U.S. Politics and Governmentbcs.bedfordstmartins.com/webpub/history/roark5e/e-book PDFS/Appendix...

Appendix i i . Facts and Figures: Government, Economy,

and Demographics

U.S. Politics and GovernmentPresidential elections

Percentage Percentage Popular ofPopular Electoral ofVoterYear Candidates Parties Vote Vote Vote Participation

1789 GEORGEWASHINGTON(Va.)* 69 JohnAdams 34 Others 351792 GEORGEWASHINGTON(Va.) 132 JohnAdams 77 GeorgeClinton 50 Others 51796 JOHNADAMS(Mass.) Federalist 71 ThomasJefferson Democratic- 68 Republican ThomasPinckney Federalist 59 AaronBurr Dem.-Rep. 30 Others 481800 THOMASJEFFERSON(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 73 AaronBurr Dem.-Rep. 73 JohnAdams Federalist 65 C.C.Pinckney Federalist 64 JohnJay Federalist 11804 THOMASJEFFERSON(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 162 C.C.Pinckney Federalist 141808 JAMESMADISON(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 122 C.C.Pinckney Federalist 47 GeorgeClinton Dem.-Rep. 61812 JAMESMADISON(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 128 DeWittClinton Federalist 891816 JAMESMONROE(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 183 RufusKing Federalist 341820 JAMESMONROE(Va.) Dem.-Rep. 231 JohnQuincyAdams Dem.-Rep. 11824 JOHNQ.ADAMS(Mass.) Dem.-Rep. 108,740 30.5 84 26.9 AndrewJackson Dem.-Rep. 153,544 43.1 99 WilliamH.Crawford Dem.-Rep. 46,618 13.1 41 HenryClay Dem.-Rep. 47,136 13.2 371828 ANDREWJACKSON(Tenn.) Democratic 647,286 56.0 178 57.6 JohnQuincyAdams National 508,064 44.0 83 Republican1832 ANDREWJACKSON(Tenn.) Democratic 687,502 55.0 219 55.4 HenryClay National 530,189 42.4 49 Republican JohnFloyd Independent 11 WilliamWirt Anti-Mason 33,108 2.6 7

*Stateofresidencewhenelectedpresident.

A-33

7884_Roark_Appendix_II_ppA33-A52.indd 33 11/18/11 2:34 PM

A-34 APPENDIxII • FACTSANDFIGuReS


1836 MARTINVANBUREN(N.Y.) Democratic 765,483 50.9 170 57.8 W.H.Harrison Whig 73 HughL.White Whig 739,795 49.1 26 DanielWebster Whig 14 W.P.Mangum Independent 111840 WILLIAMH.HARRISON(Ohio) Whig 1,274,624 53.1 234 78.0 MartinVanBuren Democratic 1,127,781 46.9 60 J.G.Birney Liberty 7,069 —1844 JAMESK.POLK(Tenn.) Democratic 1,338,464 49.6 170 78.9 HenryClay Whig 1,300,097 48.1 105 J.G.Birney Liberty 62,300 2.3 —1848 ZACHARYTAYLOR(La.) Whig 1,360,099 47.4 163 72.7 LewisCass Democratic 1,220,544 42.5 127 MartinVanBuren Free-Soil 291,263 10.1 —1852 FRANKLINPIERCE(N.H.) Democratic 1,601,117 50.9 254 69.6 WinfieldScott Whig 1,385,453 44.1 42 JohnP.Hale Free-Soil 155,825 5.0 —1856 JAMESBUCHANAN(Pa.) Democratic 1,832,995 45.3 174 78.9 JohnC.Frémont Republican 1,339,932 33.1 114 MillardFillmore American 871,731 21.6 81860 ABRAHAMLINCOLN(Ill.) Republican 1,866,452 39.8 180 81.2 StephenA.Douglas Democratic 1,375,157 29.4 12 JohnC.Breckinridge Democratic 847,953 18.1 72 JohnBell union 590,631 12.6 391864 ABRAHAMLINCOLN(Ill.) Republican 2,213,665 55.1 212 73.8 GeorgeB.McClellan Democratic 1,805,237 44.9 211868 ULYSSESS.GRANT(Ill.) Republican 3,012,833 52.7 214 78.1 HoratioSeymour Democratic 2,703,249 47.3 801872 ULYSSESS.GRANT(Ill.) Republican 3,597,132 55.6 286 71.3 HoraceGreeley Democratic; 2,834,125 43.9 66 Liberal Republican1876 RUTHERFORDB.HAYES(Ohio) Republican 4,036,298 48.0 185 81.8 SamuelJ.Tilden Democratic 4,288,590 51.0 1841880 JAMESA.GARFIELD(Ohio) Republican 4,454,416 48.5 214 79.4 WinfieldS.Hancock Democratic 4,444,952 48.1 1551884 GROVERCLEVELAND(N.Y.) Democratic 4,874,986 48.5 219 77.5 JamesG.Blaine Republican 4,851,981 48.3 1821888 BENJAMINHARRISON(Ind.) Republican 5,439,853 47.9 233 79.3 GroverCleveland Democratic 5,540,309 48.6 1681892 GROVERCLEVELAND(N.Y.) Democratic 5,555,426 46.1 277 74.7 BenjaminHarrison Republican 5,182,690 43.0 145 JamesB.Weaver People’s 1,029,846 8.5 221896 WILLIAMMcKINLEY(Ohio) Republican 7,104,779 51.1 271 79.3 WilliamJ.Bryan Democratic- 6,502,925 47.7 176 People’s1900 WILLIAMMcKINLEY(Ohio) Republican 7,207,923 51.7 292 73.2 WilliamJ.Bryan Dem.-Populist 6,358,133 45.5 1551904 THEODOREROOSEVELT(N.Y.) Republican 7,623,486 57.9 336 65.2 AltonB.Parker Democratic 5,077,911 37.6 140 eugeneV.Debs Socialist 402,283 3.0 —1908 WILLIAMH.TAFT(Ohio) Republican 7,678,908 51.6 321 65.4 WilliamJ.Bryan Democratic 6,409,104 43.1 162 eugeneV.Debs Socialist 420,793 2.8 —




1912 WOODROWWILSON(N.J.) Democratic 6,293,454 41.9 435 58.8 TheodoreRoosevelt Progressive 4,119,538 27.4 88 WilliamH.Taft Republican 3,484,980 23.2 8 eugeneV.Debs Socialist 900,672 6.1 —1916 WOODROWWILSON(N.J.) Democratic 9,129,606 49.4 277 61.6 Charlese.Hughes Republican 8,538,221 46.2 254 A.L.Benson Socialist 585,113 3.2 —1920 WARRENG.HARDING(Ohio) Republican 16,143,407 60.5 404 49.2 JamesM.Cox Democratic 9,130,328 34.2 127 eugeneV.Debs Socialist 919,799 3.4 —1924 CALVINCOOLIDGE(Mass.) Republican 15,725,016 54.0 382 48.9 JohnW.Davis Democratic 8,386,503 28.8 136 RobertM.LaFollette Progressive 4,822,856 16.6 131928 HERBERTHOOVER(Calif.) Republican 21,391,381 57.4 444 56.9 Alfrede.Smith Democratic 15,016,443 40.3 87 NormanThomas Socialist 881,951 2.3 — WilliamZ.Foster Communist 102,991 0.3 —1932 FRANKLIND.ROOSEVELT(N.Y.) Democratic 22,821,857 57.4 472 56.9 HerbertHoover Republican 15,761,841 39.7 59 NormanThomas Socialist 881,951 2.2 —1936 FRANKLIND.ROOSEVELT(N.Y.) Democratic 27,751,597 60.8 523 61.0 AlfredM.Landon Republican 16,679,583 36.5 8 WilliamLemke union 882,479 1.9 —1940 FRANKLIND.ROOSEVELT(N.Y.) Democratic 27,244,160 54.8 449 62.5 WendellWillkie Republican 22,305,198 44.8 821944 FRANKLIND.ROOSEVELT(N.Y.) Democratic 25,602,504 53.5 432 55.9 Thomase.Dewey Republican 22,006,285 46.0 991948 HARRYS.TRUMAN(Mo.) Democratic 24,105,695 49.5 303 53.0 Thomase.Dewey Republican 21,969,170 45.1 189 J.StromThurmond States’-Rights 1,169,021 2.4 38 Democratic HenryA.Wallace Progressive 1,156,103 2.4 —1952 DWIGHTD.EISENHOWER(N.Y.) Republican 33,936,252 55.1 442 63.3 AdlaiStevenson Democratic 27,314,992 44.4 891956 DWIGHTD.EISENHOWER(N.Y.) Republican 35,575,420 57.6 457 60.6 AdlaiStevenson Democratic 26,033,066 42.1 73 Other — — 11960 JOHNF.KENNEDY(Mass.) Democratic 34,227,096 49.9 303 62.8 RichardM.Nixon Republican 34,108,546 49.6 219 Other — — 151964 LYNDONB.JOHNSON(Texas) Democratic 43,126,506 61.1 486 61.7 BarryM.Goldwater Republican 27,176,799 38.5 521968 RICHARDM.NIxON(N.Y.) Republican 31,770,237 43.4 301 60.9 HubertH.Humphrey Democratic 31,270,533 42.7 191 GeorgeWallace American 9,906,141 13.5 46 Indep.1972 RICHARDM.NIxON(N.Y.) Republican 47,169,911 60.7 520 55.2 GeorgeS.McGovern Democratic 29,170,383 37.5 17 Other — — 11976 JIMMYCARTER(Ga.) Democratic 40,830,763 50.0 297 53.5 GeraldR.Ford Republican 39,147,793 48.0 240 Other — 1,575,459 2.1 —

