1/10: 216-221 (Begin of Ch.

7 to the Jacksonian Era and the Rise of Political Patronage)

●​ Covid-19 Pandemic Grips the Nation
○​ In 2020, Covid-19 arrived and disrupted social and economic life.
○​ In order to prevent the spread of the virus, many businesses and schools and even
local governments shut down.
○​ Hospitals were completely overwhelmed and quickly reached capacity.
○​ 79-year-old medical doctor Anthony Fauci became synonymous with the federal
government's response
■​ Director of the office of infectious diseases.
■​ Fauci was the descendent of Italian immigrants.
■​ He grew up in Brooklyn
●​ Father was a pharmacist
■​ Fauci became famous in the 1980s as the nation’s leader in dealing with
the HIV crisis.
●​ He is considered the nation’s leading expert in infectious disease.
●​ Received the highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of
Freedom from George W. Bush
●​ 7.1 How the Bureaucracy is Organized
○​ Americans have contact with the bureaucracy very often but don’t think much of
it.
■​ For instance, alarm clocks comply with time zones and Daylight Savings
Time.
○​ Mattress, pillows, sheets, and blankets made in the U.S. undergo tests that make
sure that the factory it was made in did not discriminate in hiring, dealt with labor
issues and complaints fairly, and did not degrade the environment.
○​ Development of the American Federal Bureaucracy
■​ The American bureaucracy has grown enormously and as of 2019 had
more than 2 million civilian employees working across the country.
■​ This is due to the complexity of tasks performed by the federal
government, greater demands by citizens for services have all contributed
to this process
○​ The Constitution and the Early Years of the Republic
■​ Much of the constitution
○​ The First Administration and the First Cabinet Departments
■​ President George Washington’s cabinet included just four men and three
official departments. The Department of War oversaw the nation’s small
military with fewer than one hundred civilian employees.
○​ The Jacksonian Era and the Rise of Political Patronage
■​ President Andrew Jackson filled positions in bureaucracy using political
patronage
●​ Give out administrative positions as reward for support, rather than
merit.
■​ But this actually made the federal bureaucracy more impartial, neutral, and
got standard operating procedures and technical expertise.
■​ If a nation is constantly changing the people in its important positions after
every election, it would be necessary to standardize the procedures.
 Jackson and his supporters laid out the foundations for modern federal
bureaucracy.
○​ A Merit-Based Civil Service
■​ With growing demands on the federal government and increasing concerns
about the corruption of the spoils system, Congress passed the Pendleton
Act of 1883 to create the US Civil Service Commission.
●​ It drew up and enforced rules on hiring, promotion, and tenure of
office within the civil service.
●​ Now, members of the federal civil service were hired and
promoted based on merit.
●​ By 2020, more than 90% of bureaucrats were covered by the
Pendleton Act
●​ Members of civil service should behave neutrally
1/13: 221-226 (the Jacksonian Era and the Rise of Political Patronage to Analyzing Data: The
Growth of the Federal Bureaucracy)
●​ 7.2 The Structure of the Modern Federal Bureaucracy
○​ The American federal bureaucracy is a complex web of organizations.
■​ The President’s task is to ensure that the executive branch faithfully
executes the laws of the nation.
■​ The President appoints people to the top levels of the bureaucracy and
directs and advises the departments on how they should enforce the laws.
■​ The people use the President as an outlet for their rage whenever the
bureaucracy fails
■​ 15 main administrative units in the federal bureaucracy.
■​ Cabinet departments are headed by cabinet secretaries, nominated by the
president and confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate
■​ Cabinet secretaries formally work under the president but also depend on
Congress for appropriation of funds.
■​ Cabinet secretaries have to contend with pressure from those affected by
the actions of their departments
■​ Secretaries have deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, and administrative
staff to help with their efforts.
■​ The most influential cabinet department is the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) (formed in response to the 911 attacks)
○​ Federal bureaucrats
■​ The organization of the federal bureaucracy and the tasks that agencies
undertake are important. Both affect how well a bureaucracy functions and
how easy it is to reform an agency that has gone astray.
■​ The top are the executive political appointees
●​ Beneath them are the Senior Executive Service (SES)
○​ Treated and paid well.
○​ Use authority to achieve actual concrete results.
○​ Beneath them are the career civil servants
○​ Iron Triangles and Issue Networks
■​ The iron triangle consists of the bureaucracy, Congress, and interest
groups.
