POLI1061 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: James Mcculloch, William Marbury, Mandamus
2 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Taylor Belval
AP Gov
Mrs. Willinger
14 April 2016
DC v. Heller
Petitioner: Robert Levy and six plaintiffs
Respondent: Washington D.C. (Ban on guns in homes)
Facts: All of the plaintiffs were law abiding citizens of DC who had permits to carry guns, but were not
allowed to keep them in their homes even for self defense. One was even a police officer who lived in a
dangerous neighborhood. They Appealed to the district court who rejected the claim, the appellate court
overturned the decision and eventually it was granted cert and sent to the Supreme Court
Constitutional Issue: 2nd amendment right to ban arms was being restricted by DC’s gun ban
Key Arguments: People were defending their second amendment right as well as their own right to life,
but the respondent argued that the 2nd amendment did not apply to DC and that Dc wa protecting other
people’s safety
Decision: 5-4 in favor of the petitioner because it was ok to use guns for “lawful purposes” like self
defense
Impact: still very early on, but because of the wording of the case it might not be very significant. DC
created large “gun free zones” in more populated/prominent areas so many people still cannot have
guns. NY altered their laws slightly but the restrictions they placed on gun owners made it very difficult
to actually carry them for self defense. Illinois was sued four times by the NRA for not complying.
McDonald v. Chicago happened after this case and said that the 2nd amendment also applied in states
Marbury v. Madison
Petitioner: William Marbury
Respondent: James Madison
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Facts: Adams appointed over 60 judges after he lost to TJ in the election. Not all of them received their
commission when they took office and thus could not actual serve their positions Marbury was one of
those 15. He appealed to the Supreme Court and asked them to issue a writ of mandamus that said TJ
had to give the 15 justices their commission and allow them to serve.
Constitutional Issue: Judiciary act of 1789 “writ of mandamus” violated Supreme Court’s abilities
declared in Article III of the constitution
Key Arguments: The justices had the right to their money, but the Supreme court did not have the right
to order they received it
Decision: 4-0 decided Marbury should have the post, but writ of mandamus was unconstitutional and the
Supreme Court did not have the right to force TJ to give away the commission's
Impact: created the concept of judicial review and gave supreme court judges significantly more power,
but Marbury never got to actually have his job :(
McCulloch v. Maryland
Petitioner: James McCulloch
Respondent: State of Maryland
Facts: Maryland started a tax on all bank notes not from Maryland. James McCulloch head of the
Baltimore branch of the second national bank refused to pay the tax and because he was working for the
bank established by Congress he was sued and it went through the courts
Constitutional Issue: Is the national bank constitutional? Necessary and Proper clause in article I
Key Arguments: national banks aren’t constitutional and Maryland is a sovereign state
Banks have existed historically in the US (precedent), people are sovereign not states, and the necessary
and proper clause gives Congress the right to create establishments such as the bank in order to perform
their duties (in this case commerce clause and power of the purse)
Decision: court supported Mcculloch said that Congress had the right to create a bank and Maryland did
not have the right to tax the bank
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Impact: supported implied powers in congress and said that states cannot overrule the federal govt
Gibbons v. Ogden
Petitioner: Thomas Gibbons
Respondent: Anthony Ogden
Facts: New York gave jurisdiction of ports to certain people even though interstate trade was conducted
through them. Gibbons and Ogden fought over rights to regulate and trade there.
Constitutional Issue: Is the commerce clause superior to states rights
Key Arguments: States passed many regulations of interstate laws and states should share power of
commerce clause with congress
Congress clause is superior to states decisions
Decision: In favor of Gibbons, congress and the commerce clause have the rights to regulate interstate
trade first and extended commerce clause to trade and transportation
Impact: gave congress more power over the economy and prohibited states from regulating each other
extensively
U.S. v. Lopez
Petitioner: Alfonso D. Lopez
Respondent: United States
Facts: Lopez brought an unloaded gun to school with five cartridges and was arrested for breaking
Congress’ Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990
Constitutional Issue: 2nd amendment
Key Arguments: Unconstitutional because schools aren’t businesses, not valid use of commerce clause,
slippery slope if everything is commerce
Constitutional because congress has a right to create laws, firearms are violent, students health would be
affected
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Lopez because there was no evidence of a direct impact on the economy
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Respondent: washington d. c. (ban on guns in homes) Facts: all of the plaintiffs were law abiding citizens of dc who had permits to carry guns, but were not allowed to keep them in their homes even for self defense. One was even a police officer who lived in a dangerous neighborhood. They appealed to the district court who rejected the claim, the appellate court overturned the decision and eventually it was granted cert and sent to the supreme court. Constitutional issue: 2nd amendment right to ban arms was being restricted by dc"s gun ban. Key arguments: people were defending their second amendment right as well as their own right to life, but the respondent argued that the 2nd amendment did not apply to dc and that dc wa protecting other people"s safety. Decision: 5-4 in favor of the petitioner because it was ok to use guns for lawful purposes like self defense.