1980 RONALDREAGAN(Calif.) Republican 43,901,812 51.0 489 54.0 JimmyCarter Democratic 35,483,820 41.0 49 JohnB.Anderson Independent 5,719,722 7.0 — edClark Libertarian 921,188 1.1 —

u.S. POLITICS AND GOVeRNMeNT A-35




1984 RONALDREAGAN(Calif.) Republican 54,455,075 59.0 525 53.1 WalterMondale Democratic 37,577,185 41.0 131988 GEORGEH.W.BUSH(Texas) Republican 47,946,422 54.0 426 50.2 MichaelS.Dukakis Democratic 41,016,429 46.0 1121992 WILLIAMJ.CLINTON(Ark.) Democratic 44,908,254 43.0 370 55.9 GeorgeH.W.Bush Republican 39,102,282 38.0 168 H.RossPerot Independent 19,721,433 19.0 —1996 WILLIAMJ.CLINTON(Ark.) Democratic 47,401,185 49.2 379 49.0 RobertDole Republican 39,197,469 40.7 159 H.RossPerot Independent 8,085,294 8.4 —2000 GEORGEW.BUSH(Texas) Republican 50,456,062 47.8 271 51.2 AlGore Democratic 50,996,862 48.4 267 RalphNader GreenParty 2,858,843 2.7 — PatrickJ.Buchanan — 438,760 0.4 —2004 GEORGEW.BUSH(Texas) Republican 61,872,711 50.7 286 60.3 JohnF.Kerry Democratic 58,894,584 48.3 252 Other — 1,582,185 1.3 —2008 BARACKOBAMA(Illinois) Democratic 69,456,897 52.9 365 56.8 JohnMcCain Republican 59,934,314 45.7 173

Presidents, Vice Presidents, and secretaries of state

TheWashingtonAdministration(1789–1797)VicePresident JohnAdams 1789–1797Secretaryof ThomasJefferson 1789–1793State edmundRandolph 1794–1795 TimothyPickering 1795–1797

TheJohnAdamsAdministration(1797–1801)VicePresident ThomasJefferson 1797–1801Secretaryof TimothyPickering 1797–1800State JohnMarshall 1800–1801

TheJeffersonAdministration(1801–1809)VicePresident AaronBurr 1801–1805 GeorgeClinton 1805–1809Secretaryof JamesMadison 1801–1809State

TheMadisonAdministration(1809–1817)VicePresident GeorgeClinton 1809–1813 elbridgeGerry 1813–1817Secretaryof RobertSmith 1809–1811State JamesMonroe 1811–1817

TheMonroeAdministration(1817–1825)VicePresident DanielTompkins 1817–1825Secretaryof JohnQuincy 1817–1825State Adams

TheJohnQuincyAdamsAdministration(1825–1829)VicePresident JohnC.Calhoun 1825–1829Secretaryof HenryClay 1825–1829State

TheJacksonAdministration(1829–1837)VicePresident JohnC.Calhoun 1829–1833 MartinVanBuren 1833–1837Secretaryof MartinVanBuren 1829–1831State edwardLivingston 1831–1833 LouisMcLane 1833–1834 JohnForsyth 1834–1837

TheVanBurenAdministration(1837–1841)VicePresident RichardM. 1837–1841 JohnsonSecretaryof JohnForsyth 1837–1841State

TheWilliamHarrisonAdministration(1841)VicePresident JohnTyler 1841Secretaryof DanielWebster 1841State

TheTylerAdministration(1841–1845)VicePresident NoneSecretaryof DanielWebster 1841–1843State HughS.Legaré 1843 AbelP.upshur 1843–1844 JohnC.Calhoun 1844–1845

ThePolkAdministration(1845–1849)VicePresident GeorgeM.Dallas 1845–1849Secretaryof JamesBuchanan 1845–1849State

TheTaylorAdministration(1849–1850)VicePresident MillardFillmore 1849–1850Secretaryof JohnM.Clayton 1849–1850State


TheFillmoreAdministration(1850–1853)VicePresident NoneSecretaryof DanielWebster 1850–1852State edwardeverett 1852–1853

ThePierceAdministration(1853–1857)VicePresident WilliamR.King 1853–1857Secretaryof WilliamL.Marcy 1853–1857State

TheBuchananAdministration(1857–1861)VicePresident JohnC. 1857–1861 BreckinridgeSecretaryof LewisCass 1857–1860State JeremiahS.Black 1860–1861

TheLincolnAdministration(1861–1865)VicePresident HannibalHamlin 1861–1865 AndrewJohnson 1865Secretaryof WilliamH.Seward 1861–1865State

TheAndrewJohnsonAdministration(1865–1869)VicePresident NoneSecretaryof WilliamH.Seward 1865–1869State

TheGrantAdministration(1869–1877)VicePresident SchuylerColfax 1869–1873 HenryWilson 1873–1877Secretaryof elihuB. 1869State Washburne HamiltonFish 1869–1877

TheHayesAdministration(1877–1881)VicePresident WilliamA. 1877–1881 WheelerSecretaryof WilliamM.evarts 1877–1881State

TheGarfieldAdministration(1881)VicePresident ChesterA.Arthur 1881Secretaryof JamesG.Blaine 1881State

TheArthurAdministration(1881–1885)VicePresident NoneSecretaryof F.T.Frelinghuysen 1881–1885State

TheClevelandAdministration(1885–1889)VicePresident ThomasA. 1885–1889 HendricksSecretaryof ThomasF.Bayard 1885–1889State

TheBenjaminHarrisonAdministration(1889–1893)VicePresident LeviP.Morton 1889–1893Secretaryof JamesG.Blaine 1889–1892State JohnW.Foster 1892–1893

TheClevelandAdministration(1893–1897)VicePresident Adlaie.Stevenson 1893–1897Secretaryof WalterQ. 1893–1895State Gresham RichardOlney 1895–1897

TheMcKinleyAdministration(1897–1901)VicePresident GarretA.Hobart 1897–1901 Theodore 1901 RooseveltSecretaryof JohnSherman 1897–1898State WilliamR.Day 1898 JohnHay 1898–1901

TheTheodoreRooseveltAdministration(1901–1909)VicePresident CharlesFairbanks 1905–1909Secretaryof JohnHay 1901–1905State elihuRoot 1905–1909 RobertBacon 1909

TheTaftAdministration(1909–1913)VicePresident JamesS.Sherman 1909–1913Secretaryof PhilanderC.Knox 1909–1913State

TheWilsonAdministration(1913–1921)VicePresident ThomasR. 1913–1921 MarshallSecretaryof WilliamJ.Bryan 1913–1915State RobertLansing 1915–1920 Bainbridge 1920–1921 Colby

TheHardingAdministration(1921–1923)VicePresident CalvinCoolidge 1921–1923Secretaryof Charlese.Hughes 1921–1923State

TheCoolidgeAdministration(1923–1929)VicePresident CharlesG.Dawes 1925–1929Secretaryof Charlese.Hughes 1923–1925State FrankB.Kellogg 1925–1929

TheHooverAdministration(1929–1933)VicePresident CharlesCurtis 1929–1933Secretaryof HenryL.Stimson 1929–1933State

TheFranklinD.RooseveltAdministration(1933–1945)VicePresident JohnNance 1933–1941 Garner HenryA.Wallace 1941–1945 HarryS.Truman 1945Secretaryof CordellHull 1933–1944State edwardR. 1944–1945 StettiniusJr.