 ○​ Interest groups provide electoral support to members of Congress who advance
legislation favorable to the interest groups and reduce oversight of interest group
activities.​
○​ These interest groups lobby on behalf of the relevant bureaucratic agencies to
secure the agencies’ desired funding and policy goals.
■​ The agencies will create regulations favorable to the interest groups.
○​ Due to growth in the number of interest groups, political scientists have employed
the concept of issue network to describe webs of influence between interest
groups, policymakers, and policy advocates.
○​ Issue networks, unlike iron triangles, are temporary and arise to address one
certain issue.
○​ Issue networks also involve more interests than iron triangles.

○​
Iron triangles
1/14: 226-231 (Analyzing Data: The Growth of the Federal Bureaucracy to Implementation,
Rulemaking , Advising, and Representation)
●​ 7.3 The Bureaucracy and Policy Making
○​ Defining the Problem and getting Congress to Act
■​ Defining the problem is the most significant part.
■​ Getting on the policy agenda is a crucial goal of anyone who wants to
influence the policymaking process.
○​ Implementation, Rulemaking, Advising, and Representation
■​ Federal bureaucracy’s main function is implementation of laws that
Congress has passed.
■​ Implementation is not a straightforward process
■​ New policies are not enacted in isolation
●​ Are introduced into a bunch of existing policies which sometimes
have competing demands.
■​ The technical knowledge required of many federal bureaucrats means that
they cannot be so easily replaced or controlled by the president and his
political appointees.
●​ High-level executive branch officials lack the technical expertise
necessary to evaluate or challenge the actions of their subordinates.
■​ Many front-line bureaucrats interact directly with citizens
 ●​ This makes it hard to observe and control their behavior
effectively.
○​ When Congress passes laws, it sets only general goals and targets which leaves
implementation up to the bureaucratic agencies.
■​ This is called bureaucratic discretion
●​ Bureaucrats have some power to decide how to implement a law.
■​ Regulation is the process through which the federal bureaucracy fills in
the critical details of a law.
●​ Agencies must first announce a proposed set of rules and allow
interested parties to weight in
○​ This is called notice and comment
■​ Agencies may have to notify the president or Congress about the
anticipated impact of a proposed rule or set of rules.
●​ These rules are later published in the Federal Register
■​ Many agencies are in the executive branch
●​ Top officials serve at the pleasure of the president and directly
carry out the administration’s agenda.
■​ Bureaucracy sometimes also acts like a court.
●​ Settles disputes between parties that arise over implementation of
federal laws and presidential executive orders.
○​ Bureaucratic adjudication
■​ Bureaucrats can act as representatives of the American public
●​ Members of the civil service are much more representative of the
nation’s diversity than the cabinet secretaries.
■​ Federal employees cannot engage in political campaigns.
●​ Hatch Act restricts political activities by federal workers with
exceptions for the highest-level political appointees.
●​ The Federal Employees Political Activities Act of 1993 relaxed
some of the restrictions of the Hatch Act, allowing most federal
employees to run in nonpartisan elections and participate in
fund-raising for political campaigns.
○​ Evaluation and Termination
■​ Evaluation
●​ Determining if a policy is achieving its stated objectives.
■​ Congress can formally terminate a policy.
■​ Courts can also terminate a policy using the power of judicial review.
1/15: 231-236 (Implementation, Rulemaking , Advising, and Representation to Congress)
●​ 7.4 Checks on the Bureaucracy
○​ Control, Oversight, and Reform
■​ Bureaucratic agencies participate in iron triangles, forming relationships
with interest groups and congressional subcommittees.
■​ Individuals may undermine effective regulation if their own interests align
with those who are being regulated.
○​ Controlling the Bureaucracy
■​ The System of Separation of Powers poses a special challenge to
controlling the bureaucracy
 ■​ Authority over the federal bureaucracy is divided among different
branches, so federal agencies and bureaus often have to answer to the
president, Congress, and the federal courts
○​ The President
■​ The President formally controls most of the federal bureaucracy and has
the authority to appoint and remove officials at the top of the bureaucracy
■​ Presidents appoint agency heads based on their ideology and willingness
to carry out the administration’s goals.
■​ Executive orders can instruct departments on how to implement policy
■​ When president Jimmy Carter tried to get rid of the mice in the white
house, both the GSA and the Department of the Interior refused to deal
with the issue and claimed that the fault lay in the other.
