The life and times of John Marshall (1755 - 1835) make for exceptional reading. Although detailed and carefully researched, this excellent biography/history book/study of early constitutional law is written in an enjoyable, non-academic style. In addition to its captivating treatment of the revolutionary war, the evolution of basic governmental structures, and the Nation's other critically important early leaders, the book weaves together a nearly first-hand account of the foundations of the U.S. Supreme Court and its earliest and most enduring decisions.

Marshall was the 4th and longest serving Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In his 34 years as Chief Justice, he personally shaped U.S. constitutional law, forged the Supreme Court into a strong and independent institution, and defined the powers of the federal government. He swore in presidents Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Adams, and Jackson. And those were just the last 35 years of his life.

As a young man, he fought bravely in several key battles of the Revolutionary War, wintering at Valley Forge in 1777. He became acquainted with General George Washington and the two thereafter held each other in very high regard. On the state level, Marshall served in the Virginia House of Delegates and on the Virginia Counsel of State. Respected as a lawyer and state politician, he was appointed to serve as a delegate to the Virginia convention tasked with accepting or rejecting the United States Constitution and was instrumental in fighting for its ratification.

Marshall's pre-Supreme Court contributions to the Federal government were also significant and interesting. In 1797, President Adams appointed him to a three person delegation to negotiate with France, an unusual episode that came to be called the "XYZ Affair." French ministers spent the better part of a year trying to extort huge bribes from Marshall and his colleagues. News of Marshall's steadfast refusal to pay the bribes preceded his return from Paris and he was received home as an American hero. In 1799 he was appointed the Nation's 4th Secretary of State. That same year, he reluctantly ran for and won a seat in the House of Representatives in a district heavily favoring the other party.

Over the years, Marshall's dedication to his law practice (and need for income) caused him to graciously decline several appointments, including Minister to France, Attorney General of the United States, Secretary of War and even an earlier Supreme Court position. Despite his many other commitments, Marshall felt compelled to write the first biography of his hero George Washington - a well-received five volume set that today is condensed and marketed as a single volume. Marshall delivered the eulogy at Washington's massive memorial service. Lastly, but worth noting, the famous crack in the Liberty Bell occurred while ringing in honor of Marshall's passing.

Next to George Washington, he may be the most important and most admirable of all our founding fathers.

The life and times of John Marshall (1755 - 1835) make for exceptional reading. Although detailed and carefully researched, this excellent biography/history book/study of early constitutional law is written in an enjoyable, non-academic style. It brings to life the historical context of the Marshall's times - the all-important formative years of the United States. In addition to its captivating treatment of the revolutionary war, the evolution of basic governmental structures, and the Nation's other critically important early leaders, it is also fundamentally a book about the foundations of the U.S. Supreme Court and the early, critical Supreme Court decisions that helped shape constitutional law as we know it.

Marshall was the 4th and longest serving Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court . In his 34 years as Chief Justice, he personally shaped U.S. constitutional law, forged the Supreme Court into a strong and independent institution, and defined the powers of the federal government. He swore in presidents Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Adams, and Jackson. But that's just the last 35 years of his life.

As a young man, he fought bravely in several key battles in the Revolutionary War, wintering at Valley Forge in 1777. He became acquainted with General George Washington and the two held each other in very high regard. On the state level, Marshall served in the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Counsel of State. Because of his respected performance in state politics, he was appointed to be a delegate to the Virginia convention tasked with accepting or rejecting the United States Constitution and he was instrumental in fighting for its narrow ratification.

Marshall's pre-Supreme Court contributions to the Federal government were also significant and interesting. In 1797, President Adams appointed him to a three person delegation to negotiate with France, an unusual episode that came to be called the "XYZ Affair." French ministers spent the better part of a year trying to extort bribes from Marshall and his colleagues. News of Marshall's steadfast refusal to pay the huge bribes preceded his return from Paris and he immediately became an American hero. In 1799 he was appointed the Nation's 4th Secretary of State. That same year, he reluctantly ran for and won a seat in the House of Representatives in a district that heavily favored the other party.

Over the years, Marshall's dedication to his law practice (and need for income) caused him to graciously decline numerous appointments, including Minister to France, Attorney General of the United States, Secretary of War and even an earlier Supreme Court position. Despite his many other commitments, Marshall felt compelled to write the first biography of his hero George Washington - a well-received 5 volume set that today is condensed and marketed as a single volume. Marshall delivered the eulogy and Washington's massive memorial service. Interestingly, the famous crack in the Liberty Bell occurred while ringing for on honor of Marshall's passing.

Next to George Washington, he may be the most important and admirable of all our founding fathers.

This is a full-length, 500 page biography of the fourth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Marshall. It is superb. It is very detailed, yet easy to read. Smith follows the conventional chronological format for a biography, starting with Marshall's birth, and then describing his life sequentially from his childhood, his education, his youthful service as a light infantry officer in the Revolution, his work as a lawyer, his early political career, his rise to national fame as an envoy to France during the time when the nation almost went to war with France during the Adams Administration, his service as Secretary of State to John Adams and finally his long service for 35 years as the Chief Justice who established the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.

What I find most admirable about this book is its balance. It gives you everything that you want in a biography. It is very scholarly, and very readable. It gives you a very good sense of John Marshall, the human being, but it also fully explains the significance of the events in which Marshall participated. As an example of the human side of Marshall, Smith gives us a very moving picture of Marshall's lifelong love affair with his wife, Polly, starting with the dramatic courtship by the penniless young officer and ending with the 80 year old Chief Justice walking twice a week to visit her grave. As an example of how Smith explains the significance of what Marshall did, not only did Smith explain the key decisions, but he gives the facts on what impact they had. In the steamship case, for example, Smith both explains the legal and political issues and gives the economic statistics on what effect the decision had on trade.

I highly recommend this book, both for the excellence of its writing and the importance of its subject matter. John Marshall is one of the most important people in American history. He was instrumentals in making real the balance of the Constitution envisioned by Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. He was critical in creating the pre-conditions needed for America to be a rich and prosperous nation, with great opportunity for the great majority. Marshall was also a wise and a good man, which shines through on every page of this book. The book is worth reading, finally, as a way to come to know such an extraordinary man.

Not all historians are fine, interesting writers. Fortunately, Jean Edward Smith is a superb writer, making Chief Justice Marshall's long life an interesting, even fun, read. Moreover, the writing paralells the substance contained in the Book. I wish all historical biographies were of this quality. Buy the Book.

