Mcculoh v maryland

Who was sued in McCulloch v Maryland? James McCullochhead of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, was originally sued by John James, a citizen, who took action as an intervenor a party… without a direct interest who has a legitimate stake in the outcome of the case. He won a judgment in Baltimore County Court. McCulloch was the nominal respondent for the US government.

Background[ edit ] The establishment of a national "Bank of the United States" was a source of great public controversy from the time of the United States government's creation in with the ratification of the U. The Bank first went into full operation in PhiladelphiaPennsylvania. Inthe Bank opened a branch in BaltimoreMarylandand transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by issuing bank notesdiscounting promissory notesand performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform.

Both sides of the litigation admitted that the president, directors, and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch or office of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the United States.

On February 11,the General Assembly of Maryland passed "an act to impose a tax on all banks, or Mcculoh v maryland thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature: The Bank was represented by Daniel Webster. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect half of the fine, as provided for by the statute.

The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals, where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks. The court upheld Maryland.

The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Decision[ edit ] The Court determined that Congress had the power to create the Bank. Chief Justice Marshall supported his conclusion with four main arguments: Marshall invoked the first Bank of the United States history as authority for the constitutionality of the second bank.

The Court broadly described Congress's authority before it addressed the Necessary and Proper Clause.

In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Court rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause that the word "necessary" in the clause meant that Congress could pass only laws that were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers.

The Court rejected that argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers of Congress under the Constitution would be useless if only laws deemed essential to a power's execution could be passed.

Marshall also noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not its limitations. The Court held that the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause does not refer therefore to the only way of doing something but applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally-established powers: If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.

There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality Chief Marshall also determined that Maryland could not tax the bank without violating the constitution since, as Marshall commented, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy".

The Court thus struck down the tax as an unconstitutional attempt by a state to interfere with a federal institution, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Significance[ edit ] The case was a seminal moment in federalism: Marshall also explained in the case that the Necessary and Proper Clause does not require all federal laws to be necessary and proper and that federal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of the express, enumerated powers granted by the Constitution does not need to comply with the Necessary and Proper Clause, which "purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government.

It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.

Facts of the case

Compact theory also argues that the federal government is a creation of the states and that the states maintain superiority. Unlike Marshall, his successor, Roger B. Taneyestablished dual federalism by which separate-but-equal branches of government are believed to be a better option.

Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the High Court of Australia in D'Emden v Pedderwhich dealt with similar issues in the Australian Federation.

While recognizing American law as not binding on them, the Australian Court nevertheless determined that the McCulloch decision provided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal government, and the Australian Statesowing in large part to strong similarities between the American and Australian constitutions.In McCulloch v.

Maryland () the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank. McCulloch v. Maryland, case decided in by the U.S. Supreme Court, dealing specifically with the constitutionality of a Congress-chartered corporation, and more generally with the dispersion of power between state and federal governments.

After the First Bank of the United States () had. In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch lausannecongress2018.comnd, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down one of his most important decisions regarding the expansion of Federal lausannecongress2018.com case involved the power of Congress to charter a bank, which sparked the even broader issue of the division of powers between state and the Federal Government.

McCulloch v. Maryland () Argued: Decided: ___ Syllabus; Opinion, Marshall; Syllabus. Congress has power to incorporate a bank. The Act of the 10th of April, , ch. 44, to "incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States" is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. The state of Maryland enacted a tax that would force the United States Bank in Maryland to pay taxes to the state. McCulloch, a cashier for the Baltimore, Maryland Bank, was sued for not complying with the Maryland state tax. A case in which the Court decided that the Second Bank of the United States could not be taxed by the state of Maryland, declaring that the government of individual states cannot impose laws on the functioning of the federal government.

The state of Maryland enacted a tax that would force the United States Bank in Maryland to pay taxes to the state. McCulloch, a cashier for the Baltimore, Maryland Bank, was sued for not complying with the Maryland state tax.

In McCulloch v. Maryland () the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank. A case in which the Court decided that the Second Bank of the United States could not be taxed by the state of Maryland, declaring that the government of individual states cannot impose laws on the functioning of the federal government.