McCulloch v.

Maryland (1819)-*KEY*

In this case, Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers derived from those listed in Article I,
Section 8. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank.
It was 1819 and the United States had been a nation under the Constitution for barely a generation
when an important case about federal power reached the Court. After a first attempt in 1791, Congress
established the second National Bank of the United States in 1816. Many states opposed branches of the
National Bank within their borders. They did not want the National Bank competing with their own banks, and
objected to the establishment of a National Bank as an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power.
The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the bank of $15,000/year, which cashier James McCulloch of
the Baltimore branch refused to pay. The case went to the Supreme Court. Maryland argued that as a
sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders. McCulloch’s attorneys argued that a
national bank was “necessary and proper” for Congress to establish in order to carry out its enumerated
powers.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do
not find the word ‘bank,’…we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate
commerce…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, but consist with the letter and
spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.”
Further, the Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the national bank: “That the power to tax
involves the power to destroy. . . . If the states may tax one instrument, employed by the [federal]
government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument….This was not
intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the states.”
Marshall also noted an important difference between the Constitution and the Articles of
Confederation (the United States’ first governing document that had been replaced by the Constitution). The
Articles said that the states retained all powers not “expressly” given to the federal government. The Tenth
Amendment, Marshall noted, did not include the word “expressly.” This was further evidence, he argued, that
the Constitution did not limit Congress to doing only those things specifically listed in Article I.

1. What happened to bring McCulloch v. Maryland to the Supreme Court?

McCulloch refused to pay the tax that Maryland imposed on the national bank.

2. Read Article I, Section 8 and underline the express powers of Congress that might be dependent on the
operation of a bank. Can Congress effectively carry out its powers without establishing a national bank?
No, in order to regulate commerce Congress needs to be able to create a national bank.

3. How did the Supreme Court rule?

John Marshall ruled in favor of McCulloch. He stated due to the “Necessary and Proper”
Clause the bank is Constitutional and that state’s cannot tax the federal government

4. To what extent did the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland expand federal power?
It gave more power to Congress than those expressed in the Constitution because of the
Elastic Clause.
 Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)-*KEY*
In this Commerce Clause case, the Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, and held that by
virtue of the Supremacy Clause, state laws “must yield” to constitutional acts of Congress.
On one side of the river was New York: on the other, New Jersey. Aaron Ogden stood on the New York side and smiled.
Ogden had a license from New York to operate on the state’s waterways. Since New York required all out-of-state operators to get
expensive permits (protecting Ogden from competition), Ogden figured he would be doing good business. But Gibbons, Ogden’s
former business partner, was also a steamboat operator. And Gibbons had a license from the federal government to operate a
steamboat through interstate waterways. Ogden and Gibbons each thought his own license should outweigh the other man’s. The
case went to the Supreme Court.
The Court had to decide—who had the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways: Congress, or the individual
states? The Court ruled in Gibbons’s favor, holding that the Constitution gave this power to Congress. The opinion, written by Chief
Justice John Marshall, focused on the meaning of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which states that
Congress has the power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” The word “among,” the
Court ruled, “may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.”
The Court acknowledged that the Constitution did not expressly grant Congress the power to regulate navigation on
interstate waterways. But Marshall pointed out that all the states were connected by waterways and commerce would be
impossible without navigating them. Therefore, the power to regulate transporting goods on waterways was “necessary and
proper” for Congress to carry out its enumerated power to “regulate commerce…among the several states.”
If individual states had their own rules about commerce with other states, trade would be next to impossible. In fact, one
important purpose of replacing the Articles of Confederation had been to “rescue [the United States] from the embarrassing and
destructive consequences, resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to place it under the protection of a
uniform law.” States could not set their own rules for commerce in ways would interfere with the national government’s ability to
carry out its power to establish uniform rules.
Finally, the decision affirmed that state laws that contradict constitutional acts of Congress “must yield” to the supremacy
of the Constitution, as stated in Article VI: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.”

1. What was the constitutional question in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)?

Who has the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways: Congress or individual states?

2. How did the Court rule?

In favor of Gibbons-Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (which includes navigation on
waterways)

3. List some ways this ruling affected your life. For example, do you ever buy things that were made in other states? If you had a
successful invention and wanted to sell it around the country, would you face different sets of trade requirements in each
state?

Responses will vary. If states could regulate commerce, trade would be next to impossible.

4. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Does this clause mean that a state law that
contradicts any act of Congress is void? How do you know?

Yes, because as stated in Article VI: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.”
5. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most
directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the
people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they
have said.” How would you put this in your own words? Does this idea reflect the way the Constitution is taught today? Why
or why not?

It is important to understand the reasons behind the Constitution and the precautions that the Founding
Fathers implemented to prevent tyranny. If we continue to learn about the purpose of the Constitution
-respect and follow it, the country can thrive and survive as a nation ruled by and for the people.