TheTrumanAdministration(1945–1953)VicePresident AlbenW.Barkley 1949–1953Secretaryof edwardR. 1945State StettiniusJr. JamesF.Byrnes 1945–1947 GeorgeC.Marshall 1947–1949 DeanG.Acheson 1949–1953

TheEisenhowerAdministration(1953–1961)VicePresident RichardM.Nixon 1953–1961Secretaryof JohnFosterDulles 1953–1959State ChristianA. 1959–1961 Herter

TheKennedyAdministration(1961–1963)VicePresident LyndonB. 1961–1963 JohnsonSecretaryof DeanRusk 1961–1963State

TheLyndonJohnsonAdministration(1963–1969)VicePresident HubertH. 1965–1969 HumphreySecretaryof DeanRusk 1963–1969State

TheNixonAdministration(1969–1974)VicePresident SpiroT.Agnew 1969–1973 GeraldR.Ford 1973–1974Secretaryof WilliamP.Rogers 1969–1973State HenryA. 1973–1974 Kissinger

TheFordAdministration(1974–1977)VicePresident NelsonA. 1974–1977 RockefellerSecretaryof HenryA. 1974–1977State Kissinger

TheCarterAdministration(1977–1981)VicePresident WalterF.Mondale 1977–1981Secretaryof CyrusR.Vance 1977–1980State edmundMuskie 1980–1981

TheReaganAdministration(1981–1989)VicePresident GeorgeH.W.Bush 1981–1989Secretaryof AlexanderM.Haig 1981–1982State GeorgeP.Shultz 1982–1989

TheGeorgeH.W.BushAdministration(1989–1993)VicePresident J.DanforthQuayle 1989–1993Secretaryof JamesA.BakerIII 1989–1992State LawrenceS. 1992–1993 eagleburger

TheClintonAdministration(1993–2001)VicePresident AlbertGore 1993–2001Secretaryof WarrenM. 1993–1997State Christopher MadeleineK. 1997–2001 Albright

TheGeorgeW.BushAdministration(2001–2009)VicePresident RichardCheney 2001–2009Secretaryof ColinPowell 2001–2005State Condoleezza 2005–2009 Rice

TheBarackObamaAdministration(2009–)VicePresident JosephBiden 2009–Secretaryof HillaryClinton 2009–State

State DateofAdmission

Delaware December7,1787Pennsylvania December12,1787NewJersey December18,1787Georgia January2,1788Connecticut January9,1788Massachusetts February6,1788Maryland April28,1788SouthCarolina May23,1788NewHampshire June21,1788Virginia June25,1788NewYork July26,1788NorthCarolina November21,1789


RhodeIsland May29,1790Vermont March4,1791Kentucky June1,1792Tennessee June1,1796Ohio March1,1803Louisiana April30,1812Indiana December11,1816Mississippi December10,1817Illinois December3,1818Alabama December14,1819Maine March15,1820Missouri August10,1821

adMission of states to tHe Union



Arkansas June15,1836Michigan January16,1837Florida March3,1845Texas December29,1845Iowa December28,1846Wisconsin May29,1848California September9,1850Minnesota May11,1858Oregon February14,1859Kansas January29,1861WestVirginia June19,1863Nevada October31,1864Nebraska March1,1867


Colorado August1,1876NorthDakota November2,1889SouthDakota November2,1889Montana November8,1889Washington November11,1889Idaho July3,1890Wyoming July10,1890utah January4,1896Oklahoma November16,1907NewMexico January6,1912Arizona February14,1912Alaska January3,1959Hawaii August21,1959

adMission of states to tHe Union

AppointedName Service by

JohnJay* 1789–1795 WashingtonJamesWilson 1789–1798 WashingtonJohnBlair 1789–1796 WashingtonJohnRutledge 1790–1791 WashingtonWilliamCushing 1790–1810 WashingtonJamesIredell 1790–1799 WashingtonThomasJohnson 1791–1793 WashingtonWilliamPaterson 1793–1806 WashingtonJohnRutledge† 1795 WashingtonSamuelChase 1796–1811 WashingtonOliverEllsworth 1796–1799 WashingtonBushrod 1798–1829 J.AdamsWashingtonAlfredMoore 1799–1804 J.AdamsJohnMarshall 1801–1835 J.AdamsWilliamJohnson 1804–1834 JeffersonHenryB.Livingston 1806–1823 JeffersonThomasTodd 1807–1826 JeffersonGabrielDuval 1811–1836 MadisonJosephStory 1811–1845 MadisonSmithThompson 1823–1843 MonroeRobertTrimble 1826–1828 J.Q.AdamsJohnMcLean 1829–1861 JacksonHenryBaldwin 1830–1844 JacksonJamesM.Wayne 1835–1867 JacksonRogerB.Taney 1836–1864 Jackson

*ChiefJusticesappearinboldtype.†ActingChiefJustice;Senaterefusedtoconfirmappointment.


PhilipP.Barbour 1836–1841 JacksonJohnCatron 1837–1865 VanBurenJohnMcKinley 1837–1852 VanBurenPeterV.Daniel 1841–1860 VanBurenSamuelNelson 1845–1872 TylerLeviWoodbury 1845–1851 PolkRobertC.Grier 1846–1870 PolkBenjaminR.Curtis 1851–1857 FillmoreJohnA.Campbell 1853–1861 PierceNathanClifford 1858–1881 BuchananNoahH.Swayne 1862–1881 LincolnSamuelF.Miller 1862–1890 LincolnDavidDavis 1862–1877 LincolnStephenJ.Field 1863–1897 LincolnSalmonP.Chase 1864–1873 LincolnWilliamStrong 1870–1880 GrantJosephP.Bradley 1870–1892 GrantWardHunt 1873–1882 GrantMorrisonR.Waite 1874–1888 GrantJohnM.Harlan 1877–1911 HayesWilliamB.Woods 1880–1887 HayesStanleyMatthews 1881–1889 GarfieldHoraceGray 1882–1902 ArthurSamuelBlatchford 1882–1893 ArthurLuciusQ.C.Lamar 1888–1893 ClevelandMelvilleW.Fuller 1888–1910 ClevelandDavidJ.Brewer 1889–1910 B.HarrisonHenryB.Brown 1890–1906 B.HarrisonGeorgeShiras 1892–1903 B.HarrisonHowelle.Jackson 1893–1895 B.Harrison

sUPreMe coUrt JUstices





edwardD.White 1894–1910 ClevelandRufusW.Peckham 1896–1909 ClevelandJosephMcKenna 1898–1925 McKinleyOliverW.Holmes 1902–1932 T.RooseveltWilliamR.Day 1903–1922 T.RooseveltWilliamH.Moody 1906–1910 T.RooseveltHoraceH.Lurton 1910–1914 TaftCharlese.Hughes 1910–1916 TaftWillisVanDevanter 1910–1937 TaftEdwardD.White 1910–1921 TaftJosephR.Lamar 1911–1916 TaftMahlonPitney 1912–1922 TaftJamesC. 1914–1941 WilsonMcReynoldsLouisD.Brandeis 1916–1939 WilsonJohnH.Clarke 1916–1922 WilsonWilliamH.Taft 1921–1930 HardingGeorgeSutherland 1922–1938 HardingPierceButler 1923–1939 HardingedwardT.Sanford 1923–1930 HardingHarlanF.Stone 1925–1941 CoolidgeCharlesE.Hughes 1930–1941 HooverOwenJ.Roberts 1930–1945 HooverBenjaminN.Cardozo1932–1938 HooverHugoL.Black 1937–1971 F.RooseveltStanleyF.Reed 1938–1957 F.RooseveltFelixFrankfurter 1939–1962 F.RooseveltWilliamO.Douglas 1939–1975 F.RooseveltFrankMurphy 1940–1949 F.RooseveltHarlanF.Stone 1941–1946 F.RooseveltJamesF.Byrnes 1941–1942 F.RooseveltRobertH.Jackson 1941–1954 F.RooseveltWileyB.Rutledge 1943–1949 F.RooseveltHaroldH.Burton 1945–1958 Truman


