Cohosted the event. It is one hour and 45 minutes. Panel withernoons the legacy of John Marshall today, perfectly embodies the mission of the foundation. It is to educate the public about the rule of law and the constitution through the character and services of americas great chief justice. , with professional development, continuing program such as today and through a variety of awareness through this time. Marshall is a chief justice with the National Constitution center curated by our own kevin walsh. Website for out our more information about that exhibit and other events. Look far inve to our legal system today to see if the influence of marshall. I am as eager as you to hear from our scholars on this topic. I am honored to turn over the panel for their introduction to the honorable richard leon a Senior District judge of the states District Court. Judge leon was appointed to the District Court in 2002. While in private practice he irancontra and whitewater investigation. In addition to his Public Service he is a adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University on center and at the George WashingtonUniversity Law school. Thank you so much for being with us here today, judge leon. [applause] judge welcome everyone to the John Marshall institute. That sums it up pretty well. It is great to be back here actually. The less than i was in this beautiful building was with my law firms. This is brought back very fond memories. It is regretful that not many and certainly not many citizens know much about John Marshall other than many say he is a Supreme Court justice. That is very sad. When you consider the impact he has had and still has. My courthouse which is located across from the National Gallery is nextdoor to John Marshall park. Featured in that park is a sculpture of him. Sculptureal of that is in the Supreme Court itself. It is magnificent. I never met him, obviously. If you believe what you read he was a very handsome and imposing person. You can tell that by looking at the sculpture. A practicale person. I remind my court when they walk in the door that you should take note of that sculpture. More importantly they should take note of chief Justice Marshall and his a ternary life. For example i ask them and i would ask you the same did you know that he came from Humble Beginnings . Somewhere he had the drive and him to become a chief justice of the United States. He also have the drive to lead men in battle during the revolutionary war. Waske jefferson who comfortably secure in his manner , he was like washington. He was a member of the virginia ratification convention. He served as a special envoy there. He served as a member of the house of representatives and he was secretary of state for the United States. Those are all positions he covered, we do not know the positions he turned down. Associate justice of the Supreme Court, attorney general of the United States, ambassador to france. It is pretty clear that George Washington, john adams and many of the Founding Fathers the at him as one of the premier members of the coterie godfathers of our country. Things before he became chief justice. Serve as the longest ever chief justice of the Supreme Court and we will talk about the achievements in that realm. There is little question among scholars of his commitment to the law. His commitment to the rule of law and our nation. Many would be more specific in that regard. I think he took the judiciary and elevated it to a truly equal branch of government. A professor at Richmond School at privateworked practice and work for justice scalia. He currently serves on the board of the John Marshall foundation. He will serve for the end of the year. Is a associate from here in town. He has a phd from notre dame. At the law school he is a constitutional fellow. Then we have the six circuit judge on the far left. Have 15 minute presentation, it may be longer than that. That at some point we will start taking questions. [applause] thank you to the James Wilson Institute for joining with us at the John Marshall foundation to put on this event. About howen thought you explain John Marshall and what his legacy is i did some field research. On a plane or a train station and looking to make conversation, said that someone will ask what i do and i say i teach law. Interesting responses to asking who John Marshall is. He was a judge, a lot of lawyers think that he may have been the first chief justice. Earlier today we heard he was third and fourth grade it depends how you count John Rutledge who did not hear any cases but actually held the office. I usually spirit that. Here is how i have come to explain it. I will try to substantiate this through the course of our remarks. Let me put it right up there. In the category of american three builders, there are men who stand out. George washingtons number one, the father of our country. Lincoln, he is the man that held the union together so that our country today is what it is because of him and his understanding of the union. It meant holding us together and taking us through a body civil war. Number three, John Marshall. Wholink between washington served as the first biographer and was looked to as a father figure at valley forge with washington and hamilton. By the way his actual father was there. Through the course of his public career in all three branches of the federal government serving congress, secretary of state and chief