{"title":"少数派报告:约翰·马歇尔和对外国人和煽动叛乱法的辩护","authors":"Kurt T. Lash, Alicia M. Harrison","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.888803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographer Albert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim. The current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work and have successfully lobbied editors of similar collections to remove Marshall's name from the Report. What was once an assumed (if controversial) episode in Marshall's career has disappeared from otherwise exhaustive accounts of his life and work. As in Philip K. Dick's story, Minority Report, an alternate view of events has been unceremoniously erased from the official record. The authors of this article challenge the decision to remove Marshall's name from the Minority Report. Marshall was the only person named at the time as the probable author, and Marshall had both reason and opportunity to draft the Address. The arguments of the Report not only track Marshall's views on the Constitution, they utilize constitutional arguments that were wholly unique at the time and would appear again, almost verbatim, in the future-Chief Justice's constitutional opinions. If Marshall penned this defense of the Acts, then this not only reveals the views of federal power he brought with him to the Supreme Court, it also helps illuminate public reaction to Chief Justice Marshall's nationalist jurisprudence. To his critics, Marshall's construction of federal power in McCulloch echoed the same arguments put forward to defend the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. The historical evidence suggests that not only were the arguments similar, they had flowed from the same pen.","PeriodicalId":205352,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts\",\"authors\":\"Kurt T. Lash, Alicia M. Harrison\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.888803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographer Albert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim. The current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work and have successfully lobbied editors of similar collections to remove Marshall's name from the Report. What was once an assumed (if controversial) episode in Marshall's career has disappeared from otherwise exhaustive accounts of his life and work. As in Philip K. Dick's story, Minority Report, an alternate view of events has been unceremoniously erased from the official record. The authors of this article challenge the decision to remove Marshall's name from the Minority Report. Marshall was the only person named at the time as the probable author, and Marshall had both reason and opportunity to draft the Address. The arguments of the Report not only track Marshall's views on the Constitution, they utilize constitutional arguments that were wholly unique at the time and would appear again, almost verbatim, in the future-Chief Justice's constitutional opinions. If Marshall penned this defense of the Acts, then this not only reveals the views of federal power he brought with him to the Supreme Court, it also helps illuminate public reaction to Chief Justice Marshall's nationalist jurisprudence. To his critics, Marshall's construction of federal power in McCulloch echoed the same arguments put forward to defend the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. The historical evidence suggests that not only were the arguments similar, they had flowed from the same pen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.888803\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.888803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
1799年,弗吉尼亚州众议院的联邦党人少数派提出了一份对《外国人法》和《煽动叛乱法》的长篇辩护。这份少数派报告回应了麦迪逊著名的弗吉尼亚决议,以及弗吉尼亚共和党人指责亚当斯政府超越了联邦宪法赋予的权力。马歇尔的传记作者阿尔伯特·贝弗里奇最初认为是约翰·马歇尔说的,但最近的马歇尔传记要么省略了这一情节,要么否认了贝弗里奇的说法。《约翰·马歇尔论文》的现任编辑从他们的多卷本马歇尔作品集中删除了《少数派报告》,并成功地游说了类似作品集的编辑,将马歇尔的名字从《报告》中删除。马歇尔职业生涯中曾经被认为是一段插曲(如果有争议的话),但现在已经从对他生活和工作的详尽描述中消失了。正如菲利普·k·迪克(Philip K. Dick)的故事《少数派报告》(Minority Report)一样,另一种对事件的看法已被毫不客气地从官方记录中抹去。本文作者对将马歇尔的名字从少数派报告中删除的决定提出了质疑。马歇尔是当时唯一被认为可能是《国情咨文》作者的人,他有理由也有机会起草《国情咨文》。报告中的论点不仅追溯了马歇尔对宪法的看法,而且还利用了当时完全独特的宪法论点,这些论点在未来几乎一字不差地再次出现——首席大法官的宪法意见。如果马歇尔写了这篇为法案辩护的文章,那么这不仅揭示了他带到最高法院的对联邦权力的看法,也有助于阐明公众对首席大法官马歇尔的民族主义法理学的反应。在批评他的人看来,马歇尔在麦卡洛克案中对联邦权力的建构,与为《异形法》和《煽动叛乱法》辩护时提出的论点如出一辙。历史证据表明,他们的论点不仅相似,而且出自同一笔。
Minority Report: John Marshall and the Defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts
In 1799, the Federalist minority of the Virginia House of Delegates produced an extended defense of the Alien and Sedition Acts. This Minority Report responded to Madison's famous Virginia Resolutions and efforts by Virginia Republicans to tar the Adams Administration with having exceeded its powers under the federal Constitution. Originally attributed to John Marshall by biographer Albert Beveridge, recent biographies of Marshall have omitted the episode or rejected Beveridge's claim. The current editors of the Papers of John Marshall omitted the Minority Report from their multi-volume collection of Marshall's work and have successfully lobbied editors of similar collections to remove Marshall's name from the Report. What was once an assumed (if controversial) episode in Marshall's career has disappeared from otherwise exhaustive accounts of his life and work. As in Philip K. Dick's story, Minority Report, an alternate view of events has been unceremoniously erased from the official record. The authors of this article challenge the decision to remove Marshall's name from the Minority Report. Marshall was the only person named at the time as the probable author, and Marshall had both reason and opportunity to draft the Address. The arguments of the Report not only track Marshall's views on the Constitution, they utilize constitutional arguments that were wholly unique at the time and would appear again, almost verbatim, in the future-Chief Justice's constitutional opinions. If Marshall penned this defense of the Acts, then this not only reveals the views of federal power he brought with him to the Supreme Court, it also helps illuminate public reaction to Chief Justice Marshall's nationalist jurisprudence. To his critics, Marshall's construction of federal power in McCulloch echoed the same arguments put forward to defend the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. The historical evidence suggests that not only were the arguments similar, they had flowed from the same pen.