When was McCulloch v. Maryland decided?

Answer 1

The US Supreme Court handed down a decision on McCullochon March 6, 1819.

Congress had chartered The Second National Bank in 1816. In 1818, the State of Maryland passed a law imposing taxes on any bank not chartered by the state legislature. The Court held Congress had a right to establish a bank for its transactional needs under the "Necessary and Proper" clause. Further, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional for states to tax the federal government under Article VI, Section 2 (the Supremacy Clause).

Argued: February 22, 1819

Decided: March 6, 1819

Case Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

Answer 2

In McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, it was determined the government had the right to establish the Second Bank and that the state of Maryland did not have the right to tax it. The decision denied radical states' rights arguments presented by the state of Maryland.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court declared Congress had a right to charter a national bank for the purpose of conducting its financial business under Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8; and that the state of Maryland had no right to impose taxes on the bank because state laws were subordinate to Federal Laws under the Article VI Supremacy Clause.

More Information

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States, and opened a branch in the state of Maryland. In 1818, Maryland passed a law imposing taxes on any banks not chartered by the state legislature. The named plaintiff, James W. McCulloch, cashier of the Baltimore branch of the federal bank, refused to pay the tax. The Maryland courts found for the State.

The Court raised two questions that determined the outcome of the case.

1. "...has Congress the power to incorporate a bank?"

Yes. The Court concluded that Congress had that right as an implied power (also called unenumerated powers) of Article I, Section 8, because the bank was being used to further Congress' constitutional authority to tax and distribute funds. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution, the Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of implied powers necessary to assist in carrying out constitutional mandates.

The determination of what constituted a "necessary" activity was a political question to be determined by the Legislative branch. Marshall concluded the US government had the right to establish a bank and place offices in any state.

2. "...whether the State of Maryland may, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch..."

No. The answer to that question rested in the Supremacy Clause, which subordinates state laws to federal and US Constitutional law. The Court declared the state had no right to tax any constitutional means the federal government uses to execute its powers.

Chief Justice Marshall, in the opinion of the court, declared that the states had the power of taxation, but "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."

Marshall further noted that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Unchecked, the state could use the power of taxation not just to raise revenue, but to eliminate competition:

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. A question of constitutional power can hardly be made to depend on a question of more or less. If the states may tax, they have no limit but their discretion; and the bank, therefore, must depend on the discretion of the state governments for its existence. This consequence is inevitable. The object in laying this tax, may have been revenue to the state. In the next case, the object may be to expel the bank from the state; but how is this object to be ascertained, or who is to judge of the motives of legislative acts?"

The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) established two important principles: 1) The Constitution allowed branches of the federal government to exercise implied powers not explicitly enumerated in the document (but likewise, not explicitlyprohibited); and 2) The Supremacy Clause prevented the states from imposing their will on the federal government because federal and constitutional law supersede all other laws.

Case Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 4

The two decisions in McCulloch v. Maryland can easily be summarized:

1. Congress had the constitutional authority to charter a national bank.
2. The States could not tax the federal government.

Explanation

In McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), the Supreme Court concluded that Congress had the right to establish a national bank as an implied power of Article I, Section 8, because the bank was being used to further Congress' constitutional authority to tax and distribute funds, as provided in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution, the Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of implied powers necessary to assist in carrying out constitutional mandates.

The Court also prevented states from taxing the federal government, by declaring Maryland's legislation unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. Chief Justice Marshall stated that the state's power to tax was the "power to destroy" competition by taxing it out of existence, which was being used unconstitutionally against the federal government.

Both issues strengthened the position of the federal government relative to the states, and allowed the branches of government greater latitude in how they exercised their constitutional powers.

Case Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

Answer 5

a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the Constitution. (apex)