Question

In which decision did the Court give a narrow interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution? A. Barron v. Baltimore B. Cohens v. Virginia C. Fletcher v. Peck D. Worcester v. Georgia

Short answer

A. Barron v. Baltimore

Step-by-step solution

Understand the question

The question asks to identify in which case the Court gave a narrow interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution.

Recall key facts about Barron v. Baltimore

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) was a case where the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government and not the states. This means the Constitution was interpreted narrowly in its applicability.

Recall key facts about Cohens v. Virginia

Cohens v. Virginia (1821) affirmed the Supreme Court’s right to review all state court judgments in cases arising under the federal Constitution or a law of the United States, showing broader federal authority.

Recall key facts about Fletcher v. Peck

Fletcher v. Peck (1810) was one of the earliest cases where the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional, showing broader federal judicial power over states.

Recall key facts about Worcester v. Georgia

Worcester v. Georgia (1832) ruled that the federal government had exclusive authority over state laws that impinge on Indian affairs, again showing broader federal power.

Analyze the given cases

Barron v. Baltimore is the case where a narrow interpretation of the applicability of the Constitution is evident because it held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments.

Key concepts

Barron v. Baltimore

The landmark case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833) played a fundamental role in shaping the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, John Barron argued that the City of Baltimore had rendered his wharf useless by diverting streams during city expansion, violating the Fifth Amendment's protection against governmental seizure of property without compensation. Barron’s appeal to the Supreme Court hinged on whether the Bill of Rights restrained only the federal government or extended to states as well.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decisively ruled in favor of a narrow interpretation—the Bill of Rights applied solely to the federal government, not states. This decision set a significant precedent that the Constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights were not obligatory upon state governments.
This ruling underscored the limited scope of federal power regarding state actions, an understanding that remained largely accepted until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the gradual process of incorporation, which began to extend Bill of Rights protections to the states.

Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional interpretation involves the methods through which the judiciary understands and applies the Constitution. It answers critical questions about the breadth and constraints of Constitutional protections and governmental powers.
In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation, viewing the Bill of Rights as a restraint on only federal actions, not state actions. This approach stems from a principle of federalism that divides powers between national and state governments.
Judicial interpretations can evolve, as evidenced by the shift post-Civil War towards viewing the Fourteenth Amendment as a vehicle for incorporating many Bill of Rights protections at the state level. This slow but significant shift resulted from differing judicial philosophies and socio-political changes driving broader constitutional protections across states.

Bill of Rights Applicability

The applicability of the Bill of Rights—originally intended to restrict only the federal government—was explicitly clarified in the Barron v. Baltimore decision. Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion directly stated that the first ten amendments did not apply to states.
This concept remained undisputed until the post-Civil War period, when the Fourteenth Amendment introduced the 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clauses. Through judicial review, many protections in the Bill of Rights began to apply to states via the 'Incorporation Doctrine.'
For example:

• The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was applied to states in Gitlow v. New York (1925).
• The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was applied to states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

These shifts show how interpretations evolve over time to ensure federal protections across all states.

Federal vs. State Authority

The balance of federal versus state authority is a core principle of American constitutional law. Barron v. Baltimore emphasized a period when the delineation of powers clearly favored state sovereignty in certain contexts.
The initial ruling reflected the Framers’ intent to craft a national government of limited powers, reserving vast authority to the states. Over time, however, several cases and legal doctrines have increasingly expanded federal authority over states.
Key cases reflecting this include:

• Cohens v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court asserted its right to review and overturn state court decisions involving federal law.
• Fletcher v. Peck and Worcester v. Georgia, where the federal court invalidated state laws encroaching on federal jurisdiction and rights.

Changes in the federal-state dynamic illustrate the fluid nature of constitutional authority, evolving based on historical context, judicial interpretation, and legislative actions.