justice. Union,e a account of our what it is and what holds us together as people. A government under the law. Reading some of his opinions in late 1880s and early 1820s. After being bored born on the writing allthe time of this later on so that this other frontier lawyer who is a postman in new salem reading all of the papers including Supreme Court opinions. Forming his opinion on the union could carry us through. Invite intended to partly because we can talk about that. So that is one way. When we did the exhibit which hopefully many of you have our pamphlet here, how do we know this story is coming through and we did what the focus not just on what he did while wearing a row. Who was he as a human being. We started with his public career. John marshall subscribed to the public view as a 19yearold lieutenant in the minutemen. Fighting has broken out in lexington and concorde. Partials first lieutenant. The captain is not there. He said you are stuck with me i guess. Then he takes them through his military maneuvers and they do some games. They sat around and talked. That is really the first Public Service that we see with marshall. The minutemen. He lookedeman fearsome. And guns. Omahawks get this. Lettersheck in big bold , liberty or death. Those famous words of Patrick Henry which is father would have heard and related to him back at words thee are the men right on their chest. They meant it. That is what they were facing. Liberty was important to them. He joined the Constitutional Army and ended up in a different unit that his dad. His father is among the founding generation, if you had to ask yourself would you be prefer that particular founder or his dad, i think Thomas Marshall could make a good point. They had 15 children. All of them massively successful in their own way. His own way. He is in a different unit, he is not a lawyer but they pretend he is one. They make him a deputy jack because he was a natural leader with good judgment. He had the ability to acquire knowledge of war and military affairs. There were laws of war that needed to be recognized. There he is. He is fighting. Major engagements. There are accounts of him at valley forge. Many say he is the most well tempered man. His unit, if you go back to the unit was a good health compared to so many others. They knew how to keep them around. If you want to think of his role in baseball we used to have a team captain. He is also the coach and development guide. , a young man of the revolution because this is where his vision comes from. All those jobs he turned down when he said to George Washington i cannot be attorney general of the United States i need to do my Legal Practice when he turns down associate justice he needs to do his Legal Practice. ,e was one of the best lawyers we see Patrick Henry with the liberty or death connection. If you are a wealthy virginia and you could hire the very best lawyer that money could buy you a higher Patrick Henry and John Marshall. They were the dream team. They had these cases together including one that was mentioned earlier a case that he argued in front of the Supreme Court involving the british. , he probablyase would have rejected it. Prominent esteem of federalists who were there at the seat of government. Observe hisd later rise. He says in a autobiographical that he is a rare bird. They had come under the sway of jefferson. James madison had come under the sway of jefferson. So had Patrick Henry he of eventually gets pushed away and so did james monroe who marshall went to school with. So a lawyer from virginia had a statesman. He is in philadelphia for his Supreme Court arguments, he impresses a lot of people. They probably talk a lot about him. When we are in trouble with france and there is a delegation het is going to negotiate talks to marshall. Finally, he says yes. Pretty gooduld do a job. It worked out well for him even though it was a total failed negotiation. They get to france and france does not want to speak with them at all. No, they have Trouble Holding him in some time. They are then made public after he takes up the name and replace them with a letter. This is the xyz affair. Where marshall you may see as a failed negotiations gets turned into a National Hero for standing up to the pretensions of france. So that when he comes back he is hailed as a hero. To see himy comes up when he sails back on the ship. They go down to philadelphia and he is met outside of the city and brought in. They have various celebrations, it shows you they needed a win. There is a funny letter we included where Thomas Jefferson is a little jealous of the attention he is getting. They were less if things go well for him it will not go well for him. Here is a funny letter where visits the hotel he is staying. It online and i encourage you to do so. Marshall he kept his title. You, i wasn to see so lucky to find that you are gone. And says youback can see the superscript. The funny thing is marshall was reputed as that is the one true thing he wrote. It shows you something of the relationship. You go from statesman, he becomes a secretary of state. Not a bad job. All of hamiltons people are getting their own thing. Who doesto marshall hold the position. As secretary of state he receives the letter from the first true chief justice. Marshall is secretary of state receiving a letter where he says no. Essentially the federal court will never amount to anything, that is a paraphrase