FrederickM.Vinson 1946–1953 TrumanTomC.Clark 1949–1967 TrumanShermanMinton 1949–1956 TrumanEarlWarren 1953–1969 eisenhowerJohnMarshallHarlan 1955–1971 eisenhowerWilliamJ.BrennanJr. 1956–1990 eisenhowerCharlese.Whittaker 1957–1962 eisenhowerPotterStewart 1958–1981 eisenhowerByronR.White 1962–1993 KennedyArthurJ.Goldberg 1962–1965 KennedyAbeFortas 1965–1969 L.JohnsonThurgoodMarshall 1967–1991 L.JohnsonWarrenE.Burger 1969–1986 NixonHarryA.Blackmun 1970–1994 NixonLewisF.PowellJr. 1972–1988 NixonWilliamH.Rehnquist 1972–1986 NixonJohnPaulStevens 1975– FordSandraDay 1981–2006 ReaganO’ConnorWilliamH. 1986–2005 ReaganRehnquistAntoninScalia 1986– ReaganAnthonyM.Kennedy 1988– ReaganDavidH.Souter 1990–2009 G.H.W. BushClarenceThomas 1991– G.H.W. BushRuthBaderGinsburg 1993– ClintonStephenBreyer 1994– ClintonJohnG.RobertsJr. 2005– G.W.BushSamuelAnthony 2006– G.W.BushAlitoJr.SoniaSotomayor 2009– ObamaelenaKagan 2010– Obama

SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT CASES

Marbury v. Madison (1803)ThiscaseestablishedtherightoftheSupremeCourttoreviewtheconstitutionalityoflaws.ThedecisioninvolvedjudicialappointmentsmadeduringthelasthoursoftheadministrationofPresidentJohnAdams.Somecommissions,includingthatofWilliamMarbury,hadnotyetbeendeliveredwhenPresidentThomasJeffersontookoffice.Infuriatedbythelast-minutenatureofAdams’sFederalistappointments,Jeffersonrefusedtosendtheundeliveredcommissionsout,andMarburydecidedtosue.TheSupremeCourt,presidedoverbyJohnMarshall,aFederalistwhohadassistedAdamsinthejudicialappointments,ruledthatalthoughMarbury’scommissionwasvalidandthenewpresident

shouldhavedeliveredit,theCourtcouldnotcompelhimtodoso.TheCourtbaseditsreasoningonafind-ingthatthegroundsofMarbury’ssuit,restingintheJudiciaryAct of 1789,were in conflictwith theConstitution.

Forthefirsttime,theCourthadoverturnedanationallawonthegroundsthatitwasunconstitutional.JohnMarshallhadquietlyestablishedtheconceptofjudicialreview:TheSupremeCourthadgivenitselftheauthoritytonullifyactsoftheotherbranchesofthefederalgovernment.AlthoughtheConstitutionprovidesforjudicialreview,theCourthadnotexercisedthispowerbeforeanddidnotuseitagainuntil1857.ItseemslikelythatiftheCourthadwaiteduntil1857tousethispower,itwouldhavebeendifficulttoestablish.


McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)In1816,Congressauthorizedthecreationofanationalbank.ToprotectitsownbanksfromcompetitionwithabranchofthenationalbankinBaltimore,thestatelegislatureofMarylandplacedataxof2percentonallnotesissuedbyanybankoperatinginMarylandthatwasnotcharteredbythestate.McCulloch,cashieroftheBaltimorebranchoftheBankoftheUnitedStates,wasconvictedforrefusingtopaythetax.UndertheleadershipofChiefJusticeJohnMarshall,theCourtruledthatthefederalgovernmenthadthepowertoestablishabank,eventhoughthatspecificauthor-itywasnotmentionedintheConstitution.

MarshallmaintainedthattheauthoritycouldbereasonablyimpliedfromArticle1,section8,whichgivesCongressthepowertomakealllawsthatarenecessaryandpropertoexecutetheenumeratedpowers.MarshallalsoheldthatMarylandcouldnottaxthenationalbankbecauseinaconflictbetweenfederalandstatelaws,thefederallawmusttakeprecedence.Thusheestablishedtheprinciplesofimpliedpowersandfederalsupremacy,bothofwhichsetaprecedentforsubsequentexpansionoffederalpowerattheexpenseofthestates.

Scott v. Sandford (1857)DredScottwasaslavewhosuedforhisownandhisfamily’sfreedomonthegroundsthat,withhismaster,hehadtraveledtoandlivedinfreeterritorythatdidnotallowslavery.WhenhiscasereachedtheSupremeCourt,thejusticessawanopportunitytosettleonceandforallthevexingquestionofslaveryintheter-ritories.TheCourt’sdecisioninthiscaseprovedthatitenjoyednospecialimmunityfromthesectionalandpartisanpassionsofthetime.FiveoftheninejusticeswerefromtheSouthandsevenwereDemocrats.

ChiefJusticeRogerB.TaneyhatedRepublicansanddetestedracialequality;hisdecisionreflectsthoseprejudices.HewroteanopinionnotonlydeclaringthatScottwasstillaslavebutalsoclaimingthattheConstitutiondeniedcitizenshiporrightstoblacks,thatCongresshadnorighttoexcludeslaveryfromtheterritories,andthattheMissouriCompromisewasunconstitutional.WhilesouthernDemocratsgloatedoverthisseven-to-twodeci-sion,sectionaltensionswerefurtherinflamed,andtheyoungRepublicanParty’sclaimthatahostile“slavepower”wasconspiringtodestroynorthernlibertieswasgivenfurthercredence.ThedecisionbroughtthenationclosertocivilwarandisgenerallyregardedastheworstdecisioneverrenderedbytheSupremeCourt.

Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (1873)TheSlaughterhousecases,asthecasesdocketedundertheButchers’titlewereknown,werethefirstlegaltestoftheFourteenthAmendment.Tocutdownoncasesof

cholerabelievedtobecausedbycontaminatedwater,thestateofLouisianaprohibitedtheslaughteroflivestockinNewOrleansexceptinoneslaughterhouse,effectivelygivingthatslaughterhouseamonopoly.OtherNewOrleansbutchersclaimedthatthestatehaddeprivedthemoftheiroccupationwithoutdueprocessoflaw,thusviolatingtheFourteenthAmendment.

Inafive-to-fourdecision,theCourtupheldtheLouisianalaw,declaringthattheFourteenthAmendmentprotectedonlytherightsoffederalcitizenship,likevotinginfederalelectionsandinterstatetravel.Thefederalgovernmentthuswasnotobligedtoprotectbasiccivilrightsfromviolationbystategovernments.ThisdecisionwouldhavesignificantimplicationsforAfricanAmericansandtheirstruggleforcivilrightsinthetwentiethcentury.

United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)AlsoknownastheSugar Trustcase,thiswasamongthefirstcasestorevealtheweaknessoftheShermanAntitrustActinthehandsofapro-businessSupremeCourt.In1895,AmericanSugarRefiningCompanypurchasedfourothersugarproducers,includingtheE.C.KnightCompany,andthustookcontrolofmorethan98percentofthesugarrefiningintheUnitedStates.Inanefforttolimitmonopoly,thegovernmentbroughtsuitagainstallfiveofthecompaniesforvio-latingtheShermanAntitrustAct,whichoutlawedtrustsandotherbusinesscombinationsinrestraintoftrade.TheCourtdismissedthesuit,however,argu-ingthatthelawappliedonlytocommerceandnottomanufacturing,definingthelatterasalocalconcernandnotpartof the interstatecommercethatthegovernmentcouldregulate.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)AfricanAmericanHomerPlessychallengedaLouisianalawthatrequiredsegregationontrainspassingthroughthestate.Afterensuringthattherailroadandtheconductorknewthathewasofmixedrace(PlessyappearedtobewhitebutundertheracialcodeofLouisianawasclassifiedas“colored”becausehewasone-eighthblack),herefusedtomovetothe“coloredonly”sectionofthecoach.TheCourtruledagainstPlessybyavoteofseventoone,declaringthat“sepa-ratebutequal”facilitieswerepermissibleaccordingtosection1oftheFourteenthAmendment,whichcallsuponthestatestoprovide“equalprotectionofthelaws”toanyonewithintheirjurisdiction.Althoughthecasewasviewedasrelativelyinsignificantatthetime,itcastalongshadowoverseveraldecades.

