McCulloch v. Maryland

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McCulloch v. Maryland
Supreme Court logo
Negotiated
February 22, 1819
Decided
March 6, 1819
Surname: James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James
Quoted: 17 US 316 (1819)
facts
Appeal to the United States Supreme Court against the Maryland Court of Appeal decision confirming the constitutionality of the state-collected tax on Second Bank of the United States banknotes.
decision
Although the Constitution does not explicitly give Congress the authority to set up a bank, it does have the authority to determine taxes and expenses. Establishing a bank is an appropriate means of supporting these legislative powers. Maryland has no right to interfere in the bank's operations by imposing a tax on it because federal laws take precedence over state laws.
occupation
Chairman: John Marshall
Assessor: Washington · Johnson · Livingston · Todd · Duvall · Story
Positions
Majority opinion: Marshall, Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Todd, Duvall
Agreeing:
Dissenting opinion:
Opinion:
Applied Law
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Sentences 1 and 18

In the McCulloch v. In Maryland , the United States Supreme Court pronounced a landmark decision on federalism in the United States in 1819 . The state of Maryland attempted to disrupt the operation of a branch of the federally owned Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all banknotes issued by non-Maryland banks. The Supreme Court ruled the tax collection law unconstitutional because it conflicted with the implicit legislative powers of Congress based on the “necessary and proper” clause of the first article of the United States Constitution . The clause gives Congress the power to pass laws beyond the explicitly named catalog of areas of responsibility, as long as these laws are “necessary and appropriate” to implement the explicitly named legislative powers. The case law on implicit competences has found its way into international law and other legal systems as the implied powers doctrine .

background

The Maryland Legislature passed a law in 1818 that imposed a special tax on banknotes issued by non-Maryland banks. The act was the state's response to the unauthorized establishment of a Second Bank of the United States branch in Baltimore in 1817. The branch did not issue its notes on state paper in accordance with the regulation and also refused to accept the claim State over $ 15,000.

After the branch's cashier, James McCulloch, unsuccessfully sued the claims in Baltimore County Court, he appealed to the state appeals court. The court ruled that the United States Constitution did not explicitly provide for the creation of a bank by the federal government and that it was unconstitutional. McCulloch appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

decision

Chief Justice John Marshall stated in the decision that the Congress, as a state body, was entitled not only to the explicit powers enumerated in the constitution, but also to implied powers , namely those required to realize the explicit powers (in the sense of the necessary and proper clause ) are necessary.

Since the constitution of the United States takes precedence over the law of the individual states (" The constitution, therefore, declares, that the constitution itself, and the laws passed in pursuance of its provisions, shall be the supreme law of the land, and shall control all state legislation and state constitutions, which may be incompatible therewith "), the federal states could not prevent or defend jurisdiction-based laws of the Congress through their own legislation (" if the law of congress, [...] [is] a constitutional act, it [. ..] cannot be either defeated or impeded by acts of state legislation ";" If congress has power to do a particular act, no state can impede, retard or burden it ").

See also

Web links

literature

  • Jean Edward Smith, John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation , New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.
  • Jean Edward Smith, The Constitution And American Foreign Policy , St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1989.
  • Karen O'Connor, Larry J. Sabato, "American Government: Continuity and Change," New York, Pearson, 2006.
  • Mark Tushnet: I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases . Beacon Press, Boston 2008, ISBN 9780807000366 , pp. 17-30.