Legal History Midterm

Law

• That which is laid down, ordained, or established

  • is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by a controlling authority, or having binding legal force

  • Solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the state

  • Body of principles, standards, and rules promulgated by government

Appellate Court

• Function is to determine whether the trial court applied the correct law

• ex. supreme court is highest appellate court in US

Certiorari

• To be informed of

  • a writ of common law origin issued by a superior court to an inferior court requiring the latter to produce a certified record of particular case tried therein

  • used to check for irregularities

  • used by SC as a discretionary device to choose the cases that it wants to hear

    • SC gets several thousand requests a year, only hear less than 100

    • need 4 judges to grant this

Civil Law

• The body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth, city has established particularly for itself

• laws concerned with civil or private rights and remedies, as contrasted with criminal law

• Private (individual) wrongs

  • remedy is monetary payment

Common Law

• compromises the body of those principles and rules od action relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from evolving traditions'

  • from judgements and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs

• British common law: precedent, role of judges

• AMerican law follows this, except for Louisiana

• Importance of precedents:

  • law to be fair is to be consistent

  • cons: standards and moral change overtime, maybe they were wrong

Consideration

• the inducement to a contract

  • the cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract

  • the reason or material cause of a contract

  • 2+ parties agree

Equitable vs Moral Consideration

• devoid of efficacy in point of strict law, but are founded on moral duty and may be made the basis of an expressed promise'

• Law/equity: legal situation may have harsh consequences

• Equitable: fairness and justice

• Moral: evaluation of conduct and establishment of rules

Contract (K)

• enforceability of a promise or of mutual promises executory in nature, that is to be carried out in the future

  • An enforceable promise in law

• Require elements: Offer, acceptance, and consideration (exchange of value)

• Formal: may be a written document, classically under seal

• Informal: may be implied from facts of situation, or expressed in speech or writing

Fee

• is an external interest in property; right to inherit and sell'

  • property rights and law

• Fee simple: one person vs joint tenancy or tenancy in common

Jurisprudence

• legal philosophy

  • it is not law but the theories about law, what it should be, and how it (constitution) should be interpreted

  • ex. textualism vs originalism

Originalism

• legal philosophy

• dead constitution

• original intent of the text and the framers

• objective way of interpretation

• Cons: adjustments of social norms, ideas change, seen as too simplistic

  • do we know original intent?

Textualism

• Legal philosophy

• living constitution

• what does the text actually say?

• denotation vs connotation

• cons: words have different meanings, too broad or vague

Natural Law

• System of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which might be discovered by rational intelligence alone

• Said to express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct that have been created through human reason

  • inscest

• law which is so fundamental, seems to be a part of human nature

• can vary culture to culture and fall to bias

• things can change (gay marriage 100 yrs ago vs now)

Privity of contract

• connection or relationship that exists between two or more contracting parties

  • traditionally: regarding a contract, such privity should subsist bw plaintiff and defendant in respect to matter sued upon

  • Currently: the absence of privity as a defense in actions for damages in contract and tort is not admissible bc of states doctrine of strict liability and court decisions

Police powers

• powers derived from the perceived duty of the states to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals od their citizens

standing

• means that a party has sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of the issue

  • only those affected may plead a case in court

Ripeness

• Is a case ripe/developed enough

• trial/appellate court or still in early stages

Mootness

• it is no longer relevant

  • ex. abortion case where term is over

Stare Decisis

• “let the decision stand”

• the idea of precedent, adhering to decided cases

• not to disturb settled points of the law (usually conservative ideal)

• adhere to the law as set forth in prior cases decided by the highest court of a given jurisdiction as long as the principle derived from those cases is logically essential to their decisions , is reasonable, and is appropriate to contemporary circumstances

• precedent is important, must sometimes has to change

  • evolving standards of justice (ie plessy v ferguson)

Tort

• “wrong”

• some invasion of, or interference with, the rights of:

  • persons

  • property

  • reputation

• Civil/private wrong, but can interfere with criminal law

Intentional tort

• conscience choice

  • assault or robbery

Negligence tort

• a breach of a standard of care that causes injury

• To have negligence you must have:

  • standard of care-to you (lifeguard @ beach supposed to save someone drowning)