This was one of those books I knew I SHOULD read, but its heft put me off for months. When I finally did pick it up, I couldn't put it down.

John Marshall doesn't have the cache or enduring fame that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or many others have - and it's a shame. He formed the institution of the Supreme Court, and in so doing, shaped many of the ways our country (tenuous at the time, mind you) began its journey, and perhaps why we've endured this long.

The author does a fantastic job of painting a picture of life in the day, John Marshall's life and contributions, and how he and others in his era related to each other and the world at large. The cases that came before the early SCourt were fascinating, if only to illustrate the thorny issues and perils of the time. The extent to which he was able to be brilliant, rationale, and to build consensus focused on the original intent and vision for this country is impressive, and sorely needed today.

Funny story - I finally DID start reading this book on the beach in Mexico. Not quite the fluff one typically carries to the beach. The first day, people remarked as such, and by about day 3 or 4, they are saying "wow, you are really making progress on that!" as the bookmark moved steadily towards the back.

Don't wait for the beach - get started!

.....though we can still debate whether he defined it correctly. John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, and remains, one of the absolute giants of our history. Washington fought the battles, Jefferson and Madison composed the theories, but it remained for Marshall to elucidate what it all meant. This is, to my mind, the definitive biography of a titan.

John Marshall was born in what is now Northern Virginia in 1755, the child of a fairly well off family. On his mother's side, he was descended from the famous Randolphs; his father was a surveying associate of George Washington. His dad taught him a love of education and good books that continued all his days. Before embarking on a career in Law, Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, serving with Washington in several major battles. After marriage to young Polly Ambler, he was a law student of the great George Wythe [also the law teacher of Jefferson, and of Spencer Roane] at William & Mary. Successful practice, and politics, soon followed...Marshall served on the Governor's Council, and was the leading advocate for Constitutional ratification in the Virginia convention; his battles with Patrick Henry are the stuff of legend [though they served as co-counsel in several cases]. He was a constant supporter of Washington, served as one of Adams' three ministers to France in the XYZ affair, and was briefly a Congressman and Secretary of State. He it was who said of Washington "First in War...", though he let Light Horse Harry Lee speak the words, and get the credit. In 1801, John Adams made a "midnight appointment" of Marshall to be Chief Justice, preventing the incoming President Jefferson from making his own choice...

For the next 34 years, Marshall solidified Federal power, freely interpreting the interstate commerce clause, and the clause which allows Congress to make enabling legislation. Marbury v. Madison asserted the right of judicial review, and further cases expanded it. He wrote the judicial opinions that remain the basis of Federal centrilization of power to this day. Smith gives great detail of individual cases.

One of Marshall's great strengths, and we shouldn't make light of it, was that he was a nice guy. A sociable host, his friends loved him, but even total strangers could find him thoroughly modest and charming. Quoits, and good Madiera were real passions. Even his enemies [with two profound exceptions] liked him. His basic decency certainly aided his consensus building.....

...the two exceptions were Spencer Roane and Thomas Jefferson. Roane was the son-in-law and political ally of Patrick Henry. A long time neighbor of Marshall, and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, Judge Roane believed completely in States Rights and held the US Constitution to be a voluntary compact of free and independent states that could be broken at will. What Spencer Roane proposed, Jeff Davis disposed... Alas, where Marshall was a prince among men, Judge Roane was of such acid, unpleasant, temperment that even his friends and allies couldn't stand him...

....and then there was Mr. Jefferson. The feud between Marshall and Jefferson is one of the absolute central themes of American history. It was multidimensional...personal, familial, political, philosophical...for about 40 years, the conflict was one of cordial, respectful, dislike; after the Aaron Burr treason trial of 1807, it turned into blind, unreasoning hatred. Part of it was rivalry between branches of the Randolph family; part was Jefferson's civilian service during the revolution while Marshall was in the field; part was publication of a letter to Jefferson from his daughter stating "Mrs. Marshall is insane" [sadly, true]. Mostly, the problem was that Marshall and Jefferson had totally different theories of government and visions of America. [They agreed about religion, though Marshall was a founder of, and regular attender at, Monumental Church in Richmond]. In 1807, Aaron Burr was charged with treason, accused of wanting to set up his own empire. He was tried in Richmond, with Marshall sitting as trial judge. Marshall's friend, neighbor, and occasional law partner John Wickham served as defense counsel, along with the drunken genius, Luther Martin. In what is today generally considered a rigged trial, Burr was acquitted. During this trial, an incident occured that is the only evidence of improper conduct on John Marshall's part that I can find; while Burr was out on bail, Wickham threw a grand dinner party for him. Marshall was invited [not improper], went, and stayed the whole evening. You can well imagine the spin that sympathetic Jefferson biographers put on this; Smith doesn't mention it.

John Marshall was a great and brilliant man; he was also a good and decent man. He had his problems; Polly was an invalid with a combination of physical and mental problems for years...one of his sons was essentially worthless. Thru it all, John Marshall was faithful to both his public and private duties. Now, I'll get personal....my copy of this wonderful book was a Christmas present my wife bought me at the John Marshall House in Richmond. Located at 9th. and Marshall, near the Capitol, it is lovingly maintained by a fine staff of really nice people [the Director even helped me with research for a small biography I wrote of Spencer Roane]. The house, and Marshall's grave in Shockhoe Cemetery a few blocks away, are cared for as monuments to greatness, which they are. The house is nice, but not spectacular; Marshall was a modest, unassuming man [John Wickham's house, two blocks away, IS spectacular]. At the John Marshall House [yes, I contribute financially], and at his grave, I feel awe, intellectual interest, and profound respect; at Monticello, I feel reverence. Maybe I think Jefferson was right about the issues, but I can still look up to John Marshall. If you want to understand America, you need to read this book.

This is the best available biography of Marshall, maybe the best ever. If all you want is case histories, read Hobson; if you want a highly technical biography, read Newmyer; if you want to understand the great cases, AND the great man who decided them, start right here. Newmyer and Hobson wrote fine books, but any intelligent person [not just specialists] can read this one.....

.....though we can still debate whether he defined it correctly. John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, and remains, one of the absolute giants of our history. Washington fought the battles, Jefferson and Madison composed the theories, but it remained for Marshall to elucidate what it all meant. This is, to my mind, the definitive biography of a titan.

