Mcculloch Vs The State Of Maryland

McCulloch V Maryland

McCulloch v Maryland is a landmark Supreme Court case in American history. The context and time when it occurred could challenge the fate of the Union and of the USA as we know it today.

The court decision I'm about to comment have been given by The Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in 1819, after a long judiciary process opposing a state to The Congress, through the person of McCulloch.

The issue of that case was an act passed by The Congress, after the suggestion of Hamilton (Secretary of State) in 1791.This act charted a national Bank, in order to create a national budget to ensure the welfare of the Union, conduct war etcÐ'... President Madison approved the Charter and so the first Bank of the United States was enacted right before the war of 1812, and renewed four years later.

In 1818, some advocated that such an agency couldn't overpower the state's powers, and that the ultimate power of taxation remained to the States. McCulloch was the Federal cashier of the Baltimore (MD) branch of the National Bank of the US at the time and refused to pay the debt tax asked by Maryland because the act of taxing the National bank was unconstitutional. On the other hand, the state of Maryland advocated that the Charter of a national bank was not written in the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

What really mattered in that case was not the fact that the delegate of the national bank violated a law passed by a state, but was much more about State's rights and Federal rights and whether the state had the right or not to charter a national bank, right which was not enumerated neither in the Constitution nor in the Articles of Confederation. Furthermore, we can say that the issue was much more about the power of the Federal state compared to the power of the States. Which one is Supreme over the other? Is it the State or the Federal government?

To answer that question, we will discuss in a first part how Maryland with its decision to tax the bank could have challenged the fate of the Union and the congress's power to act, in second we will see how and why according to Marshall the congress had the right to charter a bank, and in the last part we will explain why is the Supreme court the final arbitrary of the case.

1) Challenging the Union: The States and the Federal powers.

l.53: "This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"

This law case challenged the powers of the Federal Government. Indeed as being in the premises of a new nation, the Union was not accepted by all. On one side there were those who wanted a strong and powerful central nation, to ensure the future of the Union (Federalist such as Hamilton), and on the other side, there were those who wanted to preserve the States sovereignty (Anti- Federalist such as Jefferson). The state of Maryland as the plaintiff was against a national Bank as they believed that a financially strong federal government could be corrupted easily and so they wanted to limit the power of that Bank by taxing the agency based within its soil. Basically, they wanted to check to Bank's power. When the case was heard in the Supreme Court, Maryland declared that the charter of a bank by the congress was unconstitutional as it was not specifically given as a power by the constitution to the latter. As the power of charting a Bank was not "expressly" written in the Constitution within the other powers given in Art 1 sect. 8, therefore the validity of that act was null.

l.31 : "The counsel for the state of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument not emanating from the people, but as the act of a sovereign and independent States. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the States who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possesses dominion."

Through this quote Maryland declares that whether or not a state should be taxed by a federal government remained to the state to decide. As the State "alone possesses dominion", the congress had no right to establish field agencies within the states to collect taxes, and it is the State's right to interfere with these agency settled on their land. L.53-57 ("The question respecting the powers actually granted is perpetually arising"), also underlines the limited powers listed on the section concerning the Congress. What we have to understand is that at the time the country was not sure how much power the federal government should have. Many people believed it should have only the powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Maryland's statement calls into question whether the Congress has to settle its powers strictly to the ones enumerated in the Constitution and no more, or does it has powers exceeding those in the constitution?

2) Implied powers: The congress's powers are not limited to those granted in the Constitution.

This case was the first test of the constitutionality. We've seen before that the constitution is the only basis that has the state and the congress to rely on in matter of dispute and understanding powers. Maryland as weÐ''ve seen advocated that as the powers of the congress were specifically enumerated in the constitution, the congress should stick to these powers when they come to enact. But J. Marshall's decision will change that statement as he pointed out a new notion or doctrine if I might say; Congress has been given through the constitution implied powers.

l.59: "but there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers"

"Implied powers" means that the congress has powers that extend and that are connoted in those listed in the Constitution.

l.76: "a government entrusted with such ample powers, on due to execution of which happiness