○​ Congress
■​ Senate has power over confirmation for the higher levels of the federal
service
■​ Congress, as a whole, can create or terminate agencies and programs and
has control over the resources that departments receive (power of
appropriation)
■​ Legislation can shape bureaucratic behavior by setting goals, priorities,
and an organizational structure.
■​ Members of the bureaucracy may be required to testify before Congress to
justify their actions
■​ The Government Accountability Office is an example of a bureaucracy
that Congress established to keep tabs on executive branch
implementation.
1/16: 236-238 (Checks on the Bureaucracy to End of Ch. 7)
○​ Impact of the Judiciary and the Media
■​ Decisions by the federal judiciary can significantly impact bureaucratic
behavior.
■​ In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court overturned the EPA’s limits on
mercury, arsenic, and acidic gases emitted by coal-fired power plants
○​ Reform and the Reliance on Private Organizations
■​ After hurricane Katrina, investigators and members of Congress began to
question both the government’s reliance on private contractors in relief
efforts and governmental interference with private-sector efforts.
■​ Concerns included lack of competition in awarding contracts for cleanup
and recovery efforts and failure to employ enough local businesses and
contracts.
■​ Later, many private organizations stepped up to help and rebuild after
hurricane Katrina
○​ Federalism and the Fight against Covid-19​
■​ The CDC developed and issued health guidelines to prevent the spread of
COVID-19, but state governments pursued their own policies to combat
the spread of COVID.
■​ By June of 2020, many states that had reopened bars, beaches, restaurants
were experiencing a surge in COVID.
 ●​ In response, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut imposed a
14-day quarantine on visitors from states with outbreaks.
■​ Americans want the implementation of national policy to be effective and
strong but do not want it to be too strong.
1/21: 186-191 (Begin Ch. 6 to AP Political Science Practices)
●​ The federal judiciary is one of the 3 branches of the nation’s government.
●​ The role is to interpret and apply the laws of the nation
●​ Alexander Hamilton described the federal judiciary as “least dangerous to the political
rights of the Constitution”
●​ 6.1 Judicial Independence from Money and Politics
○​ Money, Politics, and How the Supreme Court Preserves Judicial Independence
■​ Federal judges are appointed. At the state level, beginning in the 19th
century, populist reformers feared that legislators and governors were too
close to appointed judges, which could undermine judicial independence.
■​ So reformers pushed for election of state judges rather than by
appointment.
■​ Now, 38 states elect their supreme court justices.
■​ But as more money has flooded into state judicial election campaigns by
special interests, there are concerns that judicial independence is
threatened.
■​ Supreme Court ruled on this in the case of Caperton v. Massey Coal Coo.
●​ Don Blankenship, head of Massey Coal, had played a huge part in
the election of one of the Supreme Court justices.
●​ Hugh Caperton was the president of Harmon Mining, which was
put out of business due to fraudulent practices of Massey Coal.
●​ Jury awarded Caperton $50 million in damages in 2002.
○​ Blankenship tried to appeal to overturn this judgement.
○​ Blankenship $3 million to make sure that the judgement
was overturned.
■​ The U.S. supreme court reversed the judgement of the West Virginia
Supreme Court so Caperton got his damages.
■​ The Caperton case emphasizes that a properly designed judicial system is
supposed to be above politics, and that the Supreme Court is the ultimate
arbiter of the Constitution.
○​ Sotomayor’s Appointment to the Supreme Court​
■​ The Constitution requires that all federal judges be appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. This is supposed to insulate federal
judges from the kind of politics involved in the Blankenship case.
■​ In May 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the
Supreme Court.
●​ Republicans criticized Sotomayor as a justice who would be
“willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the
Constitution.”
●​ But the Senate was under Democratic control, so defeating
Sotomayor was unlikely.
●​ 6.2 the Constitution and the Federal Judiciary
 ○​ The delegates to the Constitutional Convention spent little tim jknjje debating the
structure and powers of the federal judiciary. The judiciary would retain a degree
of independence from the other two branches and that judges would have lifetime
tenure. There are also provisions to protect judicial salaries from efforts to reduce
them by an unhappy or vengeful Congress. The president would nominate federal
judges, and the Senate would confirm the nominations
○​ Article III: The Federal Judiciary in the Constitution
■​ Only the highest level of the federal judiciary (Supreme Court) is
described in Article III. The establishment of lower federal courts is in the
hands of Congress. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress
may from time ordain and establish.”
■​ The Supreme Court is to be the highest judicial power in the land.
