Search Results

James Iredell: Revolutionist, Constitutionalist, Jurist

Willis P. Whichard

in North Carolina's Revolutionary Founders

This essay examines the public career of James Iredell, who was probably Revolutionary-era North Carolina’s most influential propagandist. His first published essay, which appeared in September 1773, ... More

This essay examines the public career of James Iredell, who was probably Revolutionary-era North Carolina’s most influential propagandist. His first published essay, which appeared in September 1773, defended the jurisdiction of colonial courts in the foreign attachment controversy, and he was one of the first Whig writers to reject the sovereignty of Parliament in America. During the Revolution, Iredell continued to write on behalf of the American cause, but financial woes limited his political activities. During the debate over the ratification of the Constitution, however, Iredell emerged as one of North Carolina’s most energetic Federalists, and George Washington rewarded him with an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Like many southern Federalists, Iredell supported the new government, but was wary of pushing federal power too far, and in his best known opinion, a dissent in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), he argued that a state could not be sued in federal court without its consent.Less

1793: The Supreme Court and the Metaphysics of Sovereignty

in A Community Built on Words: The Constitution in History and Politics

The Supreme Court's first great constitutional decision, indeed its first important decision of any sort, was also its first great misstep. On February 18, 1793, the Court held in Chisholm v. Georgia ... More

The Supreme Court's first great constitutional decision, indeed its first important decision of any sort, was also its first great misstep. On February 18, 1793, the Court held in Chisholm v. Georgia that Article III of the Constitution gave it jurisdiction over an action for damages brought against a state by a citizen of another state. The Court's decision provoked swift and decisive repudiation. Less than a year after the Court announced its judgment, Congress approved a constitutional amendment intended to overturn Chisholm, and within a year the necessary supermajority of states had concurred in Congress's proposal. In February 1798, five years after Chisholm, the Court took note of the eleventh amendment, and held that it eliminated the Court's jurisdiction over all actions against states, including those like Chisholm itself that were filed before the amendment's ratification. Chisholm's continuing significance is limited to the light it sheds on the amendment that overruled it, and indeed that is how the justices of the current Court, and most constitutional lawyers, understandably view it.Less

Conclusion To Govern Ourselves in a Certain Manner

in Constitutional Conscience: The Moral Dimension of Judicial Decision

The Supreme Court's first great constitutional decision, Chisholm v. Georgia, was also its first great public relations disaster. Chisholm held that Article III authorized the Court to exercise ... More

The Supreme Court's first great constitutional decision, Chisholm v. Georgia, was also its first great public relations disaster. Chisholm held that Article III authorized the Court to exercise jurisdiction over a state at the suit of a citizen of another state; within two years of the decision, the cumbersome amendment process of Article V had overturned the decision through what is now known as the Eleventh Amendment. This chapter raises what it believes to be the most fundamental question about American constitutionalism: is it a good idea? American constitutional law has permitted great evil at times—one need only think of slavery. And the U.S. constitutional law does privilege, for some purposes, the decisions of a professional elite headed by the Court. The Constitution, and the practices that give it life, offer no guarantees: they are an experiment, one that rests political community on a law and a politics that must be informed by the conscience of those who make up, and speak for, that community.Less

What is the Point of Preambles (in Contrast to the Rest of a Constitution)?

Sanford Levinson

in Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance

This chapter asks why so many drafters of constitutions believe that it is essential to include preambles. It first considers the legal status of constitutional preambles, including the Preamble to ... More

This chapter asks why so many drafters of constitutions believe that it is essential to include preambles. It first considers the legal status of constitutional preambles, including the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, focusing in particular on the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793). It then discusses the “non-legal” functions of constitutional preambles, with special reference to concepts of national identity, religious identity, and nationalism. It also examines whether people share the visions instantiated in a particular preamble.Less