John Marshall was born in what is now Northern Virginia in 1755, the child of a fairly well off family. On his mother's side, he was descended from the famous Randolphs; his father was a surveying associate of George Washington. His dad taught him a love of education and good books that continued all his days. Before embarking on a career in Law, Marshall was a soldier of the Revolution, serving with Washington in several major battles. After marriage to young Polly Ambler, he was a law student of the great George Wythe [also the law teacher of Jefferson, and of Spencer Roane] at William & Mary. Successful practice, and politics, soon followed...Marshall served on the Governor's Council, and was the leading advocate for Constitutional ratification in the Virginia convention; his battles with Patrick Henry are the stuff of legend [though they served as co-counsel in several cases]. He was a constant supporter of Washington, served as one of Adams' three ministers to France in the XYZ affair, and was briefly a Congressman and Secretary of State. He it was who said of Washington "First in War...", though he let Light Horse Harry Lee speak the words, and get the credit. In 1801, John Adams made a "midnight appointment" of Marshall to be Chief Justice, preventing the incoming President Jefferson from making his own choice...

For the next 34 years, Marshall solidified Federal power, freely interpreting the interstate commerce clause, and the clause which allows Congress to make enabling legislation. Marbury v. Madison asserted the right of judicial review, and further cases expanded it. He wrote the judicial opinions that remain the basis of Federal centrilization of power to this day. Smith gives great detail of individual cases.

One of Marshall's great strengths, and we shouldn't make light of it, was that he was a nice guy. A sociable host, his friends loved him, but even total strangers could find him thoroughly modest and charming. Quoits, and good Madiera were real passions. Even his enemies [with two profound exceptions] liked him. His basic decency certainly aided his consensus building.....

...the two exceptions were Spencer Roane and Thomas Jefferson. Roane was the son-in-law and political ally of Patrick Henry. A long time neighbor of Marshall, and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, Judge Roane believed completely in States Rights and held the US Constitution to be a voluntary compact of free and independent states that could be broken at will. What Spencer Roane proposed, Jeff Davis disposed... Alas, where Marshall was a prince among men, Judge Roane was of such acid, unpleasant, temperment that even his friends and allies couldn't stand him...

....and then there was Mr. Jefferson. The feud between Marshall and Jefferson is one of the absolute central themes of American history. It was multidimensional...personal, familial, political, philosophical...for about 40 years, the conflict was one of cordial, respectful, dislike; after the Aaron Burr treason trial of 1807, it turned into blind, unreasoning hatred. Part of it was rivalry between branches of the Randolph family; part was Jefferson's civilian service during the revolution while Marshall was in the field; part was publication of a letter to Jefferson from his daughter stating "Mrs. Marshall is insane" [sadly, true]. Mostly, the problem was that Marshall and Jefferson had totally different theories of government and visions of America. [They agreed about religion, though Marshall was a founder of, and regular attender at, Monumental Church in Richmond]. In 1807, Aaron Burr was charged with treason, accused of wanting to set up his own empire. He was tried in Richmond, with Marshall sitting as trial judge. Marshall's friend, neighbor, and occasional law partner John Wickham served as defense counsel, along with the drunken genius, Luther Martin. In what is today generally considered a rigged trial, Burr was acquitted. During this trial, an incident occured that is the only evidence of improper conduct on John Marshall's part that I can find; while Burr was out on bail, Wickham threw a grand dinner party for him. Marshall was invited [not improper], went, and stayed the whole evening. You can well imagine the spin that sympathetic Jefferson biographers put on this; Smith doesn't mention it.

John Marshall was a great and brilliant man; he was also a good and decent man. He had his problems; Polly was an invalid with a combination of physical and mental problems for years...one of his sons was essentially worthless. Thru it all, John Marshall was faithful to both his public and private duties. Now, I'll get personal....my copy of this wonderful book was a Christmas present my wife bought me at the John Marshall House in Richmond. Located at 9th. and Marshall, near the Capitol, it is lovingly maintained by a fine staff of really nice people [the Director even helped me with research for a small biography I wrote of Spencer Roane]. The house, and Marshall's grave in Shockhoe Cemetery a few blocks away, are cared for as monuments to greatness, which they are. The house is nice, but not spectacular; Marshall was a modest, unassuming man [John Wickham's house, two blocks away, IS spectacular]. At the John Marshall House [yes, I contribute financially], and at his grave, I feel awe, intellectual interest, and profound respect; at Monticello, I feel reverence. Maybe I think Jefferson was right about the issues, but I can still look up to John Marshall. If you want to understand America, you need to read this book.

I think it can be argued that, next to Washington, Marshall was the most significant of the whole colonial group, and fortunately, this excellent biography rises to the occasion, telling the story of this truly remarkable American. The best proof of my enthusiasm for the book is that I have already purchased four copies for friends with more undoubtedly to come

The court says what the law is. That simple, now obvious precept comes from John Marshall more than any other founder. Whether the United States would be a fractious loose confederation of competiting states or truly united states with an agreed set of rules was the enormous question of the Revolution. Through bumps and starts, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Monroe, Adams and their less well known but hugely effective partisans proposed conflicting approaches to the way the country would be governed. These men of ideas and politics had to have a final place where their competing philosophies and general beliefs could be hammered into practical law. A trial brings a real problem against the idea behind a law. John Marshall said the Supreme Court was the final place for reconciliation of thought and practice. Marshall thought and wrote with such clarity, reason and discipline that he was able to convince even presidents who disliked him ( he worked with 5 of them), state legislatures and the public that the Court's findings were reasonable and necessary.

America, before and after the Revolution was not in the least united. Civl wars and succession were threatened regularly by competing proponents of individual, state and federal rights --and even who was intended when the "individual" rights were debated. The conflicts about the purpose of government was vastly complicated by the rise of political parties, by partisanship and the explosive growth of an economy and social strata unlike the rest of the world. By the time Marshall was appointed to the bench by John Adams, there was no agreed national philosophy to guide the country's decisions. Marshall said the Constitution was law, not suggestion. Today that fact seems so obvious that it takes a stretch to appreciate what Marshall achieved. His unwavering adherance (and careful avoidance of what he saw as unecessary conflict) to the idea that the president was responsible for politics (guiding national direction)and international relations, congress was responsible for making the laws, and the court was responsible for ensuring that the laws were congruent with the Constitution built the bones of this country.