Combined with the supremacy clause of the constitution, it establishes the
supremacy of the federal judiciary over matters involving the Constitution
and federal law.
■​ The Constitution also briefly describes the federal courts’ jurisdiction, or
authority to decide specific cases. If a court has original jurisdiction in a
case, that court has the authority to hear the case first.
■​ A court with appellate jurisdiction has the authority to review the decision
of a lower court to overturn or revise that decision.
1/22: 191-195 (AP Political Science Practices to John Marshall and the Power of the Supreme
Court)
●​ Ratification: Antifederalist Concerns and the Federalist Response
○​ During the ratification debates, opponents of the Constitution raised
concerns about potential abuses of power by the proposed federal judiciary
○​ Antifederalists feared that growth of national government w ould diminish
the rights of states and individuals.
○​ Antifederalist essay Brutus No. 11 warned against this possibility.
■​ Brutus argued that the nation would run the risk of unconstrained
justices imposing their own views of what is constitutional and
what is not.
■​ “They will give the sense of every article of the constitution that
may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions
they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules,
but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason
and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court,
whatever they may be, will have the force of law, because there is
no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors
or control their adjudications.”
○​ In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure skeptical
Antifederalists and others that the federal judiciary would not trample
upon their rights and liberties.
○​ Hamilton argued that members of the federal judiciary would stand apart
from politics and be able to “secure a steady, upright, and impartial
administration of the laws.”
 ●​ Congress Builds the Judiciary​
○​ Judiciary Act of 1789 to flesh out “the nature and the organization” of the
court system. Only the chief justice of the Supreme Court is mentioned in
the Constitution and the document does not specify the number of justices
in the Court, but leaves that to Congress.
■​ This act added 5 associate judges to the Supreme Court, making
the total number of justices to 6. Later in 1869 it was set to 9
justices.
●​ Appointment to the Federal Judiciary
○​ Federal judges must be nominated by the president and confirmed by a
majority vote in the Senate. Since federal judges are appointed for life,
successfully placing individuals on the federal bench is a way for a
president to have a powerful influence on government and on public
policy.
○​ While most district court nominees are approved, confirmations of
appellate and Supreme court judges are more affected by partisan political
battles
○​ While most Supreme Court nominees are confirmed, in recent years their
confirmation hearings often involve intense scrutiny.
●​ Politics and Supreme Court Nominations
○​ The Constitution does not impose any qualifications to become a federal
judge. Judges do not even have to be lawyers.
○​ When vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, presidents are presented
with an important opportunity to shape policy for years to come.
○​ Because they are such high-profile appointments, nominees to the Court
have to be considered carefully. Presidents have to balance both legal and
political considerations. Experience, ethical integrity, and legal
accomplishments are extremely important factors which will help smooth
the confirmation process.
○​ Presidents try to nominate people who share their judicial philosophies
and approach to constitutional interpretation.
1/23: 195-200 (the Power of the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court)
●​ 6.3 John Marshall and the Power of the Supreme Court
○​ In 1803, John Marshall faced a very difficult test. He was chief justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court, highest court in the federal judiciary.
○​ Marshall’s Court was hearing a case that seemed to be “small”
■​ Just 4 men who felt that they had been cheated out of their jobs
○​ The Election of 1800
■​ Started with national election
●​ Incumbent John Adams and the Federalists vs. Thomas Jefferson
and the Republican Party.
●​ Many Americans were fed up with John Adams and the Federalist
Party in 1800.
●​ Jefferson accused Adams and the Federalists of trying to bring a
British-style monarchy to America.
 ●​ The Federalists accused Jefferson of being too close to France,
pointing to the chaos that had unfolded in France after the French
Revolution
●​ Under the rules of the Constitution, each elector casts two votes for
the President and in the case of a tie, the election went to the
House of Representatives.
●​ Jefferson and Burr each got the same number of electoral votes,
thus tying in the electoral college.
■​ The Judiciary Act of 1801: Appointments Signed, Sealed, but not
Delivered
●​ Trying to preserve their influence within the national government,
John Adams’s administration passed the judiciary Act of 1801,
expanding the number of federal judges. Adams then promptly
filled the vacancies and quickly nominated them.
●​ But in the scramble to complete the paperwork before the other
party took over, the appointments were not delivered and were still
sitting on John Marshall’s desk. After Jefferson took office, he
delivered some but not all of the appointments.
●​ Marbury and some others did not receive theirs.
