United States Constitutional Law:
Sources of Power and Restraint
Political Science 430
The University of Tennessee
Fall 2009
Section 001: TTh 3:40 p.m. – 4:55 p.m., HSS 70
Lecturer : Theodore Brown, Jr.
Office : 1013A McClung Tower; main office 1001 McClung Tower (865-974-2261)
Office
Hours : MWF’s 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. and by appointment
E-Mail : wbrown12@utk.edu
Text: Lee Epstein & Thomas G. Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America:
Institutional Powers and Constraints , Sixth Edition (CQ Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-87289-
479-2 (includes free access to publisher’s archive of U.S. Supreme Court cases).
Certain reserve materials are included by specific reference in this syllabus.
Additional reserve materials may be assigned during the course of the semester.
Unless otherwise indicated, all reserve materials will be available either through the
CQ Press archive of U.S. Supreme Court cases or through the Hodges Library’s online e-reserve system.
Assignments, Classroom Topics, and Exams 1
August 20 Introduction
August 25 Part I: 2 The U.S. Constitution
Introduction to Part I: An Introduction to the U.S. Constitution
Chapter 1: Understanding the U.S. Supreme Court
Assignment: 52 in Part I.
1
This syllabus is subject to revision
and correction. Revisions of this syllabus and the correction of any errors or inconsistencies in this syllabus that are discovered after the initial distribution hereof on the first day of class will only be made in class; no revised syllabus will be distributed . It will be the sole responsibility of the student to be present in class and to make appropriate changes in the syllabus to revise the same or to correct any errors or inconsistencies in the same as they are redacted.
2
Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to parts, chapters, or chapter subdivisions in Epstein &
Walker, Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints . 6th ed.

August 27 Part II:
Introduction to Part II: Structuring the Federal System
Chapter
Assignment:
Institutional Authority
Prior to class, read pp. 55 – 126 in Part II and
U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), 3
Marbury v. Madison
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee , 14 U.S. (1
, 5
Wheat.) 304 (1816), Cohens v. Virginia , 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
(on reserve), and Eakin v. Raub , 12 Serg. & Rawle 330 (Pa. 1825).
September 1 Chapter 2: The Judiciary (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read Ex parte McCardle , 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869),
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , 548 U.S. — (2006) (at pp. 329 – 336 of the textbook), Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962), and Nixon v. United
States , 506 U.S. 224 (1993), and Flast v. Cohen , 392 U.S. 83 (1968).
September 3 Chapter 2: The Judiciary (continued)
September 8 Chapter 3: The Legislature
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 127 – 191 in Part II and Powell v. McCormack
395 U.S. 486 (1969), U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton , 514 U.S. 779
(1995), and Gravel v. United States , 408 U.S. 606 (1972).
,
September 10 Chapter 3: The Legislature (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316
(1819) (at pp. 155 – 162 and pp. 346 – 350), McGrain v. Daugherty , 273
U.S. 135 (1927), Watkins v. United States , 354 U.S. 178 (1957), and
Barenblatt v. United States , 360 U.S. 109 (1959).
September 15 Chapter 3: The Legislature (continued)
Chapter Executive
3
Assignment references to cases are, unless otherwise indicated ( e.g.
, when the entirety of a case, rather than an excerpt, has been placed on e-reserve), to the excerpts from those cases that are provided in the textbook, and your case synopses of such cases are expected to be based only on the excerpts that are provided in the textbook.
You are, of course, always at liberty to consult or read the entirety of all of the opinions in a case, full-text reports of which can be found using its official citation or, typically, using one of a variety online web sites, e.g.
, the official web page of the Supreme Court of the United States ( www.supremecourtus.gov
), the Legal Information Institute
(LII) at Cornell Law School ( www.law.cornell.edu
), or FindLaw ( http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
).
Case synopses of cases that are available on e-reserve are expected to be based on the entirety of the reported decisions that are available on e-reserve.
- 2 -

Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 192 – 214 and pp. 264 – 267 (to D OMESTIC
P OWERS OF THE P RESIDENT ) in Part II and United States v. Curtiss-
Wright Export Corp.
, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (at pp. 264 – 267 of textbook), South Carolina v. Katzenbach , 383 U.S. 301 (1966), and Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
September 17 Chapter 4: The Executive (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 214 (beginning with D
THE
OMESTIC P OWERS OF
P RESIDENT ) – p. 239 in Part II; the Report of the American Bar
Association’s Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the
Separation of Powers Doctrine (August 2006) (on reserve); and
In re Neagle , 135 U.S. 1 (1890), Clinton v. City of New York , 524 U.S. 417
(1998), Morrison v. Olson , 487 U.S. 654 (1988), Myers v. United States ,
272 U.S. 52 (1926), and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States , 295 U.S.
602 (1935).
September 22 Chapter 4: The Executive (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read United States v. Nixon , 418 U.S. 683 (1974),
Mississippi v. Johnson , 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867), Nixon v. Fitzgerald ,
457 U.S. 731 (1982), Clinton v. Jones , 520 U.S. 681 (1997), Ex parte
Grossman , 267 U.S. 87 (1925), and Murphy v. Ford , 390 F. Supp. 1372
(W.D. Mich. 1975).
September 24 Chapter 5: The Separation of Powers System in Action
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 268 – 287 (to P RESIDENTIAL P OWER D URING
W AR AND N ATIONAL E MERGENCIES ) in Part II and Mistretta v. United
States , 488 U.S. 361 (1989), INS v. Chadha , 362 U.S. 919 (1983), and
Bowsher v. Synar , 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
September 29 Chapter 5: The Separation of Powers System in Action (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 287 (beginning with P
RESIDENTIAL
P
OWER
D URING W AR AND N ATIONAL E MERGENCIES ) – p. 336 in Part II and
The Prize Cases , 67 U.S. (22 Black) 635 (1863), Ex parte Milligan ,
72 U.S. (24 Wall.) 2 (1866), Ex parte Quirin , 317 U.S. 1 (1942), and
Korematsu v. United States , 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
October 1 Chapter 5: The Separation of Powers System in Action (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read Dames & Moore v. Regan , 453 U.S. 654 (1981),
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U.S. 507 (2004), and Boumediene v. Bush , 553
U.S. ― (2008) (on reserve).
October 6: Midterm
Examination 3:40 p.m. – 4:55 p.m., HSS 70
- 3 -

October 8 Part III: Nation-State Relations
Introduction to Part III: Allocating Government Power
Chapter
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 339 – 399 (to N EW J UDICIAL F EDERALISM ) in
Part III and Scott v. Sandford , 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Hammer v.
Dagenhart , 247 U.S. 251 (1918), United States v. Darby Lumber , 312 U.S.
100 (1941), National League of Cities v. Usery , 426 U.S. 833 (1976), and
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority , 469 U.S. 528 (1985).
October 13 Chapter 6 Federalism (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read
Printz v. United States , 521 U.S. 898 (1997), and Alden v. Maine , 527
U.S. 706 (1999).
New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144 (1992),
October 15 Fall Break No class.
October 20 Chapter 6: Federalism (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 399 (beginning with N EW J UDICIAL
F EDERALISM ) – p. 423 in Part III and Michigan v. Long , 463 U.S. 1032
(1983), State of Missouri v. Holland , 252 U.S. 416 (1920), Crosby v.
National Foreign Trade Council , 530 U.S. 363 (2000), Pennsylvania v.
Nelson , 350 U.S. 497 (1956), and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State
Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission , 461 U.S. 190
(1983).
October 22 Chapter 7: The Commerce Power
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 424 438 (to T HE S UPREME C OURT AND THE
N EW D EAL ) in Part III and Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1
(1824), United States v. E.C. Knight Co.
, 156 U.S. 1 (1895), and
Stafford v. Wallace , 258 U.S. 495 (1922).
October 27 Chapter 7: The Commerce Power (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 438 (beginning with T
HE
S
UPREME
C
OURT AND
THE
N
EW
D
EAL
) p. 464 (to Contemporary Limitations on the Commerce
Power ) in Part III and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States ,
295 U.S. 495 (1953), Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
, 298 U.S. 238 (1936),
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), and
Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
- 4 -

