The entire series with E. G. Marshall narrating the cases are great adjunct studies for students seriously interested in constitutional law. The entire series covers the following cases: Titles in this Series Marbury v. Madison Who determines what the Constitution means: the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President? This 1803 case established the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution. Marshall’s insistence on the principle of "judicial review" of acts of Congress brought him into conflict with President Thomas Jefferson, but established the court’s responsibility. McCulloch v. Maryland How has the Supreme Court reinforced the Constitution’s requirement for a strong federal government? Can the states interfere with or tax the legitimate activities of the federal government? This unpopular decision dealt a blow to states’ rights by reaffirming the validity of the federal government to charter a bank (in Maryland) and striking down the state’s attempts to tax this federally established institution. Gibbons v. Ogden Does the Constitution give the states or Congress the right to regulate commerce? In 1818, a steamboat was ordered to leave New York waters because it had no license to operate within the state. In this case, the Marshall court ruled that the federal government did have the power to regulate commerce and in so doing laid the foundation for a unified American common market. United States v. Aaron Burr: The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 1 The only case in this series not decided by the Supreme Court, this John Marshall decision was handed down in Federal Circuit Court in Richmond, Virginia, in 1807. Once again, it placed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in direct opposition to President Thomas Jefferson. Former Vice President Aaron Burr was being tried for treason; although the evidence against Burr was tenuous, Jefferson, in an address to Congress, had declared him guilty. The three-way struggle between Marshall, Jefferson, and Burr produced dramatic results: a precedent was set for limiting executive privilege; the right of unpopular defendants to a fair trial was established; the constitutional definition of treason was upheld; and Chief Justice Marshall was hanged in effigy. The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 2 The Trial of Aaron Burr, part 3 The conclusion.

This is so fantastic, infinitely better than any modern documentary, real taste and style. Also old footage films are so much more pleasing to watch than the 50k or whatever video quality

even though this video might seem long and kinda boring, it actually helped me a whole lot and i thank u for postin this video up

Awesome video so educational I promise. Very helpful if you’re a law student trying to figure out constitutional law and Marbury. Laws out the arguments on each side either way

Wow how did I miss this channel 😢 but I'm happy to run across it or thank Q for sending me this channel 🎉

Amazing. Replace "National Bank" with "National Health Care," and you have almost the same debate. Nothing new under the sun, so it seems.

Like i always say, What's in the consitution, Stays in the constution.

Save all microscopic babies, animals, and insects. Be Still. Love God with all your heart and soul.

This video is FIRE!!!

Good video 👍 do more videos about who follow the law in the right way , but in their way because the law protect corruption at this time 👍

These actors are money in the bank

can you please explain the analogy. i'm not american and i really want to know why the "bad" side wud choose national health care, like in early america the powerful fed. government sided with the national bank.(if im understanding ur comment)

State rights were how they secured their power and "property" that's why they fought like hell to protect them.

had to turn the captions on...

In the first 100 years of the United States history, there are many analogies with the European Union. I think that, with the exception of sovereignty in international law, the EU is now in the equivalent of the Confederal period 1781-1789 of the United States: no taxing power, prohibitive thresholds for taking common unified decisions, a curtailed legislative chamber and no effective common army. Despite this we have a chief executive, but weak, and a court but with no "supreme law of the land" judicial review over member states' constitutions but only ordinary laws. What Spencer Roane says at 27:55 embodies the exactly same nationalist myopia in every member state of the European Union. The only difference is that we Europeans speak dozens of different languages but otherwise motivations, opinions and rhetoric for which "the local government is better than the distant government" are more or less the same. And they have been defeated by history, not in the fact that states' rights do not exist, but in the fact that unity is important but usually underrated or mistreated. Roane was ultimately wrong: the "appeal to the people" against the Supreme Court could be seen in the Civil War, but it ended in failure.

U do not have to pay taxes its in the Constitution you do not have to pay property tax or any kind of taxes

At 17:57, the actor playing Marshall says "the word and the purse." Shouldn't that be "the sword and the purse"? I think he read the line wrong.

Federal government is not supreme the Constitution is supreme

While of course a rather dull video that shows its age and most likely to be enjoyed by nerds such as me who like to get deep in US History and the Constitution, mainly done for educative purposes rather than sole entertainment, I really must commend Marshall's actor in his final scene by showing and not telling the bulk of personal emotions that may have been stake in the whole matter beyond the constitutionality argument. We can not be sure that if that conversation or anything like it happened, but is one of those instances where the performance and script was well done enough that I WISH it happened. It showcases that Marshall, the great precedent setter, the champion of strong Federal State was as human and emotional as any man who would've survived his journey, and beyond the express ideas he outlined and our fair objections we may have, we ought to at the same time try to be empathetic with that whole generation if we wish to end with a fair judgement, not for them, but for us.

This country would have fallen apart long ago, if politically brilliant decisions like this did not preserve the Union, initially fragile and weak .

Studying for AP Gov be like

So...this is the famous 1816 McCulloch v. Maryland trial.

Paper is no good its supposed to be gold or silver

broading ever seen in my life