Mcculloch Vs. Maryland Case Study

In the supreme court decision that was made with the McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the second bank of the United States, Maryland had placed a prohibitive tax on the bank notes. In a branch of the second bank Maryland attempted to impede the operation. This case McCulloch v. Maryland had established two important principles in Constitutional law. The first important thing that it applied was the constitution implied powers for implementing the constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. The second important reason was to state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government. James William McCulloch refused to pay the tax and was appealed to Maryland court because of this and this had begun the trial.

Justice Ginsburg wrote a 36-page dissent joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The first eight pages outline the extensive effort put forth by congress when researching, crafting and updating the 2009 version of the VRA. Justice Ginsburg argues that the question before the court ought to be whether or not congress acted appropriately within the authority granted under the constitution, namely the 15th amendment and the constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause as interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland, “all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted” to address the issue of discrimination in voting with appropriate legislation. The justice argues that the majority does not follow established precedent or tests when determining the ruling in this case as set out by MuCulloch v. Maryland, Norwest Austin, Katzenberg, or City of Rome. Ginsburg uses these examples to contend that the majority is improperly evaluating the case and creating an entirely new precedent that ignores current case law. Instead of ruling on the constitutional breadth of authority provided by the rationality test and the 15th amendment, the majority has chosen instead to pass judgment on the language in the

1. In 1819, McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark decision deciding that the State of Maryland at the time cannot hinder federal banks by forcing a tax on banks not chartered by Maryland. At the time of 1810, banks were collapsing due to an economic downfall of the war of 1812. The banks that survived that were licensed by the States lacked a lot of recognition and trust to move forward after the war to make an economic push. Then in 1816, Congress granted a charter to the Second Bank of the United States and also provided one-fifth of the nation’s capital of $35 million.

Was an argument between McCulloch vs Maryland. The argument was a battle between whether the constitution allows a national government to run a bank. As well as does the constitution allow state governments to tax a national bank operating within its borders? However the Supreme Court ruled in favor of banks being able to be built and run by the national government. However they ruled that state governments are unable to tax a national bank that is within their borders.

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.

McCulloch V. Maryland is the crucial debate of 1819 in regards to expand the Federal power. This debate was over Congress establishing a bank effecting the powers of the state and federal government. However, James W. McCulloch refused to pay the taxes for the Second National Bank chartered by the Congress. Therefore Maryland filed a lawsuit against McCulloch causing distress. The Supreme Court states that chartering a bank is an implied power of the Constitution. But what is implied powers? Implied powers are powers that Congress exercise in the Constitution but somehow exists due to the expressed powers stated in Article 1. And who has the power of chartering a bank? Both the national and state government has the power of being able to charter banks, borrow money and build roads etc. This is an example of concurrent powers. This means that both the state and national government can have similar types of power but can be fought against. Both governments must work together to resolve the issue.

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” This is what the Supreme Court determined in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. Presently churches or religious establishments are tax exempt. Many people vividly oppose the government’s stance on the issue, but though the government does many things wrong, as many will tell you, this is not one one of them.

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,

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

In 1819, McCullogh v. Maryland took place. McCullogh, a business manager, is taxed twice, once at a state level, and once at a federal level. Thinking this is unjust, McCullogh sues Maryland and McCullogh wins. This court case declares national supremacy over banking.

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In 1816 the Congress chartered the second Bank of the United States. Referred to as BUS. The bank was controlled by private stockholders, even though it was the depository of federal funds. State banks saw this bank as a competitor, and when the state banks began to fail during the 1818 depression, they blamed it on the BUS. One of the states laying blame on BUS was Maryland. We impose a large tax on banks not chartered within the state, and the only bank not chartered within the state was BUS. The BUS’ Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax, and Maryland sued James McCulloch, cashier for the branch. McCulloch responded by saying that the tax was unconstitutional, one of the state courts ruled in favor of Maryland, and the court of appeals

During 1816 Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. Two year later in 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. The cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, James W. McCulloch, refused to pay the tax. An unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unremunerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme.. they control the constitution

Maryland. The case developed because of the Second National Bank that Madison created. The state of Maryland placed a tax on the National Bank. An employee of a bank branch in Maryland refused to pay this tax. When tried in the Supreme Court, Congress’ establishment of this bank was found to be constitutional. John Marshall claimed that “The power to tax was the power to destroy” thus the tax that Maryland placed on the bank was ruled unconstitutional and had to be removed The supremacy clause originated from McCulloch v. Maryland. The clause states that the Supreme Court has the final ruling on discrepancies between state and federal

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of