October 29 Chapter 7: The Commerce Power (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 464 (beginning with Contemporary Limitations on the Commerce Power ) – p. 489 (to C OMMERCE P OWER OF THE S TATES ) in Part III and United States v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995), United States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598 (2000), Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 (2005),
Champion v. Ames , 188 U.S. 321 (1903), and Heart of Atlanta Motel v.
United States , 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
November 3 Chapter 7: The Commerce Power (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 489 (beginning with C
THE
OMMERCE P OWER OF
S TATES ) – p. 509 in Part III and Cooley v. Board of Wardens ,
53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1852), Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona , 325 U.S.
761 (1945), Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission ,
432 U.S. 333 (1977), Maine v. Taylor , 477 U.S. 131 (1986), and
Granholm v. Heald , 544 U.S. 460 (2005).
November 5 Part IV: Economic Liberties
Introduction to Part IV: Economic Liberties and Individual Rights
Chapter 9: The Contract Clause
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 568 – 600 in Part IV and Fletcher v. Peck ,
10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward ,
17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v.
Proprietors of Warren Bridge , 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837), Stone v.
Mississippi , 101 U.S. 814 (1880), Home Building & Loan Ass’n. v.
Blaisdell , 290 U.S. 398 (1934), United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey ,
431 U.S. 1 (1977), and Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus ,
438 U.S. 234 (1978).
November 10 Chapter 10: Economic Substantive Due Process
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 601 – 619 (to T HE R OLLER -C OASTER R IDE OF
S
UBSTANTIVE
D
UE
P
ROCESS
) in Part IV and prepare case synopses of
The Slaughterhouse Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873), Munn v. Illinois ,
94 U.S. 113 (1877), and Allgeyer v. Louisiana , 165 U.S. 578 (1897).
November 12 Chapter 10: Economic Substantive Due Process (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p. 619 (beginning with T HE R OLLER -C OASTER
R IDE OF S UBSTANTIVE D UE P ROCESS ) – p.651 in Part IV and Lochner v. New York , 198 U.S. 45 (1905), Muller v. Oregon , 208 U.S. 412 (1908),
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital , 261 U.S. 525 (1923), Nebbia v. New York ,
- 5 -

291 U.S. 502 (1934), West Coast Hotel v. Parrish , 300 U.S. 379 (1937),
Williamson v. Lee Optical Co.
, 348 U.S. 483 (1955), and BMW of North
America v. Gore , 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
November 17 Part III
(continued):
Chapter 8: The Power to Tax and Spend
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 510 – 536 in Part III and Pollock v. Farmers’
Loan & Trust Co.
, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), United States v. United States
Shoe Corp.
, 523 U.S. 360 (1998), South Carolina v. Baker , 485 U.S. 505
(1988), Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury , 489 U.S. 803 (1989), McCray v. United States , 195 U.S. 27 (1904), and Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.
,
259 U.S. 20 (1922).
November 19 Chapter 8: The Power to Tax and Spend (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read pp. 537 – 562 in Part III and United States v. Butler ,
297 U.S. 1 (1936), Steward Machine Co. v. Davis , 301 U.S. 548 (1937),
South Dakota v. Dole , 483 U.S. 203 (1987), Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages ,
423 U.S. 276 (1976), Complete Auto Transit v. Brady , 430 U.S. 274
(1977), Quill Corp. v. North Dakota , 504 U.S. 298 (1992), and
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Quality of Oregon ,
511 U.S. 93 (1994).
November 24 Part IV:
Chapter 11:
Assignment:
Economic Liberties (continued)
The Takings Clause
Prior to class, read pp. 652 – 671 (to P
UBLIC
U
SE
R
EQUIREMENT
) in
Part IV and United States v. Causby , 328 U.S. 256 (1946), Penn Central
Transportation Co. v. City of New York , 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Nollan v.
California Coastal Commission , 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council , 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
November 26 Thanksgiving
Break
December 1 Chapter 11: The Takings Clause (continued)
Assignment: Prior to class, read p.671 (beginning with P UBLIC U SE
R
EQUIREMENT
) in Part IV and Berman v. Parker , 348 U.S. 26 (1954),
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff , 467 U.S. 229 (1984), and
Kelo v. City of New London , 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
December 10 Final
Examination 2:45 p.m. – 4:45 p.m., HSS 70
- 6 -