  • Did they breach that care (lifeguard goes back to shore when someone is drowning)

    • Reasonable person: if lifeguard went back to shore once they realized they’d drown too

  • Was it the legal cause of…

  • Injury (specific injury-physical, reputational, etc)

• MUST PROVE ALL FOUR FOR NEGLIGENCE

Absolute or strict liability Tort

• Liability is imposed regardless of the absence of an intent to harm another or absent negligence

• ex. extremely dangerous activities, coincidence ending in damages, they know the risk

Tort Damages

• nominal: in name only, insignificant

• compensatory: compensation for the injury-put back in the place they were before the negligence

• punitive: punishment

Trial Court

• a court of first instance, which has two functions:

  • to determine the facts of the case (jury determines)

  • To apply the applicable law to those facts (judge determines)

• Ex. district court

• appeal to appellate court

Divine law

from God ie 10 commandments

positive law

• law that society puts forth

• ex speed limit

Criminal law

• public law

• remedy is imprisonment

• beyond reasonable doubt

Canon Law

Law of the church, such as marriage issues

Articles of confederation

• 1781/3-1789

• confederacy among the 13 states -loose bond, weak national authority

• issues: size of states, slavery, central vs decentral power

• States retained soveirgnty

• if federal government was not expressly given a power, it is not implied and does not happen

• each state: 1 vote (unicameral) had to be unanimous which was nearly impossible

• money is given to treasury in proportion to state size

• “League of friendship”

Gibbons vs Ogden (1824)

• Chief Justice Marshall

• Ogden had monopoly on steamboats in NYS water under NY license

• Gibbons operated steamboat from ny-nj under federal license

• Gibbons argue that federal gov have superiority under commerce clause

Question: is navigation commerce? Yes

• navigation is commerce, and this is interstate case, commerce clause states “among the several states”

• congress does not have the power the interfere with intrastate commerce but does have power to interfere with interstate

• regarding concurrent powers of the states? Marshal claims thar once it is interstate, all power to fed

McCulloch v Maryland

Context: Maryland imposed tax of 50,000 on non-state banks (included Bank if US)

• McCulloch, a bank cashier, refused to pay the tax

• Maryland SC help up the tax, McColloch appealed to SC

Question: has congress the power to make a bank? YES and can a state tax a federal institution? NO
Ruling: John Marshall- based on the necessary and proper clause, along with supremacy clause

• expressed vs implied powers

• congress has the power-it is necessary and proper

• “power to tax is power to destroy”

• Law was unconstitutional and void

constitutional convention 1787

• goal was to amend the articles, but they made a completely new document

• Major debates:

  • Randolph ot Virginia Plan: rep based on population-number of free individuals, executive picked by legislature

  • Patterson or NJ plan: representatives drawn immediately from the states, equal representative

  • Compromised with bicameral leg, house and senate

  • 3/5 compromise: 60% of state population would count towards rep

Federalist papers

• Hamilton, Madison, jay

  • 10-madison on republics vs democracies

  • Governet of laws, indirect democracy

  • small system would allow factions to take over

  • 78-role od judiciary-Hamilton

    • issue of judicial review

    • :least dangerous branch”-no influence over the sword pr purse

    • constitution is the fundamental law

    • importance of the amendment process

Hamilton vs Madison on presidential power (1793)

• Hamilton: strong executive power to president, interpreted broadly (such as declaration of war)

• Madison: narrow interpretation, legislative gets powers like declaring war

Declaration of 1776

• Liberal political theory

• grievances of king George the third

  • Hypocrisies of freedom and equality w slaveholders

  • “we hold these truths…endowed by creator…life liberty and happiness”

  • Reflects a lot of what occurred in the glorious revolution

  • asserts that the colonies are free states able to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, etc

Somerset vs Stewart

• King bench in 1772

• Slave from the colonies moved to England and claimed freedom

  • decision freed this person

• This act did not abolish slavery in law (de jure) but essentiually began its demise

• Slavery may be allowed in positive law (human made(, but hard to rationalize in natural law

Early America and Slavery

Was state by state

• PA gradual Abolition ACT (1780): any person of color born after this act is free

