Page:EO 14023 Commission Final Report.pdf/67

 # Similar arguments for expansive federal jurisdiction continued to be made well into the nineteenth century, even as Congress declined to grant the full scope of decisional authority permitted by the Constitution. See generally Alison L. LaCroix, Federalists, Federalism, and Federal Jurisdiction, 30 205 (2012).
 * 1) See,  5–8 (3d ed. 2005). In 1793, the Act was amended to require only one Justice, along with the district judge, to hold circuit court.
 * 2) In 1791, while riding circuit in Virginia, Justice James Iredell wrote to his wife Hannah of “a very rascally house where I had the misfortune to be obliged to put up on Saturday night” at which “a parcel of worthless young Fellows” were “sitting up drinking gaming & cursing & swearing all night.” Letter from James Iredell to Hannah Iredell (Sept. 19, 1791), in 2, supra note 16, at 210.
 * 3) See Kathryn Turner, Federalist Policy and the Judiciary Act of 1801, 22  3 (1965).
 * 4) See, supra note 12, at 194–97.
 * 5) John Adams, Third Annual Message (Dec. 3, 1799), https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-3-1799-third-annual-message.
 * 6) Harper Judiciary Bill of 1800, reprinted in 4, supra note 16, at 310, 317.
 * 7) On March 28, 1800, arguing against congressional Republicans’ motion to postpone the bill’s consideration, one Federalist congressman contended “that the close of the present Executive’s authority was at hand, and from his experience, he was more capable to choose suitable persons to fill the offices than another.” Turner, supra note 21, at 13.
 * 8) An Act to Provide for the More Convenient Organization of the Courts of the United States, ch. 4, 2 Stat. 89 (1801).
 * 9) See, supra note 12, at 202–03 (“[T]he source of the conflict was political gain and power as well as ongoing and fundamental disagreement about just what the ‘federal’ in ‘federal republic’ was to mean, and what role the judiciary would play in that federal republic.”); ,  136 (1970) (“Contrary to its subsequent reputation, the Judiciary Act of 1801 had been the subject of a full and responsible debate during the preceding session of Congress, and its terms represented an attempt to correct the inadequacies of the first Judiciary Act of twelve years before.”).
 * 10) An Act to Repeal Certain Acts Respecting the Organization of the Courts of the United States; and For Other Purposes, ch. 8, 2 Stat. 132 (1802).
 * 11) Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Dickinson (Dec. 19, 1801), in 36  165–66 (Barbara B. Oberg ed., 2009).
 * 12) Alexander Hamilton, Remarks on the Repeal of the Judiciary Act,  (Feb. 13, 1802), reprinted in 25  523 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1976).
 * 13) Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
 * 14) Id. at 176.
 * 15) Id. at 177–78.
 * 16) See Mary Sarah Bilder, Idea or Practice: A Brief Historiography of Judicial Review, 20  6, 6 (2008);,  7 (2004).
 * 17) The Supremacy Clause states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  art. VI, cl. 2.
 * 18) Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 177.
 * 19)  134–35 (Paul Brest et al. eds., 7th ed. 2018).