McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Case Brief

I. Facts: In 1818 the Maryland legislature attempted to tax banks and bank branches not chartered by the state legislature. James McCulloch, who was a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States, against which the law was presumably directed, failed to pay a $15,000 annual fee or comply with the alternative requirement by affixing tax stamps to the bank notes issued. McCulloch brought a writ of error against the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, which had upheld a lower court judgment against him.

II. Law: McCulloch is essentially questioning the validity and legality of the act passed by Maryland on the Second Bank of the United States in Maryland.

III. Decision/Reasoning: The Court invoked the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution, which the Court asserted gave the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers.

Justice John Marshall offered the opinion of the Court. The case essentially established two fundamental Constitutional law principles:

1. That the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government, and

2. That state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

Justice Marshall asserted that “If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect that it would be this – that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all.” He also asserts that because one state is unwilling to allow other states to control it; the United States Federal government must bind its constituent parts.

The main point that John Marshall seems to assert is that – although the Constitution does not mention an enumerated power to create banks – it also doesn’t deny this power to Congress and the Federal government. He also asserts that Congress is already given the “great powers” (to tax, to wage war, to coin money, etc.) and that the inferior powers are only made to follow them logically – like the creation of banks.

Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually using the Necessary-and-proper clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective that is within the enumerated powers as long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden by the Constitution. Marshall rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause, because many of the enumerated powers would be useless. Marshall noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.

For those reasons, the word "necessary" does not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for implementing all constitutionally established powers. However, Marshall’s invoking of this clause is not an original assertion, because he was simply reiterating something that had been mentioned and invoked by Hamilton previously written – presumably in a Federalist Essay.

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause dictates that State laws comply with the Constitution and succumb when there is a conflict. Taking as undeniable the fact that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be levied against the government. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government and oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.

The Court held that Maryland violated the Constitution by taxing the bank, and therefore voided that tax.

IV. Evaluation: The case McCulloch v. Maryland was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court that essentially established several fundamental doctrines of judicial power and Constitutional relevance. I agree with the decision that John Marshall and the other Justices of the Supreme Court regarding the decision. In essence what Marshall was asserting was that not all rights of the government and by extension the people are necessarily stated directly in the Constitution. He also invokes the 9^th amendment which was included as a provision in the Bill of Rights expressly to assert that not all rights are mentioned and to help negate the effect of what is called in Black’s Law Dictionary, the “Negative Pregnant”.