• MA Const (1780): universal freedom-abolished slavery in 1783

• VA manumission act (1782): could free a slave, but they then had to leave the state

• NC statute on slave murder (1791): allows many actions against a slave to be admissible, but outlawed some

Early America and religious freedom

Varied greatly from state to state, with some states only accepting protestants

• Virginia statute for religious freedom written by Jefferson, religious freedom for all religions, no state church

• New Hampshire Constitution: religious tests, only protestants could be senators, house, counsel, state official, etc

Northwest ordinance (1787)

• mostly written by Jefferson

• Religious liberty

• protection of native lands

• Describes how states come into the union:

  • population minimums, outlaws slavery in new states, grid system for land purchase, finances for infrastructure, land was used as soldier payment

Sedition act (1788)

• Under president adam

• incorporated the common law of seditious libel into federal law

• criminalized criticism of president or congress

• clear violation of the 1st amendment

Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (1788-89)

• States rights, decentralized power

• says sedition act should be void, and any other laws in violation with the amendments are void

• the federal government should not break the pact created by the constitution

Revolution of 1800

• First peaceful transfer of power

• Election was a “contest of opinion”

• minority possesses their equal rights -”to violate would be oppression”

• support of state rights and their governments

• peace at home and abroad

Judiciary Act of 1789

• Supreme court with 6 justices, district court for each state

• provided power for lower courts

Livingston vs John Ingen (1812)

• steamboat monopoly given between ny and Albany via state statute

• was upheld in the case, some concurrent powers, both federal and state can do

  • court says navigation-state has concurrent power w federal

Marbury vs Madison (1803)

• Midnight appointments, Madison refuses to complete them

• Marbury petitions a mandamus to the SC

Question of the case:

• does Marbury has a right to his commission? Yes!

• do the laws offer a remedy? yes

• Can the SC issue a Mandamus? NO

Reasons:

• john marshal cites the judiciary act-gives SC limited original jurisdiction

• the mandamus going immediately to SC-not under their jurisdiction (an appellate court)

• Marshal then asserts judicial review as a fundamental principle of the court-if a law goes with or against constitution

• court is bound the supreme instrument (constitution)

Dartmouth college vs woodward (1819)

• Dartmouth established as a private school

• NH wants to make it state school in 1816 law

question: does this act violate the constitution/does it break previous contract

Decision:

• contract is protected and was impaired under the state law

• case lays out the protection and limitations of corporations

Charles River Bridge vs Warren Bridge (1837)

• Charles: toll bridge between Charlston and Boston

• Warren: toll free bridge to revert to state

Question: Could state create new corporations that may compete w or destroy vested interests of existing corp

Decision: By justice Taney

• private property vs public good

• community has rights 

• no expressed or implied limitations in the original charter-did not stop from making a second bridge 

• restricting this would limit progress 

commonwealth v Hunt:

MA case about a labor union threatening to quit if owner hired non-union, were prosecuted for conspiracy

• Issue: were labor unions constitutional-yes!

• ruled in favor of the union, argued for existence of unions (just is MASS) but became a precedent for many other states 

• Unions are legal as long as they actions are legal and they were exercising their rights to who they want to work for 

Farwell v boston and worcester RR comp

• MA court

• Facts:

  • Farwell: engineer for RR

  • train derailed bc of switchman. employee failed to do job

  • seeking damages for injuries 

• Issue:

  • is employer liable for injuries sustained due to negligence? NO

• Reasoning:

  • Fellow servant rule-assume the risk when you enter a job

  • engaged in common employment

  • employer has a duty to take precautions, have safety measures, but cannot guarantee it

Van ness v Pacard

• Facts:

  • Pacard: erected building on land rented from Vanness but removed building before lease expired, vanness sued for trespass

• Question: is common law precedent on trespass valid in America? NO

• reason:

  • precedents in English common law are not “taken in all respects to be that of america”-adopt only what makes sense to american circumstances

  • Pacards has a right to remove, bc they want people to make improvements

Barron V. baltimore (1833)

• John marshall-a departure from his generally nationalist ideology

• Facts

  • water level dropped making barrons land unreachable, sued city for taking property

  • argued for compensation under the 5th amendment

• Question: does 5th amendment apple to actions taken by local or state gov? NO

• Constitution is for the people, not for the state government, SC has no jurisdiction over this case

• Established that bill of rights only applied to federal gov-until 14th 

Water rights

• East: Cary v Daniels-established that both parties take into account the rights of the other person

• West: Irvin V Phillips -upholds prior appropriation (first time first in right) for water rights in the west

Buyers rights law

• Seixas v woods: NY (1804) Valuable wood purchased ended up being cheap, sexias wanted refund

  • Is there implied warranty to buyers of frduct is unknowingly different? no!

