Earlier articles in this series have discussed the sections of the Constitution that formed the Congress and the executive. The Colonies had always had their own courts that dealt with their own problems. The Framers concluded that the federal government had its own issues that could not be resolved in a state court. A Supreme Court would be formed to hear actual cases — no “what-ifs” — involving disputes between two or more states, treaties, congressional laws, ambassadors, and maritime issues. Congress was to create the lower federal courts whose rulings could then be appealed to the Supreme Court. This Article also stipulates that all crimes, except impeachments, were to be held before a jury in the state where the crime had been committed.

The justices, appointed by the president, would serve during their “good behavior;” hence, there would be no term limitations. They were to be paid — and this remuneration could not be decreased; making the court truly independent of both the executive and the Congress.

Article 3 does not mention how many justices there would be. The number of justices on the court varied until 1859 when a congressional law was enacted that specified that the court have one chief justice and eight associate justices.

The court’s first chief justice was John Jay. Perhaps the most famous of our early justices was John Marshall, who firmly established the principle of judicial review — that is the right to review acts of Congress. FDR, not happy with the court, threatened to increase their number.

The Article also includes the crime of treason. As a new country and not just a collection of British colonies who had just finished waging war, the Framers were concerned with treason. The Constitution defines the crime of treason as a person levying war against the U.S. or giving aid or comfort to the enemy. In order to be convicted of treason, it specifies that a conviction could only be reached if there were two witnesses to an actual “act” of treason or if the accused confesses in open court. Congress would then set the punishment. As a reaction to British law, the accused, if found guilty, would not have to forfeit his property nor were his family to be held accountable. It had been British common law for the guilty to have to relinquish their property to the Crown and for their family to be unable to inherit, buy or sell property. This policy was known as the “Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture.” [1]

Interestingly, the full Court has never heard a case of treason; although it has reviewed about 30 cases that Congress has considered. Of local interest, Aaron Burr was tried by Chief Justice Marshall in Richmond for treason. After his duel with Alexander Hamilton, in 1806, Burr fled to Blennerhasset Island. He and Blennerhasset began a scheme to form their own country. The details were quite murky and involved both Spain (Florida) and France (Louisiana) at various times. A substantial amount of armaments had been amassed on the island in preparation. This armory was destroyed by the Army while in pursuit of the “traitors.” The case against Burr had plenty of evidence including a wealth of letters and here-say testimony. But only one witness could be found who would testify to an actual act of treason. So, Burr was acquitted.

Katherine Pekruhn is a member of Living Democracy: Engaging Citizens, a local citizen group.

Our mission is to inform and educate the Mid-Ohio Valley about how government works on the local, state, and federal levels and how citizens can be involved to make our democracy work. Join us the third Wednesday of each month. livingdemocracymov@gmail.com and facebook/speak foryourselfvote and Youtube channel Living Democracy