Initially,thedecisionwasviewedasavictoryforsegregationists,butinthe1930sand1940scivilrightsadvocatesreferredtothedoctrineof“separatebutequal”intheireffortstoendsegregation.Theyarguedthatsegregatedinstitutionsandaccommodationswereoftennotequaltothoseavailabletowhites,andfinally

SIGNIFICANT SuPReMe COuRT CASeS A-41



immediateevilandaspecificaction,the“clearandpresentdanger”testlaidthegroundworkforthosewholatersoughttolimitFirstAmendmentfreedoms.

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)DuringtheGreatDepression,theNationalIndustrialRecoveryAct(NIRA),whichwaspassedunderPresidentFranklinD.Roosevelt,establishedfaircompetitioncodesthatweredesignedtohelpbusinesses.TheSchechterbrothersofNewYorkCity,whosoldchick-ens,wereconvictedofviolatingthecodes.TheSupremeCourtruledthattheNIRAunconstitutionallyconferredlegislativepoweronanadministrativeagencyandoversteppedthelimitsoffederalpowertoregulateinterstatecommerce.ThedecisionwasasignificantblowtotheNewDealrecoveryprogram,demonstrat-ingbothhistoricAmericanresistancetoeconomicplanningandtherefusalofthebusinesscommunitytoyielditsautonomyunlessitwasforcedtodoso.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)In1950,thefamiliesofeightTopeka,Kansas,childrensuedtheTopekaBoardofEducation.Thechildrenwereblackswholivedwithinwalkingdistanceofawhites-onlyschool.Thesegregatedschoolsystemrequiredthemtotakeatime-consuming,inconvenient,anddangerousroutetogettoablackschool,andtheirparentsarguedthattherewasnoreasontheirchildrenshouldnotbeallowedtoattendthenearestschool.BythetimethecasereachedtheSupremeCourt,ithadbeenjoinedwithsimilarcasesregardingsegregatedschoolsinotherstatesandtheDistrictofColumbia.AteamoflawyersfromtheNationalAssociationfortheAdvancementofColoredPeople(NAACP),ledbyThurgoodMarshall(whowouldlaterbeappointedtotheSupremeCourt),urgedtheCourttooverturnthefifty-eight-year-oldprecedentestablishedinPlessy v. Ferguson,whichhadenshrined“separatebutequal”asthelawoftheland.AunanimousCourt, ledbyChiefJusticeEarlWarren,declaredthat“separateeducationalfacilitiesareinherentlyunequal”andthusviolatetheFourteenthAmendment.In1955,theCourtcalledfordesegregation“withalldeliberatespeed”butestablishednodeadline.

Roth v. United States (1957)In1957,NewYorkerSamuelRothwasconvictedofsendingobscenematerialsthroughthemailinacasethatultimatelyreachedtheSupremeCourt.Withasix-to-threevote,theCourtreaffirmedthehistoricalviewthatobscenity isnotprotectedby theFirstAmendment.Yetitbrokenewgroundbydeclaringthataworkcouldbejudgedobsceneonlyif,“takenasawhole,”itappealedtothe“prurientinterest”of“theaverageperson.”

succeededinoverturningPlessyinBrown v. Board of Educationin1954(seebelow).

Lochner v. New York (1905)Inthiscase,theCourtruledagainstaNewYorkstatelawthatprohibitedemployeesfromworkinginbaker-iesmorethantenhoursadayorsixtyhoursaweek.Thepurposeofthelawwastoprotectthehealthofworkers,buttheCourtruledthatitwasunconstitu-tionalbecauseitviolated“freedomofcontract”implic-itlyprotectedbythedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.Mostofthejusticesbelievedstronglyinalaissez-faireeconomicsystemthatfavoredsurvivalofthefittest.Theyfeltthatgovernmentprotectionofworkersinterferedwiththissystem.Inadissentingopinion,JusticeOliverWendellHolmesaccusedthemajorityofdistortingtheConstitutionandofdecidingthecaseon“aneconomictheorywhichalargepartofthecountrydoesnotentertain.”

Muller v. Oregon (1908)In1905,CurtMuller,ownerofaPortland,Oregon,laundry,demandedthatoneofhisemployees,Mrs.ElmerGotcher,workmorethanthetenhoursallowedasamaximumworkdayforwomenunderOregonlaw.Mullerarguedthatthelawviolatedhis“freedomofcontract”asestablishedinpriorSupremeCourtdecisions.

ProgressivelawyerLouisD.BrandeisdefendedtheOregonlawbyarguingthatastatecouldbejusti-fiedinabridgingfreedomofcontractwhenthehealth,safety,andwelfareofworkerswasatissue.Hisin-novativestrategydrewonninety-fivepagesofexcerptsfromfactoryandmedicalreportstosubstantiatehisargumentthattherewasadirectconnectionbetweenlonghoursandthehealthofwomenandthusthehealthofthenation.Inaunanimousdecision,theCourtupheldtheOregonlaw,butlatergenerationsofwomenfightingforequalitywouldquestionthestrat-egyofarguingthatwomen’sreproductiveroleentitledthemtospecialtreatment.

Schenck v. United States (1919)DuringWorldWarI,CharlesSchenckandothermem-bersoftheSocialistPartyprintedandmailedoutflyersurgingyoungmenwhoweresubjecttothedrafttoopposethewarinEurope.Inupholdingtheconvic-tionofSchenckforpublishingapamphleturgingdraftresistance,JusticeOliverWendellHolmesestablishedthe“clearandpresentdanger”testforfreedomofspeech.SuchutterancesasSchenck’sduringatimeofnationalperil,Holmeswrote,couldbeconsideredtheequivalentofshouting“Fire!”inacrowdedtheater.Congresshadtherighttoprotectthepublicagainstsuchanincitementtopanic,theCourtruledinaunan-imousdecision.Buttheanalogywasafalseone.Schenck’spamphlethadlittlepowertoprovokeapublicfirmlyopposedtoitsmessage.AlthoughHolmeslatermodifiedhispositiontostatethatthedangermustrelatetoan


caseheldthatthelawinfringedontheconstitutionallyprotectedrighttoprivacyofmarriedpersons.

AlthoughtheCourthadpreviouslyrecognizedfundamentalrightsnotexpresslyenumeratedintheBillofRights(suchastherighttoprocreateinSkinner v. Oklahomain1942),GriswoldwasthefirsttimetheCourthadjustified,atlength,thepracticeofinvestingsuchunenumeratedrightswithfullconstitutionalstatus.Writingforthemajority,JusticeWilliamO.DouglasexplainedthattheFirst,Third,Fourth,Fifth,andNinthAmendmentsimply“zonesofprivacy”thatarethefoundationforthegeneralrighttoprivacyaffirmedinthiscase.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)In1966,theSupremeCourt,byavoteoffivetofour,upheldthecaseofErnestoMiranda,whoappealedamurderconvictiononthegroundsthatpolicehadgottenhimtoconfesswithoutgivinghimaccesstoanattorney.TheMirandacasewastheculminationoftheCourt’seffortstofindameaningfulwayofdeter-miningwhetherpolicehaduseddueprocessinextract-ingconfessionsfrompeopleaccusedofcrimes.TheMirandadecisionupholdstheFifthAmendmentpro-tectionagainstself-incriminationoutsidethecourtroomandrequiresthatsuspectsbegivenwhatcametobeknownasthe“Mirandawarning,”whichadvisesthemoftheirrighttoremainsilentandwarnsthemthatanythingtheysaymightbeusedagainsttheminacourtoflaw.Suspectsmustalsobetoldthattheyhavearighttocounsel.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)Withasix-to-threevote,theCourtupheldtherightoftheNew York TimesandtheWashington Posttoprintmaterialsfromtheso-calledPentagon Papers,asecretgovernmentstudyofU.S.policyinVietnam,leakedbydissidentPentagonofficialDanielEllsberg.Sincethepapersrevealeddeceptionandsecrecyinthecon-ductoftheVietnamWar,theNixonadministrationhadquicklyobtainedacourtinjunctionagainsttheirfurtherpublication,claimingthatsuppressionwasintheinterestsofnationalsecurity.TheSupremeCourt’sdecisionoverturningtheinjunctionstrengthenedtheFirstAmendmentprotectionoffreedomofthepress.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)Inthiscase,theSupremeCourtruledfivetofourthatthedeathpenaltyformurderorrapeviolatedthecrueland unusual punishment clause of the EighthAmendmentbecausethemannerinwhichthedeathpenaltywasmetedoutwasirregular,“arbitrary,”and“cruel.”Inresponse,moststatesenactednewstatutesthatallowthedeathpenaltytobeimposedonlyafterapostconvictionhearingatwhichevidencemustbepresentedtoshowthat“aggravating”or“mitigating”