It cheers me that Marshall, according to Jean Smith (and a shorter biography by Gordon Woods) is nearly the ideal founder that his more famous contemporaries certainly were not. Marhsall was a man of simple, gracious manners, apparently not adept in high scociety, but genial and welcoming in small gatherings who was happy to add Madiera to aid discussion. His open minded and unpretentious approach to others allowed him to obtain unanimous decisions from fellow jurists who were not without ego and ideas of their own. He was astonishingly loyal to a wife who was a recluse. He started as a lawyer and legislator, but withdrew entirely from politics once he gained the bench, and was in fact the honorable, honest and intellectually immense presence that we want our founders to be.
Smith manages to keep this lengthy biography interesting, including informed and clear discussions of the context of the cases, the national temper and the personalities of participants. Smith is political science and law professor (but not a lawyer) with perhaps ten other histories to his credit. I demand a lot from a history(clarity, reason, context, support for argument and even the occasional sense of humor -- and without polemics) and Smith manages to do it all. He clearly is a Marshall fan but, from my other reading, Marshall deserves the respect and honor he gave his county.

The court says what the law is. That simple, now obvious precept comes from John Marshall more than any other founder. Whether the United States would be a fractious loose confederation of competiting states or truly united states with an agreed set of rules was the enormous question of the Revolution. Through bumps and starts, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Monroe, Adams and their less well known but hugely effective partisans proposed conflicting approaches to the way the country would be governed. These men of ideas and politics had to have a final place where their competing philosophies and general beliefs could be hammered into practical law. A trial brings a real problem against the idea behind a law. John Marshall said the Supreme Court was the final place for reconciliation of thought and practice. Marshall thought and wrote with such clarity, reason and discipline that he was able to convince even presidents who disliked him ( he worked with 5 of them), state legislatures and the public that the Court's findings were reasonable and necessary.

America, before and after the Revolution was not in the least united. Civl wars and succession were threatened regularly by competing proponents of individual, state and federal rights --and even who was intended when the "individual" rights were debated. The conflicts about the purpose of government was vastly complicated by the rise of political parties, by partisanship and the explosive growth of an economy and social strata unlike the rest of the world. By the time Marshall was appointed to the bench by John Adams, there was no agreed national philosophy to guide the country's decisions. Marshall said the Constitution was law, not suggestion. Today that fact seems so obvious that it takes a stretch to appreciate what Marshall achieved. His unwavering adherance (and careful avoidance of what he saw as unecessary conflict) to the idea that the president was responsible for politics (guiding national direction)and international relations, congress was responsible for making the laws, and the court was responsible for ensuring that the laws were congruent with the Constitution built the bones of this country.

It cheers me that Marshall, according to Jean Smith (and a shorter biography by Gordon Woods) is nearly the ideal founder that his more famous contemporaries certainly were not. Marhsall was a man of simple, gracious manners, apparently not adept in high scociety, but genial and welcoming in small gatherings who was happy to add Madiera to aid discussion. His open minded and unpretentious approach to others allowed him to obtain unanimous decisions from fellow jurists who were not without ego and ideas of their own. He was astonishingly loyal to a wife who was a recluse. He started as a lawyer and legislator, but withdrew entirely from politics once he gained the bench, and was in fact the honorable, honest and intellectually immense presence that we want our founders to be.
Smith manages to keep this lengthy biography interesting, including informed and clear discussions of the context of the cases, the national temper and the personalities of participants. Smith is political science and law professor (but not a lawyer) with perhaps ten other histories to his credit. I demand a lot from a history(clarity, reason, context, support for argument and even the occasional sense of humor -- and without polemics) and Smith manages to do it all. He clearly is a Marshall fan but, from my other reading, Marshall deserves the respect and honor he gave his county.

What a book and what a topic for a non-lawyer, early American history buff. I actually feel smarter now!

Seriously, Jean Edward Smith does a great job of pulling a tremendous amount of primary source material into a seamlessly integrated biography on US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall. In large part, because of all the primary source quotes, the book reads slowly, but without videos, photographs, and voice recordings, that's the best way to learn about historical figures from that era. Smith's own writing, research, and overall understanding of the material and ability to convey that to the reader is excellent.

I was not aware that John Marshall was so involved in Virginia politics after the War and was asked multiple times by fellow Virginian George Washington to take on major positions, only to be rebuffed. He was so highly admired even before he entered the Supreme Court. So, the first 300 pages cover Marshall's career leading up to his nomination. The next 200+ pages cover his tenure on the Supreme Court.

What is really nice, though, about the way Smith handles the biography, is that he constantly brings back recurring theme's in Marshall's life, whether it is Marshall's ability to get along with people from either side of the aisle and his remarkable affability and love of Madeira wine, or his plain old good judgment and belief in the supremacy of the Union, or his dedication to his job and the country and his ability to strengthen the Supreme Court by striving for unanimous decisions and collegiality among the individual Supreme Court justices.

And obviously, Smith does a good job of putting the importance of Marshall's decisions in perspective in his time and today. I've read perhaps 40 books on early American history, but John Marshall and the role of the Supreme Court has always been a black box or a side story. Smith does a great job of fleshing this out for me. Additionally, as always it is interesting to view history from different perspectives, and this book does a nice job of doing that all the way from the War of Independence through Andrew Jackson's reign.

Thank you Jean Edward Smith for your efforts.

I love early American history, the early Constitutional period to be more exact. I've read the biographies of many of our Founders but I have never read one about a Supreme Court justice. After visiting the Court's building in D.C. a few years back, I became interested in Marshall and found this book about his life.

This is a very informative book for the non-lawyers among us (like me) who want a layman's understanding on how the Supreme Court muscled its way onto the national stage. Sure, the Court was equal to the other two branches on paper. But Smith shows how Marshall flushed this "lowly" court into a genuine equal with the legislature and executive.

The author also gives a clear view on Marshall's thinking regarding the "state's rights vs national power" controversy that was at the forefront of the debate during those early years of the nation.

For those who want to understand the power of today's Supreme Court, this is a great place to learn its history.

I love early American history, the early Constitutional period to be more exact. I've read the biographies of many of our Founders but I have never read one about a Supreme Court justice. After visiting the Court's building in D.C. a few years back, I became interested in Marshall and found this book about his life.

This is a very informative book for the non-lawyers among us (like me) who want a layman's understanding on how the Supreme Court muscled its way onto the national stage. Sure, the Court was equal to the other two branches on paper. But Smith shows how Marshall flushed this "lowly" court into a genuine equal with the legislature and executive.

The author also gives a clear view on Marshall's thinking regarding the "state's rights vs national power" controversy that was at the forefront of the debate during those early years of the nation.

