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
    • The second objection to the jurisdiction of the Court is, that its appellate power cannot be exercised, in any case, over the judgment of a State Court.
    • The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void.
    • We think that in a government acknowledgedly supreme, with respect to objects of vital interest to the nation, there is nothing inconsistent with sound reason, nothing incompatible with the nature of government, in making all its departments supreme, so far as respects those objects, and so far as is necessary to their attainment. The exercise of the appellate power over those judgments of the State tribunals which may contravene the constitution or laws of the United States, is, we believe, essential to the attainment of those objects.
    • single tribunal
    • They give to the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. The words are broad enough to comprehend all cases of this description, in whatever Court they may be decided.
• 

  Shane Gordon
  • It is authorized to decide all cases of every description, arising under the
    constitution or laws of the United States. From this general grant of
    jurisdiction, no exception is made of those cases in which a State may be a
    party.
  • Will the spirit of the constitution justify this attempt to control its words?
    We think it will not. We think a case arising under the constitution or laws of
    the United States, is cognizable in the Courts of the Union, whoever may be the
    parties to that case.
  • 4 more annotations...

  • • After bestowing on this subject the most attentive
      consideration, the Court can perceive no reason founded on the character of the
      parties for introducing an exception which the constitution has not made; and we
      think that the judicial power, as originally given, extends to all cases arising
      under the constitution or a law of the United States, whoever may be the
      parties.

    • The original jurisdiction of this Court cannot be enlarged, but its appellate
      jurisdiction may be exercised in every case cognizable under the third article
      of the constitution, in the federal Courts, in which original jurisdiction
      cannot be exercised; and the extent of this judicial power is to be measured,
      not by giving the affirmative words of the distributive clause a negative
      operation in every possible case, but by giving their true meaning to the words
      which define its extent.
    • In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with
      appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and
      laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot
      insert one.
    • The American people may certainly give to a national tribunal a supervising
      power over those judgments of the State Courts, which may conflict with the
      constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, without converting them
      into federal Courts, or converting the national into a State tribunal. The one
      Court still derives its authority from the State, the other still derives its
      authority from the nation.
• 21 Aug 08
  

  Trey Wakefield
  • Had any doubt existed with respect to the just construction of this part of the section, that doubt would have been removed by the enumeration of those cases to which the jurisdiction of the federal Courts is extended, in consequence of the character of the parties. In that enumeration, we find 'controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State,' 'and between a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.'
  • The constitution gave to every person having a claim upon a State, a right to submit his case to the Court of the nation. However unimportant his claim might be, however little the community might be interested in its decision, the framers of our constitution thought it necessary for the purposes of justice, to provide a tribunal as superior to influence as possible, in which that claim might be decided.
  • 1 more annotations...
  • • If a State be a party, the jurisdiction of this Court is original; if the case arise under a constitution or a law, the jurisdiction is appellate. But a case to which a State is a party may arise under the constitution or a law of the United States. What rule is applicable to such a case?
• 

  Natalie Gaston
  • They maintain that the nation does not possess a department capable of restraining peaceably, and by authority of law, any attempts which may be made, by a part, against the legitimate powers of the whole; and that the government is reduced to the alternative of submitting to such attempts, or of resisting them by force. They maintain that the constitution of the United States has provided no tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of the laws or treaties of the nation; but that this power may be exercised in the last resort by the Courts of every State in the Union. That the constitution, laws, and treaties, may receive as many constructions as there are States; and that this is not a mischief, or, if a mischief, is irremediable. These abstract propositions are to be determined; for he who demands decision without permitting inquiry, affirms that the decision he asks does not depend on inquiry.
  • whether the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a State, and the other a citizen of that State?
• 

  russell hutchins
  • 1st. The first question to be considered is, whether the jurisdiction of this
    Court is excluded by the character of the parties, one of them being a State,
    and the other a citizen of that State?
• 20 Aug 08
  

  Suzanne Roberts
  • 11th amendment
  • 11th amendment
  • 17 more annotations...
  • • 11th amendment
    • the 11th amendment
    • They maintain that the constitution of the United States has provided no
      tribunal for the final construction of itself, or of the laws or treaties of the
      nation; but that this power may be exercised in the last resort by the Courts of
      every State in the Union
    • If it be to maintain that a case arising under the constitution, or a law, must
      be one in which a party comes into Court to demand something conferred on him by
      the constitution or a law, we think the construction too narrow
    • If, upon a just construction of that instrument, it shall appear that the State
      has submitted to be sued, then it has parted with this sovereign right of
      judging in every case on the justice of its own pretensions, and has entrusted
      that power to a tribunal in whose impartiality it confides
    • this Union cannot exist without a government for the whole;
    • The maintenance of these principles in their purity, is certainly among the
      great duties of the government. One of the instruments by which this duty may be
      peaceably performed, is the judicial department.
    • are we at liberty to insert in this general grant, an exception of those cases
      in which a State may be a party?
    • We think a case arising under the constitution or laws of the United States, is
      cognizable in the Courts of the Union, whoever may be the parties to that case.
    • In that enumeration, we find 'controversies between two or more States, between
      a State and citizens of another State,' 'and between a State and foreign States,
      citizens, or subjects.'
    • The mere circumstance, that a State is a party, gives jurisdiction to the Court.
      How, then, can it be contended, that the very same instrument, in the very same
      section, should be so construed, as that this same circumstance should withdraw
      a case from the jurisdiction of the Court, where the constitution or laws of the
      United States are supposed to have been violated? The constitution gave to every
      person having a claim upon a State, a right to submit his case to the Court of
      the nation.
    • We do not mean to say, that the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Union should
      be construed to be co-extensive with the legislative, merely because it is fit
      that it should be so; but we mean to say, that this fitness furnishes an
      argument in construing the constitution which ought never to be overlooked, and
      which is most especially entitled to consideration, when we are inquiring,
      whether the words of the instrument which purport to establish this principle,
      shall be contracted for the purpose of destroying it.
    • No government ought to be so defective in its organization, as not to contain
      within itself the means of securing the execution of its own laws against other
      dangers than those which occur every day.
    • This leads to a consideration of the 11th amendment
    • That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single
      nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we
      are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people.
    • The constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the
      constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void.

    • Dismissing the unpleasant suggestion, that any motives which may
      not be fairly avowed, or which ought not to exist, can ever influence a State or
      its Courts, the necessity of uniformity, as well as correctness in expounding
      the constitution and laws of the United States, would itself suggest the
      propriety of vesting in some single tribunal the power of deciding, in the last
      resort, all cases in which they are involved.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.