Class attendance is required. Roll will be taken at the beginning of each class. Students must attend each class unless a valid excuse is provided to the instructor. ACCORDINGLY, ANY
STUDENT WHO MISSES FIFTEEN (15) OR MORE CLASSES WITHOUT SUCH A
VALID EXCUSE FOR EACH ABSENCE WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE PENALIZED
ONE FULL LETTER GRADE IN THIS COURSE (
, a student who otherwise would receive a “B” in the course but who misses 15 or more classes without an excuse will receive a “C” in the course, and a student who otherwise would receive an “A–” but who has 15 or more unexcused absences will receive a “B–” in for the course).
In addition, when it is necessary for you to miss a class, you are solely responsible for finding out what you missed during the class from which you were absent and for obtaining class notes or assignments from someone else in the class. It is also expected that you will be on time for each class.
.
Most of the chapters in the assigned textbook include excerpts from major decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States and by certain other lower federal courts.
Students will be expected to prepare ten (10) case synopses, as assigned by the instructor. The purpose and format for such case synopses that the student will be expected to follow will be explained by the instructor on the first day of class. A sample case synopsis appears at the end of this syllabus. Students will be expected to turn in each assigned case synopsis at the end of class after which the applicable case has been discussed, and each such synopsis will be graded by the instructor. Each case synopsis will count 10 points, with the grade assigned to each being determined by the skill with which the student has followed the synopsis format. The case-synopsis component will comprise ten percent (10.0%) of the final grade and will be determined by averaging the grades received for all of the case synopses turned in during the course.
There will be two examinations in this course, a Midterm Examination and a
Final Examination. Each examination will consist of essay questions only. Each examination will count 100 points and will comprise forty-five percent (45.0%) of the final grade, with the final-grade component being determined by averaging the grades received for the two examinations. The
Midterm Examination in this class is scheduled for Tuesday, October 6, from 3:40 p.m. to 4:55 p.m. in HSS 70. The Final Examination in this class is scheduled for Thursday, December 10, from 2:45 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. in HSS 70. MAKE-UP MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS WILL NOT BE
GIVEN WITHOUT A VALID REASON AND ONLY WITH THE INSTRUCTOR’S
PRIOR PERMISSION.
MAKE-UP FINAL EXAMINATIONS WILL ONLY BE GIVEN
TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY, AND PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF,
UNIVERSITY POLICY. DO NOT BRING CELL PHONES OR ANY OTHER
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WITH YOU ON THE DAY OF THE MIDTERM
EXAMINATION OR ON THE DAY OF THE FINAL EXAMINATION; ANY
STUDENT WHO BRINGS A CELL PHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT INTO THE EXAMINATION ROOM WILL BE REQUIRED TO LEAVE
SUCH CELL PHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT WITH THE
INSTRUCTOR AT THE FRONT OF THE EXAMINATION ROOM AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE EXAMINATION AND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF AN
EMERGENCY, WILL BE PERMITTED TO RETRIEVE THE SAME ONLY AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE EXAMINATION.
.
Each student’s final grade will be comprised of the sum of (1) the average of the two course examinations (90.0%) and (2) the average of the case synopses (10.0%).
- 7 -

Participation in classroom discussion is strongly encouraged. From time to time, individual students will be called upon in class by the instructor to “report” and discuss a case or cases assigned for reading prior to or in connection with the class period when the report and discussion are requested. IT IS STRONGLY
RECOMMENDED THAT YOU
TO REPORT AND DISCUSS ANY
ASSIGNED CASE IN CLASS WHEN CALLED UPON TO DO SO.
Although no specific number of points will be assigned to classroom participation (including in-class reports and discussion of cases when called upon), the quantity and quality of your contributions to classroom discussions may be taken into account by the instructor, in his sole discretion, in determining your final grade in this course should your final grade fall on the borderline between two sequential grades on the grading scale ( e.g.
, between a “C+” and a “B-” or between a “B+” and an “A-”).
During classroom discussions, you are expected to be respectful of your classmates and of the opinions that they express. CELL PHONES MUST BE TURNED OFF DURING CLASS.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
BE TOLERATED.
Cheating ( i.e.
, giving or receiving assistance on an examination, consulting notes during an examination, or plagiarism) will result in the assignment of an “F” for the final grade in the course.
Any student with a disability who thinks that he or she might require accommodation(s) in connection with this course should contact the instructor privately to discuss his or her specific needs and should contact the Office of Disability Services at
(865) 974-6087 in Hoskins Library to discuss and coordinate reasonable accommodation(s) for students with documented disabilities. Any student with a disability who thinks that he or she will require accommodation(s) in connection with the Midterm Examination and/or with the Final Examination in this course must, with no exceptions, submit to the instructor an
Accommodation Letter from ODS, as required by standing ODS policy, not less than ten
(10) business days prior to the exam for which such accommodation(s) will be required.
The following grading scale will be used in this course:
A 92–100 C 72–76
A- 90–91
B+ 87–89
B 82–86
B- 80–81
C+ 77–79
C- 70–71
D+ 67–69
D 63–66
D- 61–62
F 0–60
- 8 -