Priortothiscase,workcouldbejudgedobsceneifportionswerethoughtableto“depraveandcorrupt”themostsusceptiblepartofanaudience (suchaschildren).Thus,seriousworksofliteraturesuchasTheodoreDreiser’sAn American Tragedy,whichwasbannedinBostonwhenfirstpublished,hadreceivednoprotection.Althoughthisdecisioncontinuedtoposeproblemsofdefinition,itdidhelptoprotectmostworksthatattempttoconvey ideas,even if thoseideashavetodowithsex,fromthethreatofobscen-itylaws.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)In1959,fiveparentswithtenchildrenintheNewHydePark,NewYork,schoolsystemsuedtheschoolboard.Theparentsarguedthattheso-calledRegents’PrayerthatpublicschoolstudentsinNewYorkrecitedatthestartofeveryschooldayviolatedthedoctrineofseparationofchurchandstateoutlinedintheFirstAmendment.In1962,theSupremeCourtvotedsixtooneinfavorofbanningtheRegents’Prayer.

Thedecisionthrewthereligiouscommunityintoanuproar.Manyreligiousleadersexpresseddismayandevenshock;otherswelcomedthedecision.Severaleffortstointroduceanamendmentallowingschoolprayerhavefailed.SubsequentSupremeCourtdeci-sionshavebannedreadingoftheBibleinpublicschools.TheCourthasalsodeclaredmandatoryflagsalutingtobeaninfringementofreligiousandpersonalfreedoms.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)WhenClarenceEarlGideonwastriedforbreakingintoapoolroom,thestateofFloridarejectedhisde-mandforacourt-appointedlawyerasguaranteedbytheSixthAmendment.In1963,theCourtupheldhisdemandinaunanimousdecisionthatestablishedtheobligationofstatestoprovideattorneysforindigentdefendantsinfelonycases.Priortothisdecision,therighttoanattorneyhadappliedonlytofederalcases,notstatecases.InitsrulinginGideon v. Wainwright,theSupremeCourtappliedtheSixththroughtheFourteenthAmendmentstothestates.In1972,theSupremeCourtextendedtherighttolegalrepresen-tationtoallcases,notjustfelonycases,initsdecisioninArgersinger v. Hamlin.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)Withavoteofseventotwo,theSupremeCourtre-versedan“uncommonlysillylaw”(inthewordsofJusticePotterStewart)thatmadeitacrimeforany-oneinthestateofConnecticuttouseanydrug,ar-ticle,orinstrumenttopreventconception.Griswoldbecamealandmarkcasebecausehere,forthefirsttime,theCourtexplicitlyinvestedwithfullconstitu-tionalstatus“fundamentalpersonalrights,”suchastherighttoprivacy,thatwerenotexpresslyenumer-atedintheBillofRights.Themajorityopinioninthe




affirmativeactionprogramstoattacktheresultsofpastdiscriminationaslongasstrictquotasorracialclassificationswerenotinvolved.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)Byavoteoffivetofour,theCourtupheldseveralrestrictionsontheavailabilityofabortionsasimposedbyMissouristatelaw.Itupheldrestrictionsontheuseofstateproperty,includingpublichospitals,forabortions.Italsoupheldaprovisionrequiringphysi-cianstoperformteststodeterminetheviabilityofafetusthatadoctorjudgedtobetwentyweeksofageorolder.AlthoughthejusticesdidnotgosofarastooverturnthedecisioninRoe v. Wade(seeatleft),therulinggalvanizedinterestgroupsonbothsidesoftheabortionissue.Opponentsofabortionpressuredstatelegislaturestoplacegreaterrestrictionsonabortions;thosewhofavoredavailabilityofabortiontriedtomobilizepublicactionbypresentingthedecisionasamajorthreattotherighttochooseabortion.

Cipollone v. Liggett (1992)Inaseven-to-twodecision,theCourtruledinfavorofthefamilyofRoseCipollone,awomanwhodiedoflungcanceraftersmokingforforty-twoyears.TheCourtrejectedargumentsthathealthwarningsoncigarettepackagesprotectedtobaccomanufacturersfrompersonalinjurysuitsfiledbysmokerswhocon-tractcancerandotherseriousillnesses.

Miller v. Johnson (1995)Inafive-to-fourdecision,theSupremeCourtruledthatvotingdistrictscreatedtoincreasethevotingpowerofracialminoritieswereunconstitutional.Thedecisionthreatensdozensofcongressional,state,andlocalvotingdistrictsthatweredrawntogiveminori-tiesmorerepresentationashadbeenrequiredbytheJusticeDepartmentundertheVotingRightsAct.Ifstatesarerequiredtoredrawvotingdistricts,thenumberofblackmembersofCongresscouldbesharplyreduced.

Romer v. Evans (1996)Inasix-to-threedecision,theCourtstruckdownaColoradoamendmentthatforbadelocalgovernmentsfrombanningdiscriminationagainsthomosexuals.Writingforthemajority,JusticeAnthonyKennedysaidthatforbiddingcommunitiesfromtakingactiontoprotecttherightsofhomosexualsandnotofothergroupsunlawfullydeprivedgaysand lesbiansofopportunitiesthatwereavailabletoothers.Kennedybasedthedecisionontheguaranteeofequalprotec-tionunderthelawasprovidedbytheFourteenthAmendment.

circumstanceswerefactorsinthecrime.Ifthepost-convictionhearinghandsdownadeathsentence,thecaseisautomaticallyreviewedbyanappellatecourt.

In1976,theCourtruledinGregg v. Georgiathatthesestatuteswerenotunconstitutional.In1977,theCourtruledinCoker v. Georgiathatthedeathpenaltyforrapewas“disproportionateandexcessive,”thusallowingthedeathpenaltyonlyinmurdercases.Between1977and1991,some150peoplewereexecutedintheUnitedStates.Publicopinionpollsindicatethatabout70percentofAmericansfavorthedeathpenaltyformurder.Capitalpunishmentcontinuestogeneratecontroversy,however,asopponentsarguethatthereisnoevidencethatthedeathpenaltydeterscrimeandthatitsusereflectsracialandeconomicbias.

Roe v. Wade (1973)In1973,theCourtfound,byavoteofseventotwo,thatstatelawsrestrictingaccesstoabortionviolatedawoman’srighttoprivacyguaranteedbythedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.ThedecisionwasbasedonthecasesoftwowomenlivinginTexasandGeorgia,bothstateswithstringentan-tiabortionlaws.Upholdingtheindividualrightsofbothwomenandphysicians,theCourtruledthattheConstitutionprotectstherighttoabortionandthatstatescannotprohibitabortionsintheearlystagesofpregnancy.

Thedecisionstimulatedgreatdebateamonglegalscholarsaswellasthepublic.CriticsarguedthatsinceabortionwasneveraddressedintheConstitution,theCourtcouldnotclaimthatlegislationviolatedfunda-mentalvaluesoftheConstitution.Theyalsoarguedthatsinceabortionwasamedicalprocedurewithanacknowl-edgedimpactonafetus,itwasinappropriatetoinvokethekindof“privacy”argumentthatwasusedinGriswold v. Connecticut(seepageA-43),whichwasaboutcontra-ception.Defenderssuggestedthatthecaseshouldbearguedasacaseofgenderdiscrimination,whichdidviolatetheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.Otherssaidthattherighttoprivacyinsexualmatterswasindeedafundamentalright.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)WhenAllanBakke,awhiteman,wasnotacceptedbytheUniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchoolatDavis,hefiledalawsuitallegingthattheadmissionsprogram,whichsetupdifferentstandardsfortestscoresandgradesformembersofcertainminoritygroups,violatedtheCivilRightsActof1964,whichoutlawedracialorethnicpreferencesinprogramssupportedbyfederalfunds.Bakkefurtherarguedthattheuniversity’spracticeofsettingasidespacesforminorityapplicantsdeniedhimequalprotectionasguaranteedbytheFourteenthAmendment.Inafive-to-fourdecision,theCourtorderedthatBakkebeadmittedtothemedicalschool,yetitsanctioned



Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000)Inabitterlyarguedfive-to-fourdecision,theCourtreversedtheFloridaSupremeCourt’spreviousorderforahandrecountofcontestedpresidentialelectionballotsinseveralcountiesofthatbattlegroundstate,effectively securing the presidency for TexasRepublicangovernorGeorgeW.Bush.Therulingendedaprotractedlegaldisputebetweenpresiden-tialcandidatesBushandVicePresidentAlGorewhile inflamingpublicopinion:Forthefirsttimesince1888,apresidentwhofailedtowinthepopu-larvotetookoffice.CriticschargedthattheSupremeCourthadappliedpartisanshipratherthanobjectiv-itytothecase,pointingoutthatthedecisionwentagainstthisCourt’scustomaryinterpretationoftheConstitutiontofavorstateoverfederalauthority.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)Inthe1986caseBowers v. Hardwick,theSupremeCourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofaGeorgialawthatoutlawedsodomy,rulingthatsexualprivacywasnotprotectedbytheConstitution.Thisdecisioncameintoquestion,however,whenLawrence v. Texasar-rivedattheSupremeCourtin2002,challengingtheconstitutionalityofaTexasanti-sodomystatute.Inthiscase,theCourtvotedsixtothreetostrikedownthestatute,assertingthatthe1986decisionwasbasedonaninterpretationofconstitutionallibertiesthatwastoonarrow.ThisdecisionthusoverruledBowers v. Hardwick,withthemajorityholdingthattheTexaslawviolatedtheFourteenthAmendment’sdeclarationthatnostateshall“depriveanypersonoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw.”ThedecisioninLawrence v. Texaswashailedasalegalvictoryforthegayandlesbiancommunity.Itwaslandmarkinitsimplicationthatlawscannotbemadeonthebasisofmorality,withoutproofofharm.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2005)In2001,SalimAhmedHamdan,driverforal-QaedaleaderOsamabinLaden,wasarrestedinAfghanistanasasuspectedterrorist.Hewaschargedwithcon-spiracytocommitterroristoffensesafterbeingheld

intheU.S.militarybaseinGuantanamoBay,Cuba,fortwoyears.ItwasdecidedthatHamdanwouldbetriedbyamilitarycommissionunderanorderfromPresidentGeorgeW.Bushthatcommissionsbees-tablishedforexpressnon-citizens, includingthosewithconnectionstoal-Qaeda.Hamdan,however,claimedthattrialbymilitarycommissionwasunlaw-fulundertheGenevaConventionsandUniformCodeofMilitaryJustice(UCMJ).

Inthecase’sfirstroundthroughthecourts,theU.S.DistrictCourtoftheDistrictofColumbiaruledinHamdan’sfavor.Uponappeal,thedecisionwasreversed,thenewcourtrulingthatthemilitarycom-missionwas indeed lawful, and that theGenevaConventionscouldnotbeenforcedbytheU.S.judicialsystems.TheSupremeCourtissuedawritofcertiorariin2005andultimatelyupheldHamdan’scasebyavoteoffivetothree,statingthatthemilitarycommis-sionwasunlawfulunderboththeGenevaConventionsandtheUCMJ.ThisdecisionputahalttoallGuantanamoBaytribunals,andwaspraisedbyhumanrightsactiv-istsandlawyers.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)In2010, theSupremeCourtoverruledabanonpoliticalspendingbycorporationsinavoteoffivetofour.ThecasewenttocourtafterCitizensUnited,aconservativenonprofitorganization,triedtoairitscriticaldocumentaryonHillaryClinton,Hillary: The Movie,duringthe2008presidentialcampaign.Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionquicklybecameamatteroffreespeechandraisedthesensitivequestionofwhethercorporationsshouldbeviewedasindividualsundertheFirstAmendment.

TheCourt’sdecisionoverturnedtwoprecedentsanddividedthenationinanalreadyheatedtimeinthepoliticalsphere.AdvocatesfortherulingfeltthatthepreviousbanwouldhavegiventheSupremeCourtpowertoprohibitotherpoliticaloutlets,suchasnews-papersandtelevisionprograms.Dissenters,includingPresidentBarackObama,believedthatthevotecre-atedanopeningforwealthycorporationstotakead-vantageofthedemocraticsystem.Inreversingyearsofpolicy,therulingleftalltospeculateonitspossibleimpactnotonlyonthe2008election,butalsoonAmericanpoliticsasawhole.



THE AMERICAN ECONOMYthese six “snapshots” of the u.s. economyshowsig-nificantchangesoverthepastcenturyandahalf.In1849,theagriculturalsectorwasbyfarthelargestcontributortotheeconomy.Bytheturnofthecentury,withadvancesintechnologyandanabundanceofcheaplaborandrawmaterials,thecountryhadexperiencedremarkableindustrialexpansion,andthemanufactur-ingindustriesdominated.By1950,theservicesectorhadincreasedsignificantly,fueledbytheconsumerism

ofthe1920sandthepost–WorldWarIIyears,andtheeconomywasbecomingmorediversified.Notethatby1990,thegovernment’sshareintheeconomyhadgrowntomorethan10percentandactivityinboththetradeandmanufacturingsectorshaddeclined,partlyasaresultofcompetitionfromWesternEuropeandAsia.Manufacturingcontinuedtodecline,andby2008theserviceandfinance,realestate,andinsur-ancesectorshadallgrownsteadilytoeclipseit.

MainSectorsoftheU.S.Economy:1849,1899,1950,1990,2001,2008

source:DatafromHistorical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970(1975);Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2010;u.S.BureauofeconomicAnalysis,Industry Accounts Data, 2010.

1849

1990 20082001

19501899

Agriculture59.3

Agriculture33.3

Manufacturing32.1

Manufacturing49.3

Mining1.4Construction

7.9Construction

12.6

Mining4.6

Manufacturing29.5

Trade18.0

Agriculture7.3

Services8.5

Communication1.6

Transportation5.6

Finance,real estate,insurance

10.7

Mining3.2

Construction4.4

Gas, electricity,sanitation

1.9Government

8.3

Manufacturing23.0

Construction4.3

Mining3.0


3.3

Finance,real estate,insurance14.5Transportation

3.7

Communication2.6

Services15.2

Trade17.2

Government10.5

Agriculture2.3

Manufacturing15.3

Construction4.6

Mining1.3


2.2

Finance,real estate,insurance

19.8

Transportation3.1

Communication2.9

Services21.4

Trade15.9

Government12.2

Agriculture1.3

Manufacturing19.7

Construction4.8

Mining2.2

Gas, electricity, sanitation1.7

Finance,real estate,insurance18.2

Transportation3.2

Communication4.6

Services22.9

Trade9.6

Government11.7

Agriculture1.4


THe AMeRICAN eCONOMY A-47

federal sPendinG and tHe econoMY, 1790–2009

ForeignTrade Federal GrossDomestic (inbillions) FederalBudget Surplus/Deficit FederalDebtYear Product(inbillions) Exports Imports (inbillions) (inbillions) (inbillions)

1790 4.03 0.43 0.50 0.09 0.0032 1.641800 7.40 1.10 1.41 0.17 0.0010 1.291810 10.6 1.02 1.29 0.12 0.0187 0.811820 14.4 1.44 1.52 0.37 20.0078 1.871830 22.2 1.62 1.55 0.33 0.2120 1.071840 31.5 2.66 2.16 0.48 20.0977 0.081850 49.6 2.95 3.45 0.78 0.0788 1.241860 82.1 7.56 6.84 1.19 20.1340 1.231870 112 6.54 6.70 4.50 1.47 34.81880 192 15.8 14.1 4.96 1.22 38.91890 319 19.3 17.5 6.73 1.80 23.31900 423 30.8 19.1 10.7 0.95 26.71910 534 30.6 26.2 11.1 20.29 17.61920 688 67.4 45.0 49.8 2.27 1891930 893 39.3 34.3 33.7 7.22 1591940 1,167 46.4 85.6 104 241.50 4951950 2,006 94.3 82.1 294 214.30 2571960 2,831 145 125 629 2.10 2911970 4,270 270 246 983 214.30 3811980 5,839 470 513 1,369 2171 9091990 8,034 545 686 1,832 2323 3,2062000 11,226 1,071 1,449 2,041 270 5,2692009 12,703 1,571 1,946 3,186 21,280 11,876

note:AllFiguresarein2005dollars.source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., 1789–1945(1949), Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1965 (1965), Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990 (1990), Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2011 (2011),andLouisJohnstonandSamuelH.Williamson,“WhatWastheu.S.GDPThen?”MeasuringWorth,2011,www.measuringworth.org/usgdp.