●​ Marbury and three other men brought a suit against Madison,
Jefferson’s secretary of state, requesting that Madison deliver their
commissions.
■​ Politics and the Power of the supreme Court
●​ Less than two weeks before Adams signed the Judiciary act of
1801 into law, the Senate confirmed the president’s appointment of
John Marshall to be the new chief justice of the Supreme Court.
●​ Marshall was a federalist and experienced politician.
●​ Marshall worked to strengthen the power of the national
government and the independence of the judicial branch.
●​ Marshall also had to consider the political implications of his
decisions.
●​ He had to reflect on how his decision would affect the overall
power of the judiciary, as a coequal branch of government.
●​ If the Supreme Court waded into the political battle, he risked
being ignored by the president or even impeached by the
Republican-controlled Congress.
●​ Marshall could deny Marbury’s petition, thus preventing a
confrontation. But this would make the judiciary seem weak.
■​ Marbury v. Madison
●​ Marshall broke the decision before him into three separate
questions. First, the chief justice asked if the men were entitled to
their commissions. Marshall said “yes”. The President had already
signed their commissions and this was the last formal act.
●​ But delivery of the commissions is practiced by convenience and
not by law.
●​ Marshall said that a legal remedy was available.
 ●​ But Marshall said that the plaintiffs were not entitled to these writs.
●​ The power to issue these writs had been improperly given to the
Court by a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Marshall argued
that when Congress granted the Court this authority, it was
attempting to expand the scope of original jurisdiction of the
Court, which Congress cannot do.
■​ The Implications of Marshall’s Decision
●​ Marshall expanded the Court’s power
●​ Of course this idea wasn’t completely new, had been brought up by
Jefferson before.
1/24: 200-206(the Supreme Court to Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial
Decision Making)
●​ 6.4 Organization of the Federal Judiciary
○​ Criminal and Civil Cases
■​ Two categories of law: criminal and civil
●​ Criminal law covers actions harming the community
●​ State or federal government acts as prosecutor and tries to prove
the guilt of the accused.
●​ States vary punishment for crimes
●​ Conviction under a criminal statute leads to some form of
punishment.
●​ Civil law covers cases involving private rights and relationships
between groups/individuals.
○​ Plaintiff argues that they have been wronged and the
accused party attempts to defend themself.
○​ The State Courts
■​ State judicial courts handle both criminal and civil cases.
■​ Each state has system of trial courts doing most of the judiciary work
■​ More than half of the states have a system of appellate courts operating
with appellate jurisdiction.
■​ Each state has at least one Supreme Court acting as the highest court in
that state.
○​ The Federal District Courts
■​ At the bottom are the federal district courts.
●​ Act as trial courts and have original jurisdiction
●​ 2020: 94 district courts, each state having at least one
○​ Appellate Courts
■​ Federal courts of appeal occupy the middle level.
■​ 13 courts of appeal, 11 have jurisdiction over regionally based “circuits”,
one has jurisdiction over DC, and one handles cases under international
trade and patent law.
■​ Court of appeals exercise appellate jurisdiction only
○​ The Supreme Court
■​ Constitution establishes Supreme Court as the highest court in the land.
■​ The Supreme Court resolves differences between the states and any
different interpretations of the Constitution
 ■​ 1 Chief justice + 8 associate justices
●​ Each has clerks to help in making decisions
■​ Supreme Court rarely exercises original jurisdiction
●​ Only in cases affecting ambassadors, Ministers, Consuls, or those
in which a State is a party.
●​ In all other cases, only appellate jurisdiction
○​ The decision to take cases on appeal
■​ First, the Supreme Court has to decide whether or not to hear the case and
then issue the verdict based on the merits of the case and applicable law.
■​ Supreme Court only hears 8 to 9 cases a year
■​ Number of cases heard by Supreme Court has dropped by 50%
■​ Generally, the court hears a case if 4 or more justices vote to do so
●​ Then it will issue a writ of certiorari
■​ Supreme Court decisions set a precedent
●​ Acts as a basis for future decisions
●​ Under stare decisis, Supreme Court may avoid setting a precedent
by allowing a previous decision to stand.
○​ Considering and Deciding on Cases
■​ If Supreme Court grants cert, it requests both sides to lay out their full
arguments.
■​ Case is scheduled for oral argument before the assembled justices.
●​ Each side gets a fixed amount of time to present.
