McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Compelling Question

Does the federal government have too much power?

Take Part in Our Survey
Take Part in Our Survey
The Federal Government Has Too Much Power

Facts of the Case

After the War of 1812, (when was that?) the U.S. government needed additional funds to pay off the debts of the war. At the time, there was no central US national bank, so instead of being able to borrow money from one institution, the government had to work with multiple state banks. How inefficient! As a result, in 1816, Congress set up the Second Bank of the United States with branch offices in multiple locations and convenient horse and buggy drive through service. Many states opposed the National Bank because the state banks then had to compete for business. In response, Maryland passed a law requiring the national bank to pay a heavy tax to the state of Maryland. James McCulloch, the bank's bad-to-the-bone cashier, refused to pay the tax!

McCulloch was convicted of failing to pay the tax and was fined $2,500. He appealed the case to the Maryland Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the lower court and affirmed McCulloch's conviction. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of the United States.


The Court Considered These Constitutional Questions:

  • Did Congress have the power to establish a national bank?

  • Did the Maryland law to tax the nationally chartered bank unconstitutionally interfere with federal powers?

  • Do we look fat in these robes?

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
— John Marshall

Fun Facts

  • When the Maryland courts upheld this law, the Bank, in the name of its Baltimore branch cashier James W. McCulloch, appealed to the Supreme Court. Who said bank tellers couldn't be famous!?!

  • Daniel Webster, with William Pinkney, argued the case on behalf of the Bank. Luther Martin argued the case on behalf of Maryland. 

  • The First Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress for 20 years on February 25, 1791.  The concept of the bank was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury and a visionary for the great future of America. 

  • John Marshall was the chief justice presiding over a landmark case - again!

  • There were seven Supreme Court Justices when the case was decided. The ruling was unanimous, but Justice Thomas Todd did not take part in the ruling. On March 29, 1812, Todd had married Lucy Payne Washington, the youngest sister of Dolley Madison and the widow of Major George Steptoe Washington, who was a nephew of President George Washington. It is believed to be the first wedding held in the White House.

  • Supreme Court Justices do look fat in their robes.


Sources

Oyez - McCulloch v Maryland

Crash Course Video - Federalism

National Archives Primary Source - McCulloch v Maryland ruling

Relevant Excerpts of the Constitution:

  • The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18)

    "The Congress shall have the Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested in this Constitution."

    The Necessary and Proper Clause is also known as the "Elastic Clause" because its meaning may be stretched to allow Congress to pass a variety of laws.

  • The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2)

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    This part of the Constitution specifically states that federal laws take priority over state laws.

  • The Tenth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."


Main Arguments for McCulloch:

  • Although the power to charter a national bank is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is one of the implied powers that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress.
     
  • The bank is a "necessary and proper" way for Congress to conduct the financial affairs of the country.
     
  • If Maryland is allowed to tax the bank, the state could destroy the bank by taxing it so much that it would have to close.
     

Main Arguments for Maryland:

  • The right of the national government to establish a bank is not specifically granted in the Constitution.
     
  • It is also not an implied power, so Congress had no right to establish a national bank.

  • The power to establish banks is reserved for the states.

  • States are sovereign (they have complete and permanent authority over themselves), so they have the authority to tax institutions and businesses in their borders.
     

Main Arguments for Pizza:

  • Easy to divide evenly.

  • Tastes great.

  • Can eat with hands!

  • Can be used as a Frisbee in an emergency.

  • Everybody loves pizza.

 

The Court's Decision:

The Court unanimously ruled in favor of the national government's right to establish the bank and also found that the state did not have the power to tax the institution.

Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Court, stated that the federal government possessed powers that were not explicitly expressed in the Constitution, known as implied powers. Although the federal government did not specifically have the power to charter a national bank, the national Congress did have the authority to make all laws "necessary and proper" to accomplish other tasks.

Marshall also held that even though the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme ... they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them." Maryland did not have the ability to tax a federal establishment. Taxing the national bank was really an attempt by the state to destroy the bank, and this was a challenge to the federal government's constitutional supremacy.

The Court did not rule on pizza, as it had not been invented yet.


For your Consideration

Imagine life without The Necessary and Proper Clause, where the federal government is limited to only enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Think about how different the government and American life would be.

Imagine life without The Supremacy Clause, where much like America under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government is no longer superior to the states. Think about how different the government and American life would be.