For those who want to understand the power of today's Supreme Court, this is a great place to learn its history.

I don't think that there are any major monuments to John Marshall in the United States. He is nowhere to be found on the Mall in Washington, his face isn't carved into any mountains, and his image doesn't grace any form of national currency. Yet, if one were challenged to make a short list of individual Americans who had the greatest influence on the structure of our government and whose actions have reverberated down to our every day life, John Marshall would have to be on it.

For all intents and purposes, John Marshall defined the role of the Supreme Court in American government. As biographer Jean Edward Smith notes, when Marshall was suddenly appointed by John Adams to replace Oliver Ellsworth as Chief Justice in 1800, "he assumed leadership of a court that enjoyed little prestige and even less authority." When he died 36 years later he left a Court that was a bastion of stability, unity and respect in government and whose reputation was the highest in the land.

Although the majority of the book focuses quite naturally on Marshall's storied career as Chief Justice, Smith does highlight the long and varied service he gave to his country before joining the Court in 1801. Marshall was a valiant officer in the American Revolution, present at the battles of Brandywine, Germantown and Yorktown, and suffered the privations of Valley Forge (where he bunked with James Monroe). He became a celebrity when his tough stance against Talleyrand in the XYZ Affair became public knowledge in America in 1798 and he served in Congress and then briefly as Secretary of State in the administration of John Adams, where Marshall was a rare friend and political soul mate to the tortured Yankee president.

But the bulk of Smith's narrative is devoted to the so-called Marshall Court, especially the 1812-1823 court that decided many of the most important constitutional cases -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) -- and was the longest period of stability in membership in the history of the Supreme Court. Smith stresses that the Marshall Court and their famed decisions were a true team effort and not at all dominated by the Chief Justice as many have suggested. Rather, Smith argues that the Court was built on mutual respect, open dialogue (fueled by generous consumption of Madeira every night), and a strong sense of camaraderie that was fostered by the communal living that Marshall demanded of all the justices. Smith argues that the unanimous "opinion of the court" verdicts that many Republicans loathed, Thomas Jefferson especially, were a product of genuine consensus and intellectual agreement amongst the justices on the fundamental questions of constitutionality. One of the striking things about this period is that some powerful president who hated Marshall and the power of the Federal judiciary, such as Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, made appointments that were solid and politically moderate, and ultimately proved highly congenial to Chief Justice Marshall and his views, a fact that particularly galled Jefferson.

Much has been made of the mutual animosity between Jefferson and Marshall, and Smith confirms that the dislike was real and intense. However, Smith also argues that it was the extremists in both parties that forced the two great Virginians in the ring against one another. Both Marshall and Jefferson preferred conciliation and accommodation, he writes, but the High Federalists on the Right and extreme Republicans on the Left would have none of it. In Smith's estimation, Marshall was sincerely committed to creating a robust, but non-partisan and totally independent judiciary and in no way was a tool to the discredited Federalists.

Smith peppers the narrative with anecdotes that add life to the inherently dull nature of legal proceedings. For instance, in his review of the Yazoo land claim case that culminated in the landmark court decision in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Smith tells how the Georgia legislature rescinded the original land sale legislation by using a magnifying glass in the noonday sun to literally torch the document with the rays of heaven. And then, during the Supreme Court proceedings, Chief Justice Marshall had to call a recess so Luther Martin, the famed trial lawyer and notorious inebriate who was representing Fletcher, could sober up.

Overall, the book is well-written and clear in composition. A few editorial changes could have made it even more readable. For instance, each chapter has 3 or 4 subtopics that Smith addresses one by one, but there are no breaks in the chapter. The paragraphs and themes just roll on one after the other. All that is needed is hitting the return key one extra time after each sub-section, but for some reason the editors decided not to do that. Also, the author uses detailed footnotes all throughout the book. In some cases, every page of a chapter, or close to it, has substantial footnotes elucidating some point made in the main narrative. I found these footnotes helpful, but they greatly interupted the flow of the narrative. Every few paragraphs the reader is hopping down to the footnote to get more background. Smith should have either tied the detail into the storyline or moved the content to the endnotes.

In closing, it is worth noting that Smith doesn't paper over Marshall's personal failings and some commonly held opinions of the man. For instance, Marshall had a reputation for indolence, which is surprising given how many Supreme Court decisions he authored and the five-volume official biography on George Washington he penned. Marshall was also a man of ambition in a period when such feelings and the concern with popularity and public opinion were considered especially ignoble. Finally, Smith suggests that money dominated many of Marshall's actions. He maintains that Marshall accepted the envoy assignment to Paris that led to the XYZ Affair primarily because he needed to raise money in Europe to complete a land purchase in Virginia and that his acceptance of the Secretary of State and then Chief Justice posts were driven by the financial compensation.

For anyone interested in the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court in particular, Jean Edward Smith's "John Marshall" is a can't miss.

I don't think that there are any major monuments to John Marshall in the United States. He is nowhere to be found on the Mall in Washington, his face isn't carved into any mountains, and his image doesn't grace any form of national currency. Yet, if one were challenged to make a short list of individual Americans who had the greatest influence on the structure of our government and whose actions have reverberated down to our every day life, John Marshall would have to be on it.

For all intents and purposes, John Marshall defined the role of the Supreme Court in American government. As biographer Jean Edward Smith notes, when Marshall was suddenly appointed by John Adams to replace Oliver Ellsworth as Chief Justice in 1800, "he assumed leadership of a court that enjoyed little prestige and even less authority." When he died 36 years later he left a Court that was a bastion of stability, unity and respect in government and whose reputation was the highest in the land.

Although the majority of the book focuses quite naturally on Marshall's storied career as Chief Justice, Smith does highlight the long and varied service he gave to his country before joining the Court in 1801. Marshall was a valiant officer in the American Revolution, present at the battles of Brandywine, Germantown and Yorktown, and suffered the privations of Valley Forge (where he bunked with James Monroe). He became a celebrity when his tough stance against Talleyrand in the XYZ Affair became public knowledge in America in 1798 and he served in Congress and then briefly as Secretary of State in the administration of John Adams, where Marshall was a rare friend and political soul mate to the tortured Yankee president.