Year Population PercentIncrease

1630 4,600 —1640 26,600 473.31650 50,400 89.11660 75,100 49.01670 111,900 49.11680 151,500 35.41690 210,400 38.91700 250,900 19.31710 331,700 32.21720 466,200 40.51730 629,400 35.01740 905,600 43.91750 1,170,800 30.01760 1,593,600 36.11770 2,148,100 34.81780 2,780,400 29.41790 3,929,214 41.31800 5,308,483 35.11810 7,239,881 36.41820 9,638,453 33.1

Year Population PercentIncrease

1830 12,866,020 33.51840 17,069,453 32.71850 23,191,876 35.91860 31,443,321 35.61870 39,818,449 26.61880 50,155,783 26.01890 62,947,714 25.51900 75,994,575 20.71910 91,972,266 21.01920 105,710,620 14.91930 122,775,046 16.11940 131,669,275 7.21950 150,697,361 14.51960 179,323,175 19.01970 203,302,031 13.41980 226,542,199 11.41990 248,718,302 9.82000 281,422,509 13.12010 308,745,538 9.7

PoPUlation GrowtH, 1630–2010

source:Historical Statistics of the U.S.(1960),Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970(1975),Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1996(1996),Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2003(2003),andunitedStatesCensus(2010).

populationfrom an estimated4,600whiteinhabitantsin1630,thecountry’spopulationgrewtoatotalofmorethan308millionin2010.ItisimportanttonotethattheU.S.census,firstconductedin1790andthesourceofthesefigures,countedblacks,bothfreeandslave,butdidnot includeAmericanIndiansuntil1860.Theyears1790to1900sawthemostrapidpopulationgrowth,withanaverageincreaseof25to35percent

perdecade.Inadditionto“natural”growth—birthrateexceedingdeathrate—immigrationwasalsoafactorinthatrise,especiallybetween1840and1860,1880and1890,and1900and1910(seetableonpageA-51).Thetwentiethcenturywitnessedslowergrowth,partlyaresultof1920simmigrationrestrictionsandadeclineinthebirthrate,especiallyduringthedepressioneraandthe1960sand1970s.TheU.S.populationisex-pectedtopass340millionbytheyear2020.

A DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS PEOPLE


A DeMOGRAPHIC PROFILe OF THe uNITeD STATeS AND ITS PeOPLe A-49

Birthrate,1820–2007

source: Datafrom Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970 (1975)and Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2007 (2007).

10

1820

20

30

40

50

60

1840

1860

1880

1900

1920

1940

1960

1980

1990

2000

2007

Bir

ths

per

thou

sand

5552

44

40

32

28

1924

16 1714 14.3

Baby Boom

LifeExpectancy,1900–2007

source: Data from Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970 (1975)and Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2007 (2007).

Females Males

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 1990 20072000

4846

55 54

61

73

67

77

70

79

72

80

74

80

75

65

DeathRate,1900–2007

source: Datafrom Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970 (1975)and Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2007 (2007).

5

1900

10

15

20

1920

1940

1960

1980

1990

2000

2007

Dea

ths

per

thou

sand

17.2

13.0

10.8

9.58.8 8.6 8.7

8.0



urbanization.Amorerecent trendhasbeen themigration,especiallysincethe1970s,ofpeopletotheSunBeltstatesoftheSouthandWest,luredbyfactorsasvariousaseconomicopportunitiesinthedefenseandhigh-techindustriesandgoodweather.Thismigrationhasswelledthesizeofcities likeHouston,Dallas,Tucson,Phoenix,andSanDiego,allofwhichinrecentyearsrankedamongthetoptenmostpopulousU.S.cities.

we tend to associate internal migrationwithmove-mentwestward,yetequallysignificanthasbeenthemovementofthenation’spopulationfromthecoun-trytothecity.In1790,thefirstU.S.censusrecordedthatapproximately95percentof thepopulationlivedinruralareas.By1990,thatfigurehadfallentolessthan25percent.Thedeclineoftheagriculturalwayoflife,late-nineteenth-centuryindustrialization,andimmigrationhaveallcontributedtoincreased

MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION

source:Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1991(1991),Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2002(2002).

RuralandUrbanPopulation,1750–2000

A-50 APPENDIX II • FACTS AND FIGURES

MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION

MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATIONWE TEND TO ASSOCIATE INTERNAL MIGRATION with movement westward, yet equallysignificant has been the movement of the nation’s population from the country tothe city. In 1790, the first U.S. census recorded that approximately 95 percent of thepopulation lived in rural areas. By 1990, that figure had fallen to less than 25 percent.The decline of the agricultural way of life, late-nineteenth-century industrialization,and immigration have all contributed to increased urbanization. A more recent trendhas been the migration, especially since the 1970s, of people to the Sun Belt states ofthe South and West, lured by factors as various as economic opportunities in thedefense and high-tech industries and good weather. This migration has swelled thesize of cities like Houston, Dallas, Tucson, Phoenix, and San Diego, all of which inrecent years ranked among the top ten most populous U.S. cities.

Rural and Urban Population, 1750–2000

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1991 (1991), Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 2002 (2002).

Per

cent

of p

opul

atio

n

1750

1790

1830

1870

1910

1950

2000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rural

Urban


MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION A-51

the quantity and character of immigrationtotheUnitedStateshasvariedgreatlyovertime.Duringthefirstmajorinflux,between1840and1860,new-comershailedprimarilyfromnorthernandwesternEurope.From1880to1915,whenratessoaredevenmoredramatically,theprofilechanged,with80percentofthe“newimmigration”comingfromcentral,eastern,andsouthernEurope.FollowingWorldWarI,strictquotasreducedtheflowconsiderably.Notealsothe

significant falloff during the years of theGreatDepressionandWorldWarII.Thesourcesofimmigra-tion during the last half century have changedsignificantly,withthemajorityofpeoplecomingfromLatinAmerica,theCaribbean,andAsia.Thelatestsurgeduring the1980sand1990sbroughtmoreimmigrantstotheUnitedStatesthaninanydecadeexcept1901–1910.

rates of iMMiGration, 1821–2009

Rateper ThousandofTotalYear Number ResidentPopulation

1821–1830 151,824 1.61831–1840 599,125 4.61841–1850 1,713,521 10.01851–1860 2,598,214 11.21861–1870 2,314,824 7.41871–1880 2,812,191 7.11881–1890 5,246,613 10.51891–1900 3,687,546 5.81901–1910 8,795,386 11.61911–1920 5,735,811 6.21921–1930 4,107,209 3.91931–1940 528,431 0.41941–1950 1,035,039 0.71951–1960 2,515,479 1.61961–1970 3,321,677 1.81971–1980 4,493,300 2.21981–1990 7,338,100 3.01991 1,827,167 7.21992 973,977 3.81993 904,292 3.51994 804,416 3.11995 720,461 2.71996 915,900 3.41997 798,378 2.91998 654,451 2.41999 646,568 2.32000 849,807 3.02001 1,064,318 3.72002 1,063,732 3.72003 704,000 2.42004 958,000 3.32005 1,122,000 3.82006 1,266,129 4.22007 1,052,415 3.52008 1,107,126 3.62009 1,130,818 3.7

source: Historical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970 (1975), 2002 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (2002),and Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1996, 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2011 (1996,1999,2003,2005,2011).


NorthwesternEurope

WesternHemisphere

Other immigration:Africa, Australia, Oceania

Central, Eastern, andSouthern Europe

Asia Total immigration

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1820

1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Imm

igra

nts

per

deca

de(t

hous

ands

)

MajorTrendsInImmigration,1820–2010

source:DatafromHistorical Statistics of the U.S., Colonial Times to 1970(1975),Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1999(1999),andStatistical Abstract of the U.S., 2011(2011).



U.S. Politics and Governmentbcs.bedfordstmartins.com/webpub/history/roark5e/e-book PDFS/Appendix...

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Politics and Governmentbcs.bedfordstmartins.com/webpub/history/roark5e/e-book PDFS/Appendix...