Posted by
Rogue Historian on Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:43:37 AM
In a private letter of the 20th of April, the President said: “In what terms of decency can we speak of this?… But all the principles of law are to be perverted which would bear on the favorite offenders who endeavor to overturn this odious republic!…All this, however will work well. The nation will judge both the offender (Burr) and the judges (John Marshall, et. al.,) for themselves…They will see then and amend the error in our Constitution which makes any branch (i.e., the judiciary) independent of the nation…”
http://books.google.com/books?id=0QUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=corwin+marshall#PPA95,M1
The trial of Aaron Burr, then, revealed a deep antipathy between Jefferson and Marshall. Jefferson’s right to interpret the Constitution is suspect, vis-a-vis Marshall, on at least two counts: he was never a judge and did not attend the Convention. Jefferson’s rant, cited above, is remarkable because it reveals a tortured understanding of the Constitution, i.e., that it created an independent judiciary, and that the President considered himself above it. Throughout the affair, as Corwin shows, Jefferson demonstrated nothing but contempt for the judiciary. The parallel with another President Jefferson, William Jefferson Clinton, portends ill for the "weakest branch." Thomas Jefferson ignored, for the most part, Marshall's court, failing to provide necessary materials that, Marshall believed, would demonstrate precipitousness in the indictment. William Jefferson Clinton lied to a federal judge on a material issue and probably obstructed justice. The underlying theme of both controversies was whether being elected, rather than appointed, entitles one to defy the highest branch.
The trial of Aaron Burr is, perhaps, the most bizarre chapter in American history. Here you have a Jefferson demanding the head of the Burr, who dispensed with Hamilton, frustrated by Marshall, who, more than any man since Washington, personified Hamilton’s ideal. One can only imagine how conflicted Marshall must have been. He must have truly despised Jefferson to eschew an urge to hang the man who shot Hamilton. More likely, Marshall personified the rare ideal: a judge who declares and interprets laws rather than inventing them. Corwin (link above) claims otherwise. Of course, while the federalist party died in 1812, the influence of Marshall's party continued through the federal judiciary. The seating of the current Court reflects a resurgence.