Heimler's History: McCulloch v. Maryland

Introduction

Year: 1816
Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States (federal bank)
Established branches in several states, including Baltimore, Maryland
Maryland legislature opposed the federal bank's presence
- Passed a law taxing non-Maryland chartered banks $15,000 annually
Cashier of the Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax
Case escalated to the Supreme Court

Maryland's Argument:
- Establishment of a national bank was unconstitutional
- Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not explicitly allow Congress to create a bank
McCulloch's Argument:
- Bank is constitutional via Necessary and Proper Clause
- Article I, Section 8 allows Congress to make laws necessary and proper for executing its powers
- Introduction of implied powers - powers not explicitly named but necessary for executing constitutional powers

Chief Justice: John Marshall
Outcome: Unanimous decision in favor of McCulloch
Reasoning:
- Affirmed the constitutionality of the national bank via Necessary and Proper Clause
- Constitution allows national legislature discretion to use means necessary to execute its powers
- If a power is not prohibited and upholds the Constitution's spirit, it is constitutional

Established the supremacy of national laws over state laws
Chief Justice Marshall emphasized:
- Powers given to Congress are from the people of the United States, not individual states
- Federal laws are supreme when in conflict with state laws
Demonstrated federalism and balance of power between federal and state governments
Contrast with: United States v. Lopez (favored states)
Precedent: Used by later courts to decide state vs. federal power balance

McCulloch v. Maryland is a key case for understanding federalism in the U.S.
Serves as a precedent for federal supremacy in conflicts between state and federal laws