  1. When there is a conflict between state and federal government, who wins and why?
  2. Is the growth of the federal government which McCulloch v Maryland made possible a good thing?
  3. If you were John Marshall how would you have ruled in McCulloch v Maryland?
  4. How would the U.S. political system be different without McCulloch v Maryland?

Creative Time

Do one of the following to share:

  1. Create a facebook page for either James McCulloch or John Marshall.
  2. Replace the words of a popular rap or song with facts, data, details, and information from McCulloch v Maryland. For example: Hey Jude = Hey Judge

Hey Judge, don't make it bad
Take a bad clause and make it better
Remember to let it into your heart
Then you can start to make it better

Hey Judge, don't be afraid
You were made to make government bigger
The minute you let national government win
Then you begin to make it better

And anytime your court constrains, hey Jude, refrain
Don't limit the gov upon your shoulders
For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool
By making his gov a little bolder
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah

Hey Judge, don't let the elastic clause down
You have founded a bank, now go and get her
Remember to let the Second National Bank into your heart
Then you can start to make it better

So let national supremacy in, hey Jude, begin
You're waiting for some states to perform with
And don't you know that it's just you, hey Judge, you'll rule
The power you need is in your majority opinion
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah yeah

Hey Judge, don't make it bad
Take the words of the framers and make it better
Remember to let James McCulloch win win win
Then you'll begin to make our country
Better better better better better better, oh

Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
National Supremacy nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge
Nah nah nah nah nah nah, nah nah nah, hey Judge

-Not Lennon and McCartney


    Assessment

    Use all the sources above to fill in the Landmark Court Cases Rubric Below:

    Civic Action

    Throughout American history there has been a battle between those who fear anarchy and those who fear tyranny. These battles have been fought by Anti-Federalists, and Federalists, Decentralists and Centralists, Republicans and Democrats; and have been fought at the Constitutional Convention, in the Supreme Court, and at the ballot box. And today this fight continues regarding the government's power in the war on terror, state marijuana laws, and immigration enforcement. In terms of this long fought war, think about the trajectory that our country took because of the ruling in McCulloch v Maryland. Would we be better off with a federal government limited to the enumerated powers of the US Constitution; would we be better off with a more robust and powerful federal government; or do we have this balance just right? Contact your member of the U.S. House of Representatives and share your opinion of this fight regarding a current event.


    Compelling Question Revisited

    Does the federal government have too much power?

    How elastic is the Necessary and Proper clause; who wins in a bar fight between the states and the national government; and how does this affect your amazing life?

    Marbury v. Madison

    Marbury v. Madison (1803)

    Compelling Question

    What would our lives and political system be like without a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review?


    Facts of the Case

    At the end of President John Adams’ term, his Secretary of State failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.  Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office, he told James Madison, his Secretary of State, to not deliver the documents to Marbury.  Marbury then sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury Justice of the Peace. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in establishment of the concept of judicial review.

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
    — Chief Justice John Marshall

    Fun Facts

    On February 10, 1803, Marbury's attorneys argued the case. Neither Madison nor an attorney representing him was in court. Madison had never even acknowledged the order to show cause.

    Shortly after the argument, Justice Samuel Chase became quite ill. To accommodate him in the winter weather, the Supreme Court began to hear arguments where the justices all lodged, Stelle's Hotel. On February 24, 1803, the justices gathered for four hours, while Chief Justice http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/robes_marshall.html read the landmark Marbury decision. The case that made the U.S. Supreme Court one of the most powerful courts in the world was announced in the living room of a three-story hotel!


    Sources

    Oyez - Marbury v. Madison

    Crash Course Video - Judicial Review

    More Perfect Podcast - Kittens Kick the Giggly Blue Robot - Warning: explicit language

    National Archives Primary Source - Marbury v Madison ruling

    For your Consideration

    Imagine life without a Supreme Court. Think about how different U.S. Checks & Balances sheet would be it there was no judicial review.

    Judicial Review - The power of a court to refuse to enforce a law or a government regulation that in the opinion of the judges conflicts with the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court is the keeper of the constitutional conscience. The Supreme Court alone, not the legislative or the Executive branch, gets to interpret the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson said that the Supreme Court was a “Constitutional Convention always in session.”

    John Marshall said that judges- not executives or legislators- get to interpret laws. “If two laws conflict with each other, the courts should interpret the Constitution.”

