Barron v. Baltimore (1833) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Barron v. Baltimore to Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

2019-10-18T08:25:01Z

Admin moved page Barron v. Baltimore to Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Admin at 05:10, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T05:10:02Z

Admin at 19:10, 13 July 2018

2018-07-13T19:10:30Z

Admin at 19:09, 2 July 2018

2018-07-02T19:09:32Z

Morgannoel18 at 07:43, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T07:43:11Z

Admin at 15:26, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:26:23Z

Admin at 15:20, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:20:46Z

Nicole at 17:17, 23 January 2017

2017-01-23T17:17:27Z

Nicole: Created page with "During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicini..."

2017-01-23T17:12:41Z

Created page with "During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicini..."

New page

During the course of paving streets and performing other civic
improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the
city’s harbor in the vicinity of John Barron’s deep-water dock. The area around the dock
subsequently became filled with silt, resulting in the virtual destruction of the dock’s
economic value. This action by the City of Baltimore, Barron argued, violated the Just
Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which forbids the
taking of private property for public uses without just compensation. Barron therefore
sued the City of Baltimore demanding the compensation to which he believed he was
entitled under the Just Compensation Clause. Having ultimately lost his suit in the
Maryland courts, Barron then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous
Court, noted that the issue raised in Barron’s case was “of great importance, but not of
much difficulty.” This was so, he said, because it was well understood that the Bill of
Rights had been added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 because of fears that the national
government would encroach upon basic liberties of the people. The rights in the Bill of
Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Marshall continued,
were therefore restrictions of the power of the national government alone, and
were not applicable as restrictions of the powers of the state and local governments. Since
under this interpretation, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation
Clause, were restrictive of the powers of the City of Baltimore or the State of
Maryland, Barron’s case was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction.
As a result of the decision in Barron v. Baltimore, prior to the Civil War the rights in
the Bill of Rights could only be validly invoked in challenges to exercises of power by the
national government, and not exercises of power by state and local governments. Following
the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution,
however, the decision in Barron v. Baltimore was modified, since the Supreme Court between
1897 and 1969 interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to apply most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights as restrictions of the powers
of state and local governments. Among the rights made so applicable to the states is the
right to just compensation for private property taken for public uses, which the Supreme
Court held to be guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in
1897.

Richard C. Cortner

SEE ALSO: Fourteenth Amendment; Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights; Marshall, John; Slaughterhouse Cases; Takings Clause: Fifth Amndment

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 17 July 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:

	As a result of the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'', prior to the Civil War the rights in the Bill of Rights could only be validly invoked in challenges to exercises of power by the national government, and not exercises of power by state and local governments. Following the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'' was modified, since the Supreme Court between 1897 and 1969 interpreted the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to apply most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights as restrictions of the powers of state and local governments. Among the rights made so applicable to the states is the right to just compensation for private property taken for public uses, which the Supreme Court held to be guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1897.		As a result of the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'', prior to the Civil War the rights in the Bill of Rights could only be validly invoked in challenges to exercises of power by the national government, and not exercises of power by state and local governments. Following the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'' was modified, since the Supreme Court between 1897 and 1969 interpreted the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to apply most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights as restrictions of the powers of state and local governments. Among the rights made so applicable to the states is the right to just compensation for private property taken for public uses, which the Supreme Court held to be guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1897.
		+
		+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|-
		+	\| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
		+	Brendan J. Doherty, “Interpreting the Bill of Rights and the Nature of Federalism: Barron v. City of Baltimore,” ''Journal of Supreme Court History'' 32, no. 3 (November 2007): 211–28; Daniel J. Elazar, “Constitutional Rights in the Federal System,” ''Publius: The Journal of Federalism'' 22, no. 2 (1992): 1–3; Jason Mazzone, “The Bill of Rights in the Early State Courts,” ''Minnesota Law Review'' 92, no. 1 (2007): 1-82.
		+	\|}

	==== Richard C. Cortner ====		==== Richard C. Cortner ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 13 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicinity of John Barron’s deep-water dock. The area around the dock subsequently became filled with silt, resulting in the virtual destruction of the dock’s economic value. This action by the City of Baltimore, Barron argued, violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the [[Bill of Rights]], which forbids the taking of private property for public uses without just compensation. Barron therefore sued the City of Baltimore demanding the compensation to which he believed he was entitled under the Just Compensation Clause. Having ultimately lost his suit in the Maryland courts, Barron then appealed his case to the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]].	+	During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicinity of John Barron’s deep-water dock. The area around the dock subsequently became filled with silt, resulting in the virtual destruction of the dock’s economic value. This action by the City of Baltimore, Barron argued, violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the [[Bill of Rights]], which forbids the [[Eminent Domain\|taking of private property]] for public uses without just compensation. Barron therefore sued the City of Baltimore demanding the compensation to which he believed he was entitled under the Just Compensation Clause. Having ultimately lost his suit in the Maryland courts, Barron then appealed his case to the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|U.S. Supreme Court]].