Preferred Form of Citation to
United States Reports
91 U.S. to date 1875 – current
Wallace
Black
Howard
Peters
Wheaton
Cranch
Dallas
1863 – 1874
1861 – 1862
1843 – 1860
1828 – 1842
1816 – 1827
1801 – 1815
1790 – 1800 e.g.
, 554 U.S. 1 (2008) e.g.
, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 205 (1863) e.g.
, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 14 (1861) e.g.
, 42 U.S. (1 How.) 22 (1843) e.g.
, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 119 (1828) e.g.
, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 5 (1816) e.g.
, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 69 (1801) e.g.
, 1 U.S. (1 Dall.) 1 (1790)
- 9 -

Case / Citation:
Supreme Court
Vote:
Facts:
S AMPLE C ASE S YNOPSIS
4
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
7 to 0
In 1791, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States, with its charter to expire in 20 years (1811).
In 1811, Congress refused to renew the First Bank’s charter.
By 1816, with the Nation facing growing economic problems, Congress relented and chartered the Second Bank of the United States.
Maryland thereafter imposed a stamp tax on all notes issued by the Second
Bank.
William M’Culloch, the cashier of Baltimore branch of Second Bank, issued a series of the Bank’s notes on which he had not paid the Maryland stamp tax.
Maryland brought an action of debt against the Second Bank, naming
M’Culloch as defendant on behalf of the Bank, to recover the taxes due on the notes plus penalties.
The Baltimore County Court held that the Second Bank owed the taxes, and the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest court) affirmed.
Issue(s):
Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court on writ of error.
(1) Whether the Constitution authorizes Congress to charter a national bank?
(2) Whether the State of Maryland may tax a branch of the Second Bank of the United States without violating the Constitution?
Holding(s): (1) The Constitution does authorize Congress to charter a national bank.
(2) The State of Maryland may not tax a branch of the Second Bank of the United States.
4
When preparing synopses of reported cases, Thomas Jefferson once advised, include “every case of value, condensed into the narrowest compass possible which will admit of presenting distinctly the principles of the case.
This operation is doubly useful, inasmuch as it obliges the student to seek out the pith of the case , and habituates him to a condensation of thought , and to an acquisition of the most valuable of all talents, that of never using two words where one will do .” Thomas Jefferson to John Minor, 30 Aug 1814, quoted in Kevin J. Hayes, The Road to
Monticello: The Life and Mind of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), p. 89 (emphasis provided).
- 10 -

Opinion(s) and
Reasoning: Majority (unanimous) (Marshall, C.J.):
(1) The power to charter a bank (or to create any corporation) is not among the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, but there is nothing in the Constitution that limits federal authority to those powers specifically mentioned. The Constitution was designed to be merely an outline for a plan of government that develops over time, rather than detained plans and specifications of precisely how the government was to be structured and would function. That the federal government generally possesses implied powers not expressly enumerated in the Constitution must be true because the existence of such authority is an intrinsic aspect of what it means to be sovereign.
A government that has the right to do an act must be allowed the flexibility of selecting the most appropriate means to exercise and implement that act so long as they are not prohibited by the
Constitution. Article I, § 8, cl. 18 of the Constitution (the “necessary and proper” clause) was placed among the powers of Congress, not among the limitations on those powers. Congress has the right to exercise its best judgment in selecting the means to execute the constitutional powers of the federal government: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited [by the Constitution], but consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
(2) The states have no power — by taxation or otherwise — to burden, impede, or in any other manner control the operation of the laws enacted by Congress to execute the powers vested in the federal government. In a now-famous line, Marshall wrote that “[t]he power to tax” includes “the power to destroy.”
Dissenting opinion(s): None.
Significance /
Comments
(optional): (1) Established the broad doctrine of congressional implied powers
(2) Undercut the ground from beneath the doctrines of (a) strict construction of the Constitution and (b) state sovereignty
(i) the Constitution, according to Marshall, is the work of “the people” and not the act of sovereign, independent states
(ii) the federal government, according to Marshall, is
“emphatically and truly a government of the people” and not the states
- 11 -