  • no expressed or implied warranty in this case

  • buyers must rely in caveat emptor-let the buyer beware, aka its the buyers responsibility

• McFarland vs Newman: PA 1839 Bought a colt and tuend oit it had incurable disease

  • This case riled that he was liable is there is material misrepresentations, even under caveat emptor

• Icar vs Suares (LA) 1835

  • the case of a slave 

  • Louisiana, follows french law so doesnt follow caveat emptor

  • burden is on the seller

Spencer v Campbell (1845)

• PA

• defective steam boiler exploded, killing campbells horse

  • sued for trespass-tort before tort was a thing

  • spencer claimed he didnt know, so he couldnt be held liable

  • Court rules that he WAS held liable, was a question of knowledge and responsibility to customers

  • legal duty to provide safe machinery

Brown v Kendall (1850)

• MASS case

• dogs fighting, person hits other with stick on accident

• a question of negligence

• what was the duty of care

  • reasonable person: reasonable care to help solve the problem-ordinary level of care

• Contributory negligence: if victim contributed in any way to negligence, could not recover or get compensation

• Comparative negligence: more relaxed-75/25 (who’s more at fault)

Tort-fire

• Ryan v NY Central rr company (1866) NY-syracuse house destroyed by fire, issue of negligence, whether the company is liable

  • results: not liable, was not proximate damage (legal causation), but remote damage

  • an issue of natural consequences-house was further down from scene of fire

• Fent vs. Toledo (1871) similar situation, but rejects previous case, since it is in a different state

  • question of care, and of foreseeability: if it was reasonably foreseeable that this would be the effect of an action

Abuse/murder of Slaves

• State v Mann (NC 1829)-Renter was the acting owner of the slave, in a slave society, master must have absolute power (extreme violence that happened to result in death was okay)

• Souther v Commonwealth (VA 1851)-Owner can be held liable for killing a slave if they had intent or extreme malicious action (still only 5 years-manslaughter)

• State v Hoover (NC 1839)-murder of the slave so cruel he was hanged

Fugitive slave/freed slave law

• Mitchell v wells (Mississippi 1859)-Wells is freed slave given property and money as an inheritence from her former master, Mitchel refused to give her the money, claiming she is still a slave

  • court ruled that she was still a slave, court dissent claimed that they should respect the masters wishes

• Prigg v Pennsylvania (US 1842) Morgan was a freed slave, lived as a freed woman, was captured by widow of former master who claimed her still under fugitive slave act of 1973

  • Issue: Is fugitive slave act constitutional? yes

    • power to execute laws on this subject are exclusively given to the federal government-states cannot interfere at all

    • PA laws restricting fugitive slave capture were unconstitutional;

    • Dissent Taney-believed states should be able to interfere to help capture slaves (connects to his state rights ideology)

Dred Scott

• was enslaved by John Emerson, was moved from slave states to free states, claimed his freedom

• Issue: Is a person who was born a slave and later taken by his owner to live in a free state with the intent of becoming a permanent resident considered a citizen of the United States including the rights and privileges of the Constitution? No.

• Roger taney gave the decision: stated that scott could not sue in sc bc her was not a citizen

• claimed that black inhabitants, freed or enslaved, could not be citizens of the united states

• Court went out of its way to make this claim (dicta)

  
  

Nullification and seccession

SC ordinance of nullification (1832)

• declaring something void: was on the issue of the tariff of abominations

• sc stated that the law violated the sovereignty of the state, declared it null and void

Proclamation of Jackson (December 1832)

• argues against this ordinance-supremacy clause

• previously contested taxes were dealt with in court

• nullification jeopardized the union

• social compact

Secession of SC (1860)