	In ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833), Chief Justice [[Marshall, John\|John Marshall]], writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the issue raised in Barron’s case was “of great importance, but not of much difficulty.” This was so, he said, because it was well understood that the Bill of Rights had been added to the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1791 because of fears that the national government would encroach upon basic liberties of the people. The rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Marshall continued, were therefore restrictions of the power of the national government alone, and were not applicable as restrictions of the powers of the state and local governments. Since under this interpretation, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause, were restrictive of the powers of the City of Baltimore or the State of Maryland, Barron’s case was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction.		In ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833), Chief Justice [[Marshall, John\|John Marshall]], writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the issue raised in Barron’s case was “of great importance, but not of much difficulty.” This was so, he said, because it was well understood that the Bill of Rights had been added to the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1791 because of fears that the national government would encroach upon basic liberties of the people. The rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Marshall continued, were therefore restrictions of the power of the national government alone, and were not applicable as restrictions of the powers of the state and local governments. Since under this interpretation, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause, were restrictive of the powers of the City of Baltimore or the State of Maryland, Barron’s case was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicinity of John Barron’s deep-water dock. The area around the dock subsequently became filled with silt, resulting in the virtual destruction of the dock’s economic value. This action by the City of Baltimore, Barron argued, violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which forbids the taking of private property for public uses without just compensation. Barron therefore sued the City of Baltimore demanding the compensation to which he believed he was entitled under the Just Compensation Clause. Having ultimately lost his suit in the Maryland courts, Barron then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
+During the course of paving streets and performing other civic improvements, the City of Baltimore diverted streams so that they emptied into the city’s harbor in the vicinity of John Barron’s deep-water dock. The area around the dock subsequently became filled with silt, resulting in the virtual destruction of the dock’s economic value. This action by the City of Baltimore, Barron argued, violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the [[Bill of Rights]], which forbids the taking of private property for public uses without just compensation. Barron therefore sued the City of Baltimore demanding the compensation to which he believed he was entitled under the Just Compensation Clause. Having ultimately lost his suit in the Maryland courts, Barron then appealed his case to the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]].
-In ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833), Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the issue raised in Barron’s case was “of great importance, but not of much difficulty.” This was so, he said, because it was well understood that the Bill of Rights had been added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791 because of fears that the national government would encroach upon basic liberties of the people. The rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Marshall continued, were therefore restrictions of the power of the national government alone, and were not applicable as restrictions of the powers of the state and local governments. Since under this interpretation, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause, were restrictive of the powers of the City of Baltimore or the State of Maryland, Barron’s case was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction.
+In ''Barron v. Baltimore'' (1833), Chief Justice [[Marshall, John|John Marshall]], writing for a unanimous Court, noted that the issue raised in Barron’s case was “of great importance, but not of much difficulty.” This was so, he said, because it was well understood that the Bill of Rights had been added to the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1791 because of fears that the national government would encroach upon basic liberties of the people. The rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Marshall continued, were therefore restrictions of the power of the national government alone, and were not applicable as restrictions of the powers of the state and local governments. Since under this interpretation, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Just Compensation Clause, were restrictive of the powers of the City of Baltimore or the State of Maryland, Barron’s case was dismissed by the Court for lack of jurisdiction.
-As a result of the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'', prior to the Civil War the rights in the Bill of Rights could only be validly invoked in challenges to exercises of power by the national government, and not exercises of power by state and local governments. Following the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'' was modified, since the Supreme Court between 1897 and 1969 interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights as restrictions of the powers of state and local governments. Among the rights made so applicable to the states is the right to just compensation for private property taken for public uses, which the Supreme Court held to be guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1897.
+As a result of the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'', prior to the Civil War the rights in the Bill of Rights could only be validly invoked in challenges to exercises of power by the national government, and not exercises of power by state and local governments. Following the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, however, the decision in ''Barron v. Baltimore'' was modified, since the Supreme Court between 1897 and 1969 interpreted the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to apply most, but not all, of the rights in the Bill of Rights as restrictions of the powers of state and local governments. Among the rights made so applicable to the states is the right to just compensation for private property taken for public uses, which the Supreme Court held to be guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1897.
 ==== Richard C. Cortner ====

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 ==== Richard C. Cortner ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Fourteenth Amendment]]; [[Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights]]; [[Marshall, John]]; [[Slaughterhouse Cases]]; [[Takings Clause: Fifth Amendment]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 28 September 2017
Line 9:		Line 9:
	SEE ALSO: [[Fourteenth Amendment]]; [[Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights]]; [[Marshall, John]]; [[Slaughterhouse Cases]]; [[Takings Clause: Fifth Amendment]]		SEE ALSO: [[Fourteenth Amendment]]; [[Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights]]; [[Marshall, John]]; [[Slaughterhouse Cases]]; [[Takings Clause: Fifth Amendment]]

−	[[Category:~~Political/Historical Figures~~]]	+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:25, 18 October 2019
(No difference)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 28 September 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:

	SEE ALSO: [[Fourteenth Amendment]]; [[Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights]]; [[Marshall, John]]; [[Slaughterhouse Cases]]; [[Takings Clause: Fifth Amendment]]		SEE ALSO: [[Fourteenth Amendment]]; [[Incorporation (Nationalization) of the Bill of Rights]]; [[Marshall, John]]; [[Slaughterhouse Cases]]; [[Takings Clause: Fifth Amendment]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Political/Historical Figures]]