Untitled document

.docx

School

University of West Alabama *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

190

Subject

Political Science

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DoctorYak4034

McCulloch v. Maryland Petitioner: James W. McCulloch v. Respondent: Maryland Argued: Feb 28, 1819; Feb 23, 1819; Feb 24, 1819; Feb 25, 1819; Feb 26, 1819; Feb 27, 1819; Mar 1, 1819; Mar 2, 1819; Mar 3, 1819 Decided: March 6, 1819 Facts of the Case: The Second Bank of the United States was established by Congress in 1816 as the national bank. Its purpose was to provide a stable currency, regulate credit, and promote economic growth in the state, but Maryland's taxation n efforts to protect its state-chartered banks led to a bill in 1818 which taxed all out-of-state banks , including the United States' second-largest bank. The Second Bank of America, which had a branch in Maryland, refused to pay the taxes offered by the state. The cashier of the bank is James W. McCullough. McCulloch, as agent of the bank, refused to pay the payment, and the matter went to the Maryland court system. Question(s) of the Case: The court dealt with two questions in the case. 1. Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? 2. Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Majority Opinion: The majority opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland highlighted the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress authority to carry out essential tasks for its enumerated powers, providing flexibility for achieving legitimate goals. Chief Justice Marshall asserted implied powers, like creating a national bank, stemming from the authority to manage finances and regulate commerce. He contended that Congress wields additional powers beyond explicit Constitutional grants when crucial for government functions. Marshall ruled Maryland's taxation of the Second Bank unconstitutional, citing that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy," and emphasized states can't hinder federal institutions. The opinion also upheld federal supremacy, stating federal laws and institutions prevail over conflicting state laws during constitutional disputes. Chief Justice Marshall's decision affirmed the bank's constitutionality, introduced implied powers via the Necessary and Proper Clause, and solidified federal supremacy, profoundly shaping interpretations of federal authority and state interactions.

Constitutional Connections: The Supremacy Clause. Overview of Dissenting Opinion(s): The decision was unanimous. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): Gibbons v. Ogden involved a dispute over steamboat licenses between Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden. The case explored whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly on a steamboat route between New York and New Jersey. Both McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden dealt with issues related to federal authority and interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez (1995): In Lopez, the Court considered the constitutionality of the Gun- Free School Zones Act, which prohibited firearms near schools. The case questioned whether the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate non-economic, intrastate activities. The Court ruled that the Act exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause authority, setting a limit on federal power and emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between federal and state jurisdiction.United States v. Lopez is often compared to McCulloch v. Maryland due to its impact on the scope of federal power and its implications for the Commerce Clause. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): Key Details: NFIB v. Sebelius centered on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), particularly the individual mandate that required most Americans to have health insurance. The Court's decision addressed whether the Commerce Clause could be invoked to justify the individual mandate. While the Court upheld the mandate as a tax, the case underscored debates about federalism and the extent of federal power. This case shares similarities with McCulloch v. Maryland in terms of the constitutional limits on federal authority, particularly regarding the scope of Congress's power to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Sources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-393 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/mccullough-v-maryland-1819 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/gibbons-v-ogden-defining-congress-power-under-the- commerce-clause

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help