●​ Justices often interrupt to ask questions
○​ Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask a single question for
10 years (bro just dozed off…)
●​ Cameras not allowed
○​ Sketch artists and recordings are tho
■​ After oral argument, proceeds to judicial conference
●​ Not even clerks allowed to be present here
●​ Process takes months and justices can change their votes during
this process
■​ Finally, the Court issues its decision
●​ Majority opinion consists of ruling + logic behind it
■​ Under appellate jurisdiction, Court may affirm, reverse, or remand the
case to a lower court
■​ Decision and majority opinion of Supreme Court are binding for all lower
courts.
■​ If Chief justice is majority, he or she selects the author of the majority
opinion
●​ Otherwise, the senior justice of the majority opinion will do so
■​ No majority -> then plurality opinion is written
■​ Justice voting with majority may also write a concurring opinion
●​ Concurring opinions are common when that justice has some
slightly different logic but not enough to cause them to change
sides
■​ Justice in the minority may write a dissenting opinion
 ●​ Might provide a useful record
1/28: 206-209 (Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Decision Making to
End of Ch. 6)
●​ 6.5 Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and Judicial Decision Making
○​ The worry is that in striking down legislation, the Court “exercises control, not on
behalf of the prevailing majority, but against it.”
■​ This is precisely what President Jefferson warned about when he feared
the judiciary becoming a “despotic branch.”
○​ In upholding the will of the majority, the Court might trample the rights of the
minorities.
○​ Theories of Constitutional Interpretation: Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism
■​ Judicial restraint
●​ Proponents argue that the Court should not use the power of
judicial review too often and should defer to the judgement of the
legislative and executive branches
●​ Dangers of going against majority rule
■​ Judicial Activism
●​ Justices should be willing to overturn laws when necessary
●​ The other two branches of government may make mistakes and
trample over the rights of the people
●​ Power to strike down the will of the majority movies the Court the
power to protect the will of the minority
■​ Judicial activism and restraint not linked to political liberalism or
conservatism
●​ Conservative Courts have used activism to protect the rights of
states and private businesses
■​ In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius the Supreme
Court upheld the provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act (ACA) requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a
fine.
●​ This decision might be viewed as judicial activism because the
Supreme Court broadened the definition of Congress’s power to
tax to include the power to impose fines under the ACA.
●​ The decision might also be characterized as an example of judicial
restraint because the Supreme Court deferred to Congress in
upholding the ACA.
○​ Supreme Court and PolicyMaking
■​ Limitations on the Power of the Supreme Court
●​ Legislative and Executive branches that serve as a check on the
power of the federal judiciary.
●​ President nominates justices, Senate confirms them
●​ Congress can write legislation modifying the effect of a Supreme
Court decision
●​ In 1832, near the end of his long term as chief justice, John
Marshall once again went toe to toe with a president—this time
with Andrew Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia.
 ○​ The case focused on which level of government, state or
federal, had authority over the treaties and laws covering
Native American territories in the United States.
○​ Samuel Worcester, a missionary, had been arrested under a
Georgia law for “residing within the limits of the Cherokee
Nation without a license” and was convicted and sentenced
to “hard labour in the penitentiary for four years.” The
Supreme Court ruled that the federal government, not the
states, had authority over Native American territories and
declared the Georgia law to be unconstitutional.
○​ Marshall sought to protect the rights of Native Americans
secured by the treaties governing their autonomy. President
Jackson, who, according to one historian, “had almost as
little regard for the Supreme Court” as he had for Native
Americans, is reported to have exclaimed, “Well, John
Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
○​ Georgia continued to enforce its laws, and Jackson pursued
his destructive policies toward the Cherokee Nation. This
historical example is one of the relatively rare instances
when a president defiantly refused to enforce a decision by
the Supreme Court.
■​ Even when other branches don’t openly defy the Supreme Court, their lack
of support of its rulings can limit their power.
■​ Although Justices are appointed for life, they still have to worry about
public opinion.
○​ Supreme Court and Controversial Issues
■​ They can bring stability to controversial national-level issues.
●​ Ex: legalized same-sex marriage
■​ Justices are not that political since no need to worry about reelection.
●​ But their personal views may affect their decisions.
■​ In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton—a proponent of a strong
national government—tried to reassure skeptics during the ratification
debates that the Court was neither too political nor too powerful.
●​ Compared to the legislative and executive branches, the power of
the federal judiciary in national policy making is much less
obvious. It cannot write laws, and it has no army. It has only the
power of its decisions and the willingness of the people and the
members of the other two branches to respect its decisions.