of the actual words. Orwill never have the Energy Weight fitting a national tribunal. Marshall, io suppose it must be you. He said he will accept respectfully. Ok, last two parts of the exhibit, one was called the transformation of the federal judiciary. Actuallyginning he was right. He was wrong predictably. By the end of the Marshall Court the Supreme Court of United States did have that energy and dignity. Transformation, we can come back to this, this is a attempt to make sure that the judiciary which is stocked by federalists is above politics. Writingludes not just the circuit because they had to. Because the republicans have revealed a judiciary act that allows other people to ride circuit. With a committee that did that. Not just marbury versus madison but imagine testifying at the impeachment trial. That withad to do samuel chase. It was not successful. On the first Supreme Court decision with a state law and constitutional with whom i disagree about many things that i do. He said without marbury if we did not have judicial law it would not be a big deal. Things would fall apart. Transformation did not happen in the early part. This was the time when marshalls former friend and confidante broke apart politically but they always say friends. He was able to get along with everyone. He could disagree without being disagreeable. What i called his disagreeing ability. That is what really marks his old friend is now president in the late 18 hundreds. Someone who has this close relationship is holding the residence when the court is having these complicated issues. Virginia, likeus osborne versus the bank of United States. That was ohios attempt to question the second bank. Saysall never actually there is something fundamentally wrong. Instead, the question was about jurisdiction. Does the court have jurisdiction over the state officials. If they do and you can drag them into court you can make your will follow. With the subset of issues we are decided that. He did not chastise ohio for refusing to take whatever they said as law. That is the golden age of the Marshall Court. If you think what would we call marshall and thinking about where he fits with our constitutional tradition. We dont have a living constitution. What do we have . Living tradition, interpreting that constitution, and in that tradition, like many traditions, the tradition has life in so far as we continually and reinterpret, and classics of that tradition. The tradition of shakespeare is a classic and literature. Of art. Classic works lets say in the world of constitutional statement chip and constitutional law, marshall himself is a classic. Someone whose career, and pronouncements as a judge bear revisiting over time, as we go inward what we do constitutional law, it is argued that marshall is on our side. You know someone is a classic when the structure of discourse part by being, in mantle invoke the of the classic. And let me give you an example, and this can be good or bad. To think about our commerce i didntrisprudence, mention the golden age decisions, and it is an important one, saunders berger ogden aboutversus the steamboat monopoly. This is his interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause raises also to hard, hard questions. They arete 1800s, coming back to the courts. Early 1900s, we are seeing fights over the scope of this power, and ultimately we see changed judicial interpretations in the 1930s. If you are a lawyer for the new win . How do you how do you say that this distinction between direct and indirect effects on congress is art on commerce is artificial, or this distinction between agriculture and mining in commerce, would you win by saying, we are not asking for anything new . We just asking you to go back to what marshall said. Now, they may or may not have been right. Im inclined to think it is a big mistake to think about marshall, as if you can draw a from ogden to fill burn. Can the federal government penalize farmer filburn for im not sure you can dry straight line. In the Administrative State this is not something you can do but to show you the structure of thementation, when professor talks about the First Principles of our jurisprudence, had we know it is our jurisprudence . What you do as you point to marshall, doing it. That is what a classic is. So let me give you a couple of remarks but instead of taking my word for it, let me give you the observations of charles ogden. I think the single best book on marshall, especially for its justicethe great chief John Marshall and the rule of law. The professor edited marshalls papers and spent a lot of time with him intimately, all of his personal papers and things like that. He knows him very well. He says, more than anyone else John Marshall invented american constitutional law, a novel branch of law that brought constitutional interpretation into the ordinary task of. Djudicating lawsuits commonplace has judicial interpretation of the constitution become in our own day, that it easy to miss the significance of this development. It is the assimilation of the constitutional consideration that may be marshalls most enduring legacy. Set ofished the principles that continue to animate our constitutional law. Still, the broader significance of his career may lie less in his interpretations of the his effort tohan infuse constitutional pronouncements with the quality of an ordinary legal judgment. In this way he contri