But the bulk of Smith's narrative is devoted to the so-called Marshall Court, especially the 1812-1823 court that decided many of the most important constitutional cases -- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) -- and was the longest period of stability in membership in the history of the Supreme Court. Smith stresses that the Marshall Court and their famed decisions were a true team effort and not at all dominated by the Chief Justice as many have suggested. Rather, Smith argues that the Court was built on mutual respect, open dialogue (fueled by generous consumption of Madeira every night), and a strong sense of camaraderie that was fostered by the communal living that Marshall demanded of all the justices. Smith argues that the unanimous "opinion of the court" verdicts that many Republicans loathed, Thomas Jefferson especially, were a product of genuine consensus and intellectual agreement amongst the justices on the fundamental questions of constitutionality. One of the striking things about this period is that some powerful president who hated Marshall and the power of the Federal judiciary, such as Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, made appointments that were solid and politically moderate, and ultimately proved highly congenial to Chief Justice Marshall and his views, a fact that particularly galled Jefferson.

Much has been made of the mutual animosity between Jefferson and Marshall, and Smith confirms that the dislike was real and intense. However, Smith also argues that it was the extremists in both parties that forced the two great Virginians in the ring against one another. Both Marshall and Jefferson preferred conciliation and accommodation, he writes, but the High Federalists on the Right and extreme Republicans on the Left would have none of it. In Smith's estimation, Marshall was sincerely committed to creating a robust, but non-partisan and totally independent judiciary and in no way was a tool to the discredited Federalists.

Smith peppers the narrative with anecdotes that add life to the inherently dull nature of legal proceedings. For instance, in his review of the Yazoo land claim case that culminated in the landmark court decision in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Smith tells how the Georgia legislature rescinded the original land sale legislation by using a magnifying glass in the noonday sun to literally torch the document with the rays of heaven. And then, during the Supreme Court proceedings, Chief Justice Marshall had to call a recess so Luther Martin, the famed trial lawyer and notorious inebriate who was representing Fletcher, could sober up.

Overall, the book is well-written and clear in composition. A few editorial changes could have made it even more readable. For instance, each chapter has 3 or 4 subtopics that Smith addresses one by one, but there are no breaks in the chapter. The paragraphs and themes just roll on one after the other. All that is needed is hitting the return key one extra time after each sub-section, but for some reason the editors decided not to do that. Also, the author uses detailed footnotes all throughout the book. In some cases, every page of a chapter, or close to it, has substantial footnotes elucidating some point made in the main narrative. I found these footnotes helpful, but they greatly interupted the flow of the narrative. Every few paragraphs the reader is hopping down to the footnote to get more background. Smith should have either tied the detail into the storyline or moved the content to the endnotes.

In closing, it is worth noting that Smith doesn't paper over Marshall's personal failings and some commonly held opinions of the man. For instance, Marshall had a reputation for indolence, which is surprising given how many Supreme Court decisions he authored and the five-volume official biography on George Washington he penned. Marshall was also a man of ambition in a period when such feelings and the concern with popularity and public opinion were considered especially ignoble. Finally, Smith suggests that money dominated many of Marshall's actions. He maintains that Marshall accepted the envoy assignment to Paris that led to the XYZ Affair primarily because he needed to raise money in Europe to complete a land purchase in Virginia and that his acceptance of the Secretary of State and then Chief Justice posts were driven by the financial compensation.

For anyone interested in the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court in particular, Jean Edward Smith's "John Marshall" is a can't miss.

A superb review of the life and legacy of John Marshall, a true giant

John Marshall is primarily remembered as the great chief justice who handed down many of the decisions that defined the constitutional structure, which law students read every year and judges are still dealing with nearly two centuries later. But in his wonderful biography, Smith shows the full picture of Marshall and his significant influence prior to his chief justiceship. Marshall was a soldier during the Revolution who later entered Virginia politics somewhat unwillingly. He was a well respected lawyer who eventually earned a sizable fortune, unlike most of his contemporaries who inherited theirs. Smith provides all of this in a clear and detailed manner. Also, he avoids one of the great problems that biographers of the founding era have: the extreme focus many place upon private lives of these men while limiting coverage of their public acts. Smith explains Marshall's private life without obsessing on it unnecessarily.

Of course, most purchasers of this book are looking for information on Marshall's years on the bench and his impact upon the Constitution. All of the cases one would expect are dealt with in a thorough manner: Marbury, McCullough, Martin, Gibbons. The best part is of this book is that Smith goes beyond these great cases and provides detail on earlier caselaw that demonstrates Marshall's, and the Court's, commitment to nationalistic constitutional interpretations well before the seminal cases. This defeats criticism that claims Marshall had no support for his arguments, a criticism that develops from his habit of not citing to precedent. Particularly, some of the early unknown cases dealt with interesting issues of the war power and international law.

Smith's biography is detailed and compelling, I couldn't put it down. Even though I have a pretty strong knowledge of constitutional history and of the Marshall era, Smith's book provided a wealth of information on details that I had little idea even existed. I would strongly recommend it to both people interested in legal history as well as those interested more broadly in political history.

This is one of the best biographies I have read in recent years. While Marshall is best remembered today as the great Chief Justice and the originator of the notion of judicial review, Smith very much shows that there was more to the man, both public & private, than the few nuggets we all got in our Intro to American History classes.

In fact, the bulk of the book deals not with Marshall's 35 years on the bench, but with his other activities as a soldier, politician, diplomat and Secretary of State. One is left with profound admiration for Marshall's political skills while in Congress and in the Cabinet. As a moderate Federalist from Virginia, Marshall was in a tight spot, to say the least. His state was increasingly dominated with Jeffersonian Republicans who had little trust for the man, but on the other hand, the High Federalists from New England were more than a little suspicious of any Virginian, even one of their own party. Smith portrays a skillful politician & deal-maker who is able to walk deftly between the two camps and actually managed to get a few things done. One cannot help but wonder if the Federalist Party might have survived if Marshall had been at its helm or had been a Federalist candidate for president.

Marshall's time as a diplomat, spent in France during the years of the Directorate, also reveal him to be a canny negotiator who was more than equal to the task of dealing Talleyrand, the ultimate conniver of his time. Despite his somewhat rustic origins, Marshall was quite capable of adapting to the surroundings of the most cosmopolitan city in Europe, but without yielding to the corruption expected by the French bureaucracy.

All of this work by Smith shows that Marshall did not enter the Chief Justice's chair as a blank slate --- in fact, he already had a lifetime's experience in a myriad of different professions, and this no doubt contributed in large part to his great influence on the Court's development. I would suspect that his background is more impressive and varied than any of the Chief Justices that have succeeded him.