• almost entirely about slavery

• in the document, slavery is almost the entire argument: fugitive slave clause, right to property, etch

Lincoln impact

First Inaugural address (1860):

• Had no plans to end slavery, he did not have the presidential power to do so

• main focus is preserving the union-it is perpetual, u cant leave

• this war wont start unless the south starts it

Emancipation proclamation (1863):

• after battle of antitem, tide was turning

• freed slaves in confederate states as a “fit and necessary war measure”

• Military measure as commander in chief to weaken the confederate states and encourage freedman to fight for the union

• made slavery at the forefront if the fight, if it hadn’t been before

Secon inaugural (1865)

• Slavery was the cause of war

• religious terms to unify, binding nations wounds

• consilatory peace

Reconstruction cases

• 13, 14, 15 amendments, economic repair, Johnson impeachment, end of reconstruction and intro of jim crow

• Articles of impeachment: March 1868

  • violation of office tenure act-was decided as a high misdemeanor, only one vote short of removal 

• Civil rights act of 1866: In reaction to black codes in the south restricting black liberties

  • Expanding citizenship overriding Dred Scott decision

  • was later added to constitution via 14th amendment

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

• First case under the 14th amendment (privileges and immunities clause)

  • state claimed that they were using police powers to protect the privileges and immunities of citizen

  • issue of the 14th amendment

• court upheld the law

• The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to federal citizenship rather than extending to state citizenship.

  • claimed that 13-15th amendment did not shift power to federal government (it really did tho)

  • states that privileges and immunities of national citizens are quite limited and states have powers to restrict and expand these

• Dissent: argued for a more expansive view of the amendments, giving congress the power to enforce them

• major setback for individual liberties, esp for black americans

Roberts v city of boston

(1850 MA)-black child had to travel long distance to get to all black school-dad sued

• court ruled in favor of the city

• said commitee/school gets to regulate who goes where

• prejudice created by the segregated schools is social, not legal

Plessy V ferguson

• 1896-upheld institution of segregation, upholding that separate facilities are not inferior

• Plessy purposely entered white only car to protest separate car act-sued based upon 13th and 14th amendment (equal protection clause)

• decision: given by justice brown

  • stated that 14th amendment “could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color

  • cites boston v roberts-despite this being an overturned state case

  • says facilities were separate but equal-WRONG

• dissent: justice Harlan (former slaveholder): said original intent of amendment was to “protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom” and that constitution is “colorblind”

Native lands

• Cherokee Nation v Georgia (1831) SC case

  • question of whether the Cherokee nation could sue as a foreign nation

  • court ruled that they could not, and case was dismissed

  • was cited as not being a foreign nation, rather a dependent nation to the US, citing commerce clause

• Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: altered agreement between US and native Americans, lone wolf sued

  • decision was against lone wolf, followed the idea of the US as a father figure to natives (negative paternalism)

Yick Wo v Hopkins 

• 1886 Supreme court case

• concerned an ordinance which required acceptance to operate laundry businesses in wood buildings

  • rejected all Chinese applicants

  • Yick Wo sued under the 14th amendment

• Court ruled that it did violate the 14th amendment,

• the ordinance, tho legal under the police powers (to prevent fires) was being implemented in biased way

• 14th amendment covers all individuals within the united states, not just citizens

US v Wong Kim Ark

• 1898 Supreme court case

• Ark born in US to chinese parents, traveled to china and was denied entry returning to the united states

• writ of habeous corpus given

• Question: is person born on american soil to immigrant parents a US citizen? YES

  • cites English common law and legislative history in the united states

Oregon vs Charley Lee Quong

• Oregon SC

• Murder case

• at trial court, jury was told to disregard testimony by chinese witnesses

• oregon sc ruled that jury has to interpret the facts, and judge was trying to sway these facts

California v Pablo de la Guerra

• 1870 California Supreme court case

• Guerra was granted citizenship under treaty of Hildalgo, was elected judge 

  • kimberly contested

• Court ruled: under treaty, he had right to claim either US or mexican citizenship

  • Since he did not claim mexican citizenship, he is a US citizen bc u have to be a citizen of somewhere

19th C womens rights cases

Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) US SC, Bradwell was denied entrance to the bar exam as a woman

