Did the supreme court decisions under john marshall's leadership extend federal power too much? is it appropriate that someone who was not elected should have such tremendous power to shape the government and the law? is it appropriate that a political party's ideology be implemented through the judiciary?

The supreme court decision under John Marshall leadership have extended federal powers, but not too much in the sense of destroying the federalist idea that brought the United States together. Marshall was guided by a strong commitment to judicial power and by a belief in the supremacy of national over state legislatures. His judicial vision was very much in keeping with the Federalist political program in line with the constitution.

It can be argued that someone not elected should not have power to shape government and law through the Expansion of the Judiciary in 1801, but the Marshall Court, and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.

It is definitely not appropriate that a political party ideology is implemented through the judiciary, however, In keeping with John Marshall's Federalist views, they generally favored strong government action and especially supported the supremacy of the federal government over state authorities as long as it was constitutional.

they united the colonies in their fight against the british.

answer; slavery should be outlawed in the new country, was part of the initial draft of the declaration of independence, but not part of the final