Unlike a lot of judicial histories, Smith does not get bogged down in the minutiae of the court decisions. In fact, relatively little time is spent discussing the decisions themselves, except for those that truly could be considered definitive. 35 years of court decisions could easily have made this an unworkable biography for Smith, who spends more time examining how Marshall, using his experience as a diplomat & legislator, was able to lead the court effectively and get it to render, for the most part, unanimous decisions.

Although Marshall & Thomas Jefferson were well-known as cousins who had a very strong mutual dislike of each other, Smith does not beat the reader over the head with this fact. Nor does Smith, despite his obvious partiality for Marshall, engage in excessive Jefferson-bashing. If anything, he gives Jefferson the benefit of the doubt, particularly in regards to the 1805 impeachment of Justice Chase. Smith regards the affair as being largely the making of rogue Congressional Republicans such as John Randolph of Roanoke (another cousin), although many historians believe that Jefferson had a much greater hand in instigating the affair.

The most Smith will criticize Jefferson on is his capacity for self-delusion, particularly where it concerned the Supreme Court. Jefferson came to regard the Marshall Court as an instrument of the Federalists, despite the fact that 5 of the 7 justices were Republican appointees. I find this to be an amusing parallel to modern-day criticism of the Court by some pundits, who view it as dominated by liberals --- despite the fact that 7 of the 9 justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. Evidently, some things never change.

This would also be a useful book for those critics of the court who feel that justices are too politically involved these days. A study of Court's history shows that rarely have the justices been political eunuchs, and certainly Marshall was no exception. Many of his decisions on the court, although he was careful not to run amok with judicial authority, were calculated as parries to the thrusts to various political extremists such as Spencer Roane (who, like most of the states'-rights crowd, comes off quite badly in this book, as Smith portrays him as being hopelessly out of step with the nations' evolution). Marshall as much as anyone was responsible for defining the notion that the federal government ultimately has authority over the respective states in national matters, a notion that would be put to the test a quarter century after Marshall's death.

Not only is this an informative book, but it is also very well-written and engaging. Do not let the 700+ pages daunt you, as the narrative flows quite briskly and will not bog the reader down. For most of us who know only know Marshall in connection with Marbury vs Madison, there is a lot more to the man than that --- this book will more than fill in the blank spaces.

I have read a critique of this book that stated the author was obviously biased towards the person of John Marshall. In a day when few politicians stand for what they believe in, it is easy for one to be cynical. Maybe, just maybe, John Marshall was a man who lived his life in a consistent manner. Jean Edward Smith has written one of the best biographies of this period of US history. It is amazing what impact John Marshall has had on our lives even today.

'Definer of a Nation" is by far the most accurate and succinct description of John Marshall. He is best known for creating the idea of judicial review which finished the circle of checks and balances in American government. He is also, without a doubt, one of the most capable and visionary legal and political thinkers to walk the earth.

This much is established without the assistance of Smith's book. What is done is a flushing of the character of Marshall. It is carried out brilliantly throughout, melding commentary with firsthand sources seamlessly. You get an idea of the person Marshall was from his hand, with Smith filling in what would be understood by the audience of intended by the Justice.

Not only is this a supurb documentary of the life of one of the most important figures in American history, but is also extremely entertaining. If you read it, you will never again have to think about how to answer the question 'if you could have a conversation with anyone, living or dead, who would it be?"

John Marshall is without a doubt the most influential man in the history of this country. In a sense, his imporance and influence parallelled that of Washington in that the precedents he established became the tradition which lasted. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Adams obtained European aid, Madison authored the Constitution but in the overall scheme of things, the shape and direction of our country, its economy and balance of powers, its legal and political system was virtually set by the power of one man - John Marshall.

What is even more amazing is how singular he was and how his stewardship was a near miss. At a time when it seemed the whole country converted to anti-Federalisism and the Federalist party disappeared, there was Marshall, stalwart to the end. WIth a vigor that lasted to the end, he fought the Jeffersonians and their vision of America as a pastoral, agrarian society of gentlemen farmers. His rulings established the basis for the corporate capitalist system of property rights that has given this nation a level of prosperity never before seen.

More important, his rulings on Constitutional interpretation established the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of political decisions - something particularly handy in the 2000 election. Although Marshall represented a "strict Constructionist" viewpoint in the sense that he decried expansion of Federal power in what he deemed the wrong direction, i.e. the Jeffersonian direction, he was not averse to using the Federal government when the issue warranted. When he died he was the last of the "old school" but he set the pattern that has been adhered to every since.

Theh book is quite readable, the research admirable and can be understood by historian, lawyer or layman.

I pretty much only read biographies. Of all the ones I have read, this is one of the best. I put in the same group as Robert Caro's LBJ books, Edmund Morriss' first biography of Teddy Rooseveldt (2nd wasn't quite as good), the Last Lion series on Churchill, the Manchester bio on MacArthur, and Mcullogh's Truman book. Those are the ones I really enjoyed reading the most.

This book is a mix between biography, history, and legal principles. All 3 parts were interesting. In law school, we spent much time studying Marbury v. Madison, but this book really put it in a great perspective, setting up one of the major themes of the book--the debate between Federalists and Republicans, ie Marshall and Jefferson.

The Federalist-Republican theme really helped put much of the reading into perspective, explaining Marshall's beleif in a strong central government and his philosophy in deciding the big cases like Marbury, Gibbons, Dartmouth College, Mcullough v. MD, and many others.

For me, this was one of those books I felt proud to have read. Marshall played an enormous role in shaping the Court, and I hardly knew a thing about him before this book. The author has a nice smooth style, and packs each sentence with research. I repsect the effort such a book must have taken.

This is a good read about a fascinating individual. John Marshall is clearly one of the most underrated shapers of our country and this book goes a long way in providing the texture and context of his life. The author does a good job of balancing history with legal scholarship and I believe that this is worthwhile for both the "lay-man" and the "law-man". I did believe that the author abridged the content a bit too much at times(for example, he did not cover Marshall's point of view on the Declaration of Independence or Articles of Confederation, and he covered the last 12 years of Marshall's life as Chief Justice in less than 50 pages), but overall, it was a solid investment of my time.

