If the Federal Bank is legal, can a state government tax the federal bank like any other business operating within its borders? 1819 McCulloch v Maryland Facts of the Case In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. Question The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the federal bank? Did the Maryland law taxing the federal bank unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against Decision: Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18 In a unanimous decision, the Court held that 1st - Congress had the power to incorporate the bank - Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated (IMPLIED) powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. The case turned on the interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 Necessary and “The Proper The Elastic Clause). Clause” (a/k/a Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out that while the not appear in word “bank” did the creation of a bank was a means of executing its listed Congress’s enumerated powers, the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the powers: “Although, among word find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to ‘bank,’…we regulate commerce…” The of what kind of actions can be justly implied, however, restricts ruling’s description the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause to those laws that are the scope of “within 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…” 2nd - Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. CJ Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of
If the Federal Bank is legal, can a state government tax the federal bank like any other business operating within its borders? McCulloch v Maryland 1819 Facts of the Case In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax. Question The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the federal bank? Did the Maryland law taxing the federal bank unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? Decision: 7 votes for McCulloch, 0 vote(s) against Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18 In a unanimous decision, the Court held that 1st - Congress had the power to incorporate the bank - Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated (IMPLIED) powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. The case turned on the interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 “The Necessary and Proper Clause” (a/k/a The Elastic Clause). Chief Justice John Marshall pointed out that while the word “bank” did not appear in Congress’s enumerated powers, the creation of a bank was a means of executing its listed powers: “Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word ‘bank,’…we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce…” The ruling’s description of what kind of actions can be justly implied, however, restricts the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause to those laws that are “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…” 2nd - Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. CJ Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of
FEDERALISM%20CASE%20ANAYLSIS.docx