<P> One of the most significant periods during the history of the Court was the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall (1801 to 1835). In the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution, legally cementing the power of judicial review . The Marshall Court also made several important decisions relating to federalism . Marshall took a broad view of the powers of the federal government--in particular, the interstate commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause . For instance, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that the interstate commerce clause and other clauses permitted Congress to create a national bank, even though the power to create a bank is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution . Similarly, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court found that the interstate commerce clause permitted Congress to regulate interstate navigation . </P> <P> The Marshall Court also made several decisions restraining the actions of state governments . The notion that the Supreme Court could consider appeals from state courts was established in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). In several decisions, the Marshall Court confirmed the supremacy of federal laws over state laws . For example, in McCulloch, the Court held that a state could not tax an agency of the federal government . At the same time, however, the Marshall Court held in the landmark case Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights restricted the federal government alone, and did not apply to the states . Nonetheless, the Supreme Court would in later years hold that the Fourteenth Amendment had the effect of applying most provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states . </P> <P> Marshall's forceful personality allowed him to steer his fellow Justices; only once did he find himself on the losing side in a constitutional case . In that case (Ogden v. Saunders in 1827), Marshall set forth his general principles of constitutional interpretation: </P> <Table> <Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers;--is to repeat what has been already said more at large, and all that can be necessary . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> </Table>

How has the supreme court evolved over its history