Hollingsworth v. Virginia: Difference between revisions
mention Washington, wlink |
→An instance of judicial review: spell out name of journal |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
''Hollingsworth'' was one of the earliest instances of [[judicial review in the United States|judicial review]] by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Eleventh Amendment was affirmed instead of stricken down. ''Hollingsworth'' also may mark the first time that the Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional, assuming that the Court in ''Hollingsworth'' was reading the Eleventh Amendment retroactively to invalidate part of the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]].<ref>Treanor, William. “Judicial Review Before Marbury”, 58 ''Stanford Law Review'' 455, 547 (2005).</ref> |
''Hollingsworth'' was one of the earliest instances of [[judicial review in the United States|judicial review]] by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Eleventh Amendment was affirmed instead of stricken down. ''Hollingsworth'' also may mark the first time that the Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional, assuming that the Court in ''Hollingsworth'' was reading the Eleventh Amendment retroactively to invalidate part of the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]].<ref>Treanor, William. “Judicial Review Before Marbury”, 58 ''Stanford Law Review'' 455, 547 (2005).</ref> |
||
However, there was an even earlier case, ''U.S. v. Todd'' (1794), that also may have held an act of Congress unconstitutional.<ref>Ritz, Wilfred. "United States v. Yale Todd (U.S. 1794)", 15 '' |
However, there was an even earlier case, ''U.S. v. Todd'' (1794), that also may have held an act of Congress unconstitutional.<ref>Ritz, Wilfred. "United States v. Yale Todd (U.S. 1794)", 15 ''Washington & Lee Law Review'' 220 (1958).</ref> In 1800, Justice Chase implied that neither ''Hollingsworth'' nor ''Todd'' involved any unconstitutional federal statute:<ref>''Cooper v. Telfair'', 4 U.S. 14 (1800). Justice Chase did not join the Court until 1796, and so was not on the Court when ''Todd'' was decided.</ref> |
||
{{cquote|It is indeed a general opinion—it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.}} |
{{cquote|It is indeed a general opinion—it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.}} |
||
Assuming that Chase was correct, then perhaps ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' was the first such case. Indeed, [[Walter Dellinger]] has written that the first judicial review of a constitutional amendment (in ''Hollingsworth'') pre-dated the first invalidation of federal legislation (in ''Marbury'').<ref>Dellinger, Walter. “The legitimacy of constitutional change: Rethinking the Amendment Process”, 97 ''Harvard Law Review'' 386, 403 (1983).</ref> |
Assuming that Chase was correct, then perhaps ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' was the first such case. Indeed, [[Walter Dellinger]] has written that the first judicial review of a constitutional amendment (in ''Hollingsworth'') pre-dated the first invalidation of federal legislation (in ''Marbury'').<ref>Dellinger, Walter. “The legitimacy of constitutional change: Rethinking the Amendment Process”, 97 ''Harvard Law Review'' 386, 403 (1983).</ref> |
||
Revision as of 03:12, 19 January 2013
| Hollingsworth v. Virginia | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided February 14, 1798 | |
| Full case name | Hollingsworth, et al. v. Virginia |
| Citations | 3 U.S. 378 (more) 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378; 1 L. Ed. 644; 1798 U.S. LEXIS 145 |
| Holding | |
| The President has no formal role in the ratification of Constitutional Amendments. The Eleventh Amendment governs cases both past and future. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Per curiam | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. V | |
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution and that the Eleventh Amendment was binding on cases already pending prior to its ratification.
Background, rationale, and later discussion by the Court
The attorneys who argued for presidential involvement (and against the constitutionality of the Eleventh Amendment) said: "Upon an inspection of the original roll, it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation."[1] The proposed amendment had been laid before President George Washington merely "for transmission” to the states.[2] The incomplete report by the court reporter fails to reveal the precise reasons for the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in this case, but it is known that none of the earlier amendments had been presented to the president for approbation either.[3]
Article V of the Constitution says: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution" (emphasis added).[3] Congress thus may proceed with the amendment proposal once there is a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and a second two-thirds vote is never necessary according to the decision in Hollingsworth. Justice Samuel Chase wrote that, "The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution."[1]
The question whether the president can veto a proposed amendment was also answered negatively in INS v. Chadha (1983), albeit in dicta:[4]
An exception from the Presentment Clauses was ratified in Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378 (1798). There the Court held Presidential approval was unnecessary for a proposed constitutional amendment which had passed both Houses of Congress by the requisite two-thirds majority. See U.S. Const., Art. V…. We also note that the Court's holding in Hollingsworth, supra, that a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution need not be presented to the President, is subject to two alternative protections. First, a constitutional amendment must command the votes of two-thirds of each House. Second, three-fourths of the states must ratify any amendment.
Hollingsworth remains good law.
An instance of judicial review
Hollingsworth was one of the earliest instances of judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Eleventh Amendment was affirmed instead of stricken down. Hollingsworth also may mark the first time that the Court struck down a federal law as unconstitutional, assuming that the Court in Hollingsworth was reading the Eleventh Amendment retroactively to invalidate part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.[5]
However, there was an even earlier case, U.S. v. Todd (1794), that also may have held an act of Congress unconstitutional.[6] In 1800, Justice Chase implied that neither Hollingsworth nor Todd involved any unconstitutional federal statute:[7]
It is indeed a general opinion—it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point.
Assuming that Chase was correct, then perhaps Marbury v. Madison was the first such case. Indeed, Walter Dellinger has written that the first judicial review of a constitutional amendment (in Hollingsworth) pre-dated the first invalidation of federal legislation (in Marbury).[8]
See also
References
- ^ a b c "Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 378 (1798) (opinion full text)".
- ^ Tillman, Seth. "A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned", Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, pg 1265, 1300 n. 78 (2005).
- ^ a b Currie, David. "The Twelfth Amendment" in Unintended Consequences of Constitutional Amendment, pp. 89-89 (David Kyvig ed., U. Georgia Press, 2000). Many years later, President James Buchanan and also President Abraham Lincoln would unnecessarily sign proposed amendments. See Vorenberg, Michael. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment, p. 210 (Cambridge U. Press, 2001).
- ^ INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (opinion full text).
- ^ Treanor, William. “Judicial Review Before Marbury”, 58 Stanford Law Review 455, 547 (2005).
- ^ Ritz, Wilfred. "United States v. Yale Todd (U.S. 1794)", 15 Washington & Lee Law Review 220 (1958).
- ^ Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. 14 (1800). Justice Chase did not join the Court until 1796, and so was not on the Court when Todd was decided.
- ^ Dellinger, Walter. “The legitimacy of constitutional change: Rethinking the Amendment Process”, 97 Harvard Law Review 386, 403 (1983).