Seventh
Topic: Barron v. Baltimore and the
Application of the Bill of Rights to the States
Introduction
The
last of the great John Marshall cases that we will discuss is a bit different
from the others that we have studied. Barron
v. Baltimore did not expand national power at the expense of state powers,
nor did it restrict state power. It is also no longer the law of the land—it is
no longer “good law,” as the lawyers say. Rather, it represents a principle of
constitutional law that was unquestioned for 135 years before it was undercut
and eroded into nothing in the twentieth century. Because of this history, we
will use Barron to set the stage for
later events that will bring us up to date.
Thus,
the focus of this last topic will be on cases that were decided more than fifty
years after Barron v. Baltimore,
cases that interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
Clause. With that in mind, let’s set the stage by reading Marshall’s opinion in
Barron.
As
you read the opinion, try to determine (1) what general constitutional
principle the Supreme Court was asked to adopt in Barron v. Baltimore; (2) what specific guaranteed right in the Bill
of Rights Barron was asserting; (3) what the Court held in answering these two
questions; and (4) what the rationale of the Court was in support of its
holdings.