    But the Constitution itself does not give the judicial branch the power of judicial review. Court power has evolved since the ratification of the Constitution. And some would argue that John Marshall created the power of judicial review out of thin air! Here are some questions to consider:

    1. Is the judiciary, congress or the executive entitled to interpret the constitutionality of laws and executive actions?
    2. Is the judicial review that stems from Marbury v Madison a good thing?
    3. If you were John Marshall how would you have ruled in Marbury v Madison?
    4. How would the U.S. political system be different without Marbury v Madison?

    Creative Time

    Do one of the following to share:

    1. Summarize Marbury v Madison in a 140 character tweet with any hashtags you think are appropriate.
    2. Find an emoji or group of emojis to represent Marbury v Madison.

    Assessment

    Use all the sources above to fill in the Landmark Court Cases Rubric Below:

    Civic Action

    Because the Supreme Court is an un-elected body, some people think that judicial review is undemocratic. Others think that it is wise to have an independent Constitutional check on the legislature and executive branch. One solution to this dilemma would be to hold elections for Supreme Court Justices. Contact your member of the U.S. House of Representatives and share your opinion of this solution.

     

    United States v. Lopez

    Compelling Question

    Are there limits to the power of the Commerce clause and thus the regulatory power of Congress? And if so, how does this affect you?

    Take Part in our survey
    Take Part in our survey
    The US Congress should be able to pass a law forbidding individuals from carrying guns in a school zone

    Facts of the case

    Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

    Question

    Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

    Conclusion

    Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity.

     


    Fun Facts

    • After a half century of the expansion of federal power, the SCOTUS set a limit on Congress' use of the Commerce Clause.
    • 38% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    • 18 states allow an adult to carry a loaded gun on school grounds.
    • More than a third of the states already allow teachers and other adults to carry guns to school. In most cases, all you need is the equivalent of a note from the principal — you usually don't even need law enforcement approval.
    • Individual packs, which contain one 1.59-ounce serving, contain 30 to 35 candies. M&M's candies are also sold in bulk bags. A 5-pound bag contains approximately 2500 candies, while a 10-pound bag contains approximately 5000 pieces.
    • Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions:
    • Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
    • California (with approval of the superintendent)
    • Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
    • Hawaii (no specific law)
    • Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
    • Iowa (with "authorization")
    • Kentucky (with school board approval)
    • Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
    • Mississippi (with school board approval)
    • Montana (with school trustees' permission)
    • New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
    • New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
    • New York (with the school's approval)
    • Oregon (with school board approval)
    • Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
    • Texas (with the school's permission)
    • Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator")
    • Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)

    Sources

    • U.S. v. Lopez at Oyez
    • Listen to the Oral Arguments and the Opinion Announcement
    To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.
    — Chief Justice William Rehnquist

    Assessment

    Use all the sources above to fill in the Landmark Court Cases Rubric Below:



    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    — The Commerce Clause in its entirety

    For your consideration

    Education, although far more than a matter of economics, has long been inextricably intertwined with the Nation’s economy…. guns in the hands of six percent of inner-city high school students and gun-related violence throughout a city’s schools must threaten the trade and commerce that those schools support.
    — Justice Stephen Bryer
    1. Do you believe, like Justice Beyer (see above quote), that the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 is constitutional under the Commerce Clause?
    2. What are some things the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate?
    3. What is one consequence of the fact that this case limits, for the first time in a half century, the power of the Congress to use the Commerce Clause?
    4. Read these two different interpretations of the Commerce Clause and explain which one you agree with more.
    5. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's majority ruling in U.S. v. Lopez?

    Creative time

    • Some would say that the Commerce Clause has been the most powerful weapon in the expansion of the power of the Congress. If you had to list all the weapons in Congress' arsenal, what would you rank as the top five?
    • Imagine that you wanted a judicial conservative to have to uphold the constitutionality of Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. Rewrite the Commerce Clause so that it has the power for a judicial conservative to allow Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.
    • Here are the words of the Commerce Clause, "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" Now write a rap, rhyme, song, or limerick about the Commerce Clause.
    • Write your own opinion for the case of U.S. v. Lopez

    Civic Action

    Contact your US House Representative. Ask them to initiate a constitutional amendment to rewrite the Commerce Clause so that it is either more expansive or more restrictive in the powers it gives Congress. 


    Compelling Question Revisited

    Are there limits to the power of the Commerce clause and thus the regulatory power of Congress? And if so, how does this affect you?