That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one Government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. Those banks that survived, chartered by the States, lacked sufficient credit to spur postwar industrial growth. When Congress decided to establish a Second National Bank after the first one failed , the states viewed it as unconstitutional. But it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of hostile legislation, perhaps, of hostility of a still more serious nature; and if it is to be so decided, by this tribunal alone can the decision be made. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared. There are 87,0000 governments--it's not possible to know what is doing what at all times In most cases, the answer is that a problem or policy requires the authority and resources of the national government.
It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. To impose on it the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another Government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other Governments which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the Constitution. In April 1816, Congress created a law that allowed for the creation of the Second Bank of the United States. If the obligation of this prohibition must be conceded -- if it may restrain a State from the exercise of its taxing power on imports and exports -- the same paramount character would seem to restrain, as it certainly may restrain, a State from such other exercise of this power as is in its nature incompatible with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. The federal government had not asked for permission to open the bank, and it was competing with other banks established by the state.
We cannot comprehend that train of reasoning, which would maintain that the extent of power granted by the people is to be ascertained not by the nature and terms of the grant, but by its date. And could individual states ban or tax the bank? The bill for incorporating the Bank of the United States did not steal upon an unsuspecting legislature and pass unobserved. The Government of the Union then whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case is, emphatically and truly, a Government of the people. The exigencies of the Nation may require that the treasure raised in the north should be transported to the south that raised in the east, conveyed to the west, or that this order should be reversed. In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign State, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union, and the plaintiff, on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the legislature of that State. But it is denied that the Government has its choice of means, or that it may employ the most convenient means if, to employ them, it be necessary to erect a corporation. Maryland 1819 is one of the most important Supreme Court cases regarding federal power.
The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation are intrusted to its Government. Its legitimacy was based solely on the applicability of the U. No sufficient reason is therefore perceived why it may not pass as incidental to those powers which are expressly given if it be a direct mode of executing them. In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall held that the Taxing and Spending Clause implied a need for handling revenue Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the Necessary and Proper Clause Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 allowed Congress to establish a national bank in order to facilitate the exercise of legitimate constitutional powers. This court case arose when the federal government established a federal bank in Maryland in 1816, and the state of Maryland attempted to tax it. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. They believed the federal government infringed their sovereign rights by creating its own bank because the Constitution was silent on the issue of banking.
Congress had chartered The Second National Bank in 1816. This was a proposal that had been made by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration in the very first year of the Washington administration, and it went to Congress, and there was a very, very robust debate in Congress as to whether this measure was within the powers of Congress to enact. Maryland decided to exercise their authority by passing a law taxing all banks not chartered in Maryland. Attorneys listed on this website are not referred or endorsed by this website. The objection to this unlimited power, which the argument seeks to remove, is stated with fulness and clearness. I don't think they are quite as extreme as they've come to be read after the New Deal. Marshall felt that a broader interpretation was warranted, since the clause was not placed among the limitations on Congressional authority and thus should be viewed as an expansion on its authority.
Judgment being rendered against the plaintiff in error, upon the following statement of facts agreed and submitted to the court by the parties, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, the highest court of law of said State, and the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court. It is admitted that the power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of Government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. This provision is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. Is that construction of the Constitution to be preferred which would render these operations difficult, hazardous and expensive? They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively and wisely, on such a subject -- by assembling in convention. The attempt to use it on the means employed by the Government of the Union, in pursuance of the Constitution, is itself an abuse because it is the usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give. The court decided that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government.
The state legislature passed an act that would impose a tax on all banks and their branches that were not chartered by the state legislature; yup, that means the Second Bank of the United States. But it may with great reason be contended that a Government intrusted with such ample powers, on the due execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the Nation so vitally depends, must also be intrusted with ample means for their execution. As a result, the state of Maryland sued, taking the case to the Maryland Court. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our Government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained; and to understand the argument, we must examine the proposition it maintains and the objections against which it is directed. This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed.
And in fact, when it got to the court in McCulloch versus Maryland, it was the state of Maryland who basically adopted the Jeffersonian approach and said that a measure must be, in its words, indispensably requisite, or what you might call absolutely necessary in order for it to be constitutional. If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance. A landmark case that answered questions of federal power and state power and affected America's development as a nation was McCulloch v. These are part of the implied powers that he argued are given to the federal government in the Constitution. The powers vested in Congress may certainly be carried into execution, without prescribing an oath of office.
As little can it be required to prove that, in the absence of this clause, Congress would have some choice of means. Had they been capable of using language which would convey to the eye one idea and, after deep reflection, impress on the mind another, they would rather have disguised the grant of power than its limitation. To learn more, I sought out the help of two experts. But it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of hostile legislation, perhaps, of hostility of a still more serious nature; and if it is to be so decided, by this tribunal alone can the decision be made. Echoing the decision in Martin v.
It can rebuild and develop at the state levels. Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. The Constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital parts, is to be considered, the conflicting powers of the Government of the Union and of its members, as marked in that Constitution, are to be discussed, and an opinion given which may essentially influence the great operations of the Government. The director of the Second Bank's Baltimore Branch, James William McCulloch, refused to pay the tax. The comment on the word is well illustrated by the passage cited at the bar from the 10th section of the 1st article of the Constitution. It's the conflicts and disagreements that have binded us together as much, if not more, than the agreements we've had about what the Constitution means. The power now contested was exercised by the first Congress elected under the present Constitution.