John Marshall was a good man and a great jurist. Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, he was nominated in the waning hours of the Adams Administration, in the twilight of the Age of Federalism. George Washington was dead and after the seminal elections of 1800 his calumniator, Thomas Jefferson, would become president. For the first time since the Founding, antifederalist Republicans would hold a majority of seats in both houses of Congress. Eager for power and constitutional revision, the antifederalists disdained the check-and-balances instituted among the tripartite branches of the central government, preferring direct popular control over law and policy, contemning the Constitution's Federalist defenders as monarchists. So, when Federalist Oliver Ellsworth suddenly resigned as chief justice, John Adams, the last Federalist president, moved quickly to deny Jefferson the appointment. When John Jay declined Adams' request to return to the Supreme Court, Adams quickly turned to Marshall, then only ten months his Secretary of State, a man with no judicial experience outside of Virginia's hustings court.

The court Marshall joined was a paltry break on the presidency and the Congress. With little established authority or standing in the esteem of the nation, the Supreme Court heard few cases, deciding fewer still of lasting significance. With Jefferson's antifederal forces rushing into Washington with plans to severely restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and threatening to overcome constitutional limits, the new chief justice had little at his disposal except his wit and his pen, his good humor and what an earlier biographer called his single idea, national union.

Every aspect of the court and its jurisprudence was permeated by Marshall's influence, from jurisprudential hermeneutics to the quotidian features of the court. Marshall asserted that the Constitution was a legal document, not a mere expression of political aspirations, one susceptible of interpretation and application through the ordinary adjudicative processes; he established the supremacy of the Constitution (not the judiciary) and deftly asserted the power of the courts to set aside legislative acts where they exceeded the limited powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution. The power of the Supreme Court was robust according to its vital, but limited, purpose. The Supreme Court was guarantor of constitutional limitations, the last break on power. One observer notes of Marshall, "He hit the Constitution much as the Lord hit the chaos, at a time when everything needed creating."

Much is made of Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton personifying contrasting archetypes recurrent American history, but with respect to the Constitution perhaps the better comparison is between Jefferson and Marshall. If Thomas Jefferson, as author of the Declaration of Independence, symbolizes in American history human liberty and majority rule, then John Marshall, as the greatest expositor of the Constitution, symbolizes order and the rule of law. While Jefferson feared the centralizing tendencies of the Constitution, especially the authority that the unelected Supreme Court would assert under Marshall, Marshall feared state particularism, the disastrous consequences of which he saw during the war when the fractious colonies were barely able to conduct the war. And although Smith points out Marshall was a heritor of the Age of Reason, he nonetheless feared that reason alone would not restrain men and that violence would naturally ensue in the absence of a powerful ordering union. As Irving Babbitt characterized Marshall's judicial philosophy, he sought to superimpose on the "ordinary self" of man, with his boundless appetites, the "higher self" of the Constitution, with its limits on the power of the states and Congress. Marshall believed that it was the paramount role of the courts to impose this "higher self" on the transient passions of the political branches. "To what quarter will you look for protection from an infringement on the Constitution, if you will not give the power of the Judiciary?"

Moderate Federalists like Marshall saw the Constitution as a hedge against both popular and governmental caprice. The powers of the three branches of the central government were to be confined, the outer boundaries established by the text of the Constitution, with the federal courts patrolling the frontiers of delegated power for excursions that might lead to consolidated power, and thence to disunion or despotism. At the same time, the centrifugal forces that prevailed under the Articles of the Confederation would be bridled by the powers extracted from the states and delegated by the people to their central government, among them the power to conduct foreign relations and regulate commerce among the states. Each branch and level of government was limited to the exercise of power within its sphere. These limits would prove frustrating to Jefferson and his followers, no less than to latter-day "progressives," who justly saw these restrictions as breaks on their ambitions. But the American Constitution instituted a constitutional, not a direct, democracy, a republic where the exercise of power was diluted and subject to all manner of restriction and procedural regulation intended to purge power of folly, caprice and superfluity. When Jefferson bristled at the Constitution's legislative inefficiency, Marshall saw his impatience for what it was. "Every check on the wild impulse of the moment is a check on his [Jefferson's] power."

Without the courts or some other guarantor of this system of limited and divided powers, Marshall recognized that this whole system would readily collapse under the press of ambitious men. In establishing the Supreme Court as the Constitution's vigorous guarantor, Marshall made his most memorable contribution. Although he was not the first to invoke the power of judicial review, he made it a vital source of judicial power, famously asserting it in principle in Marbury v. Madison (1801), while deftly declining its exercise in face of a hostile political climate. But he did not place undue faith in the courts, as many today do. Marshall did not assert that the Supreme Court's power was unlimited or that the Constitution was but wet clay in the hands of wilful judges, intended by the Founders to be a revolutionary document. As Robert Bork points out, although Marshall was not above misreading statutes, he was faithful to the Constitution. American federal courts exercised their power within a scheme of law and were confined by it no less than the political branches.

Today's judicial activists take as the fountainhead of their power Marshall's decision in Marbury, neglecting the coordinate limits on the courts he fully acknowledged and saw as inescapable. "[I]t is apparent, that the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature." Marshall saw judicial review as an essential institutional feature of the American system of law, but could not conceive that constitutional limits were mutable through judicial interpretation. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" The role of the courts is vital, but should they arrogate unto themselves power not contained within the Constitution, disorder will ensue and the very purpose of a written constitution subverted. If the courts assume the power to remake the constitution outside of the democratic process, the Constitution's guarantees are jeopardized and liberty threatened, as surely as they would be by the extra-constitutional exercise of legislative or executive authority.

Marshall was not a proponent of judicial supremacy, nor of constitutional obscurantism. "The enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they said," he wrote in the Gibbons v. Ogden. He would have no part of rights or powers hidden in penumbras, those fecund areas of judicial activism. Earlier in his tenure, he established that jurisdiction of the courts was governed by the written law, not by the unenacted common law.

Jean Edward Smith's biography of Marshall is a model of clarity and judiciousness. Its signal contribution is to remind us that the fate of innovators is to see their creations employed in ways and for purposes they did not intend and could not have imagined, and would have opposed. John Marshall has suffered more than most...

John Marshall defined American law, politics and power. This book paints a vivid picture of who Marshall was, and why he is still important today. The author does an excellent job stating the facts and letting the reader decide for her/himself whether or not Marshall did the right or wrong in the very important decisions he made. This book is enlightening and well written. Marshall's life is wonderfully told through the authors use of clear and concise writing. This book is excellent. It clarifies many misconceptions of this great man who came out of a generation that claims many great men. Marshall may be the least understood of them all, but he certainly is no less important than any of his contemporaries in forming and defining the United States of America.