Mcculloch Vs. Maryland: Case Study

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on November 12th, 1968 to a packed court house. The main constitutional question at hand was if a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and expression. Attorney Dan L. Johnson argued on the Tinker’s behalf, proclaiming that the students had the constitutional right, as per the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression, to wear the black armbands as a form of symbolic speech. On the other hand, attorney Allan A. Herrick defended the school board’s actions, inciting that the prohibition of armbands was necessary to prevent and stifle any violence or disorder. The topic of discussion during the oral arguments centered largely upon whether Tinker’s protest was disruptive to the class environment. Johnson argued that the anti-Vietnam protest, although sparking some talk, was undisruptive to school, citing that there was no evidence of disruption in any of the classes. Herrick, conversely, argued that the Vietnam War was an inflammatory issue, and that armbands invoked violence, especially since a

Background. Grant Thornton LLP v. FDIC, took place in West Virginia District Court in 2004. We are here today as a result of the appeal filed by Grant Thornton. In asserting for the OCC, we will prove why Grant Thornton is responsible for not acting in accordance with the laws and regulations designed for independent financial institutions while conducting an audit for the First National Bank of Keystone. The OCC is an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of Treasury that is responsible for supervising all national banks and federal savings associations, including federal branches and agencies of foreign banks (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 2015). The First National Bank of Keystone was incorporated in 1904 in Keystone, West Virginia. Keystone Bank was a member of

and thus pave the way for the modern national state that would emerge after the

However, the state of Maryland tried to block the activity of the national bank by imposing tax to all the notes that were issued. The branch manager of the bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes and lawsuits were filed in the Maryland Court. However, the case was brought up to the U.S Supreme Court as the Constitution did not subjectively describe that Federal Government had the authority to establish a bank. The U.S Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled out the case that acknowledges that the Congress has the rights to establish a national bank under Article 1 Section 8 in the American Constitution. This shows that the US Constitution was vaguely described and gave the Congress an insight to pass laws as long as it is within the Constitution. However, this gave the Federal Government to create the mentality to indirectly gain more power which restricts the States sovereignty.

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

Eisenstadt v. Baird was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It ruled in favor of unmarried couples using birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut provided the right for secrecy under the marital bedroom only, but not birth control on unmarried couples. The ruling was based it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument was simple. The law which the defendants were penalized was a Massachusetts law of “Crimes Against Chastity”. Because it did not prosecuted marry couples due to buying, possessing, or using birth controls, it was discriminatory this law persecuted unmarried couples for it. Also it was ruled one of the defendants was exercising his freedom of speech, when distributing birth control. Therefore he could not be punished. Judge Brennan wrote in his opinion

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

Hamilton’s creation of the first bank in the United States continues to exist in today’s economic environment. However, at that time Hamilton’s proposal was met with widespread resistance from individuals such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who considered the creation of a federal bank as unconstitutional. The analysis made by Gordon in his book is consistent with arguments made by to have a bank that would be effective in order to implement the powers authorized by the government as it was implied in the constitution

In Marbury v. Madison in 1803, Marshall overturned an act of congress for the first time that conflicted with the constitution. It was a daring step for a politically vulnerable court and Marshall crafted the opinion in such a way that Thomas Jefferson could not reject it. John Marshall had strong views that made him dominate the court from 1801 to 1835 and personally responsible for evaluating it in person of real authority. Marshall, also shared his power with other follow Justices that often curved his opinions in order to arrive at consensus decisions. Marshall established a model that all future Chief Justices would be measured to. The United States Supreme Court used the Necessary and Proper Clause in the McCulloch v. Maryland case. McCulloch v. Maryland case debated that if congress have the power to charter a bank. In 1791, the first charted bank; the First Bank of the United States was created, but the

In addition to saving the integrity of the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall also promoted certain Federalist principles, including the idea of a strong national government. From the years when the Constitution was being created, Alexander Hamilton fought for the creation of a national bank since he believed it was “necessary and proper” for the growth and development of the United States (“The Marshall Court”). As Hamilton and the Federalist Party had hoped, a national bank was created and one of its branches was placed in Baltimore, Maryland. State legislators from Maryland were not satisfied with the progress the bank was making because the negligent behavior of its bank officials was bringing the bank under (Newmyer, 295). To save their citizens from having to deal with the bank’s faulty leadership, the legislators attempted to drive the branch out of the state by placing a tax on all the banknotes issued by the bank. When the tax was purposely left unpaid, Maryland sued the cashier of the bank--James McCulloch. In the state courts, Maryland won its case,

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Griswold, and her claim that the state contraceptive law was unconstitutional.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

The Court asked the question, was the closing of the state pools an action that denies “equal protection of the laws” to Blacks. They felt the answer was no since both races received the same treatment. The Courts also felt that neither the 14th amendment nor any Act of Congress purports to impose a duty on a State to begin to operate or to continue to operate public swimming pools. They felt that since this was not a case where whites are permitted to use public facilities while blacks were denied, nor a case where a city is maintaining different sets of facilities for blacks and whites and enforcing them to remain separate that there was no reason to force the city to reopen the swimming pools. They felt that it was constitutional because the city showed that integrated pools could not be maintained safely and economically.

But how does this play into American federalism you ask? Well not only did the Supreme Court rule in favor of McCulloch, they also ruled in favor of the government. They made it so that not only can a national government run a bank, but they can run

Abortion did not immediately engrave itself onto public agenda; it had help. The legal debate over the use of birth control proved to be the catalyst needed to propel abortion to the Supreme Court and into the ranks of public policy. The birth control movement was significant to Roe v. Wade because it served as a key in which to unlock the gates of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courts decision to hear Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that challenged the Connecticut statute prohibiting anyone to “use any drug, article, or instrument to prevent conception or to give assistance or counsel in its use (p.39)”, is arguably the most significant factor in the Court’s