McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
THESIS
Despite resistance from States’ Rights
advocates in the early American Republic,
these two Marshall Court decisions were
signature cases for establishing Federal
Supremacy via Article VI and facilitating
the growth of a more interdependent US
national economy.
Historical Context / Setting The Scene
The Federalist appointed Marshall Court
secured a significant legacy with its early
establishment of Judicial Review, Broad
Construction, and Pro-Commerce decisions
…influencing the stability of not only the
National Government, but the commerce
among the PEOPLE and STATES as well.
The Essential Question of the 1819 McCulloch v Maryland case
…was whether the State of Maryland could impose taxes on
functions of the Federal Government…specifically the B.U.S.
and the paper it used to print its bank and security notes on.
First Bank of the United States
http://www.ushistory.org/tour/first-bank.htm
Justice Marshall Federal Reserve Note
1918 www.coinweek.com
Summary of McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819).
Issues
Does Congress have the power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank,
even though that power is not specifically enumerated within the Constitution?
Does the State of Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by
Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution?
Holding and Rule (Marshall)
Yes. Congress has power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank
pursuant to the Necessary and Proper clause (Article I, section 8).
No. The State of Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution
created by Congress pursuant to its powers under the Constitution.
Source: McCulloch v. Maryland – Case Brief Summary
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/mcculloch-maryland.html
…the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland, back in 1819, that the
Constitution exempts the Federal Government from state taxation. Setting forth his
renowned dictum that "the
power to tax involves the
power to destroy," Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the
states (and, by inference, local governments) "have no power, by taxation or
otherwise, to retard, impede, burden or in any manner control the operations of the
constitutional laws enacted by Congress."
“THE SUPREME COURT: The Power to Tax”, TIME Magazine
Monday, Mar. 17, 1958
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863135,00.html
Justice Marshall Federal Reserve Note
1918 www.coinweek.com
The Essential Question of the 1824 Gibbons v Ogden Case
…was whether the State of New York could deny legal business
transactions by a company operating with a Federal license on
New York State and New Jersey State waters?
aka “The Steamboat Case”…due in part to Robert Fulton’s interests
Summary of
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824).
Issues:
1) May a state enact legislation that regulates a purely internal affair regarding trade
or the police power, or is pursuant to a power to regulate interstate commerce
concurrent with that of Congress, which confers a privilege inconsistent with federal law?
2) Do states have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which,
because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by
a single authority?
3) Does a state have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state waterways
inconsistent with federal law?
Holding and Rule (Marshall)
No. A state may not legislation inconsistent with federal law which regulates a purely
internal affair regarding trade or the police power, or is pursuant to a power to regulate
interstate commerce concurrent with that of Congress.
No. States do not have the power to regulate those phases of interstate commerce which,
because of the need of national uniformity, demand that their regulation, be prescribed by a
single authority.
No. A state does not have the power to grant an exclusive right to the use of state navigable
waters inconsistent with federal law.
Gibbons v Ogden -Case Brief Summary
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html
Gibbons was declared the winner …
Ogden along with Fulton would lose
their States’ Rights monopoly power
… a clear victory for Federal Power
over State Power also resulted
The Jungle Store Animal Action Alert
www.thejunglestoreblogspot.com
Robert Fulton’s Steamboat Clermont www.cardcow.com
Both of these Marshall Court decisions, combined with the Congressional
1820 Missouri Compromise to further strain relations between the
Broad Construction “North” and leery Strict Construction “South”…
it seemed the States’ Rights institution of chattel slavery was threatened
The Missouri Compromise
http://www.mrvanduyne.com/youngnation/change/misscomp.html
Works Cited
Gibbons v Ogden Case Brief Summary http://www.lawnix.com/cases/gibbons-ogden.html
Justice Marshall Federal Reserve Note 1918 www.coinweek.com
McCulloch v Maryland http://www.ushistory.org/tour/first-bank.htm
McCulloch v Maryland Case Brief Summary http://www.lawnix.com/cases/mcculloch-maryland.html
The Jungle Store Animal Action Alert www.thejunglestoreblogspot.com
“THE SUPREME COURT: The Power to Tax”, TIME Magazine
Monday, Mar. 17, 1958 http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863135,00.html
Oral Comp Questions /McCulloch v Maryland + Gibbons v. Ogden
1.
How are these two cases similar with regard to expanding Federal
authority under the Federalist Marshall Court?
2. How are these two cases similar with regard to promoting a more
stable and dynamic economic system for the USA?
3. What are some subtle differences between the two cases lawyers
would need to know if resolving disputes between competing
governments in America today? (How would they be applied?)
4. Why were Southern political leaders more opposed to the legal
implications of these two decisions than Northerners?