• sued under 14th amendment (privileges and immunities clause)

• similar to slaughterhouse cases, court distinguishes between federal and state citizenship

• she is a citizen, but each state can determine qualifications for bar, and access to the bar exam does not fall under privileges and immunities 

Minor vs happerset (1875) US SC-Virginia manor claimed right to vote under privileges and immunities clause of 14th amendment

• issue on whether the 14th amendment allows women the vote in a state that it is outlawed in

• Decision: she is clearly a citizen, but the right to vote is not a right protected for citizens and not implied with citizenship

  • cites 15th amendment, was added to give vote for black men

Marriage cases

Waldron v Waldron (1890)-California SC, Mrs Waldron trying to divorce for extreme verbal cruelty when husband was drunk

• can a divorce be granted on extreme cruelty for only verbal abuse?

• Yes, but not in this case

• cited that the wife provoked husband and added to issue, so she is partly at fault

• also makes distinction bw private and public abuse-since this was private, not as bad (literally crazy statement)

Wightman v Coates (1833 MA SC)-breach of promise to marry, letters proving promise to marry wightman

• Cana  broken promise to marry be the basis for a lawsuit seeking damages? YES

• a question of implied vs expressed promise

  • doesn’t need to be expressed, the promise was implied through the letter

• woman removed herself from society to court this man, so she is liable for the damages caused-importance of Mariage for success for women at the time

Reynolds v United States

• 1879

• reynolds practicing polygamy under religion (morman) but was illegal in the united states

  • argued for protection under the 1st amendment

• Issue: whether religious belief be accepted as justification of overt act made criminal by law of the land?

• Decision: No, they are not the exception

  • in common law monogamy is norm

  • laws are made for actions

  • laws cannot interfere with beliefs but can interfere with actions

    • ex. human sacrifice as religious practice

BC and abortion

• much of 1800s, abrotion was legal before quickening (when fetus began to move- 4/5 months)

• began to switch in late 19th early 20th c

State v Slagle (1880 NC) defendant gave drug to bryson to create a miscarriage

• court moved away from old common law rile and became more strict

• Abortion was made illegal earlier, quickening rule was no longer

People v sanger (1918 NY) Sanger challenging law that made the sale of contraception and info on contraception illegal

• court upheld the law under police powers of states

• law only allowed exception for married couple to prevent disease, which must be administered by doctor-sanger did not fall under these categories

• was a legislative issue, not a court issue

Criminal law-Inanity

Traditional common law view on insanity as an excuse for a crime was the McNaughten Test-if the person could discern between right and wrong

• State v felter (1868 Iowa SC)

  • Felter did murder his wife, was a question of if he was mentally sound and if he would be legally responsible for the crime

  • result was the irresistible impulse test: if your body and brain is telling you to do it uncontrollably even though you know its technically wrong, you are not necessarily held as responsible

  • Mcnaughten test remained the most popular test tho

Criminal law-self defense

Traditional rule was the duty of retreat (to the wall): if you can escape, must try that first before fighting back

Bill Bell v. state (1885 TX) customer refused to pay for a product, bell stabbed him to death -manslaughter or murder?

• this court rules on a stand your ground: if ur unjustly come upon, you can defend yourself-was a departure from common law based on established tradition of duels in southern US

Henry Shorter v the people (1848 NY) White guy started fist fight, shorter fought back, pulled out knife, white guy ran away but shorter chased huim and stabbed him to death

• shorter argued he had right to use deadly force

• court ruled against him, was attacked with hand, did not give him right to take out knife

• one kid ran away, the threat was gone

Moral isses

People vs Plath (1885 NY)-prostitution

• Plath accused of abducting Katie Kavanaugh for prostitution

• evidence showed that katie went voluntarily, stayed several days, no forceful abduction

• court ruled, than any criminal, however vile, has a right to be tired fairly, and there was not enough evidence against plath

Ex Parte Jackson (1877 US SC)

• comstock act: made mailing of lottery and porn illegal

• Jackson sought a writ of habeous corpus, under 1st and 4th amendment(search and seizure)

• question: was writ legitimate?

  • no, act was constitutional

  • power vested in congress to establish post offices and post roads

• decisions shifted towards a stornger federal police force