What was the key issue in McCulloch v. Maryland?

Answer 1

Second Bank of the United States representative James William McCulloch did not pay tax imposed on banks. This dispute was further influenced by a decision made by the Maryland General Assembly that forced all financial institutions to pay a tax.

Answer 2

There were two constitutional issues decided in McCulloch v. Maryland:

1. Whether Congress had the right to charter a national bank; and,
2. If so, whether the states had a right to tax that bank

The short answer is that the Taxing and Spending Clause implied a need for handling revenue (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) allowed Congress to establish a national bank in order to execute the powers vested in the federal government. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) elevated federal law above state law when the two are in conflict, and prohibited the states from interfering with government activity.

More Detail

The underlying issue of McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) involved federal power versus state power. When Congress decided to establish a Second National Bank (after the first one failed), the states viewed it as unconstitutional. They believed the federal government infringed their sovereign rights by creating its own bank because the Constitution was silent on the issue of banking.

Maryland decided to set an example by levying a tax against the bank. The bank refused to pay; a citizen of Maryland filed suit against the bank in Baltimore County Court, hoping to recover a portion of the delinquent tax. The case was eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court determined Congress had the right to establish a (federal) National Bank under the principle of implied powers. (also called unenumerated powers) Specifically, Chief Justice Marshall held the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) and Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), allowed Congress to take appropriate action to support legitimate federal interests:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

In the opinion of the Court, Marshall concluded that Congress had the right to establish a national bank as an implied power under the Necessary and Proper Clause because the bank was being used to further Congress' constitutional authority to tax and distribute funds. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which preceded the US Constitution, the Constitution does not prohibit the exercise of implied powers necessary to assist in carrying out constitutional mandates.

The Court also held that the Supremacy clause, which elevates federal law above state law when the two are in conflict (and do not involve a right reserved to the state) protected the bank from being taxed by the State(s).

Case Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

Answer 3

The underlying issue of McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) involved the balance of federal power against state power, a matter yet to be entirely resolved. The states asserted Congress had no right to charter a national bank because banking wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. They interpreted this to mean banking was a right constitutionally reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment; therefore, establishment of the federal Second National Bank infringed state sovereign authority.

The Supreme Court held the states' literal interpretation was unsupportable because the authority vested in Congress in Article I included not only enumerated powers, but implied powersnecessary to executing the enumerated power. The Court upheld Congress authority to charter a national bank as an acceptable extension of the (Article I, Section 8) Taxing and Spending Clause by way of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court also asserted the Article VI Supremacy Clause, elevating federal authority over state sovereignty in areas where the two conflicted.

Case Citation:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

Answer 4

If you're asking what the problem of the case was, it basically was a fight between state's power versus the Federal Government's power. The United State's Government had established a new national bank and had set up several of them within Maryland, which Maryland didn't particuarly like. In response, Maryland began to impose taxes on the banks and just basically made the banks have a miserable time of staying in business.

The US took the case to the Supreme Court and it was decided that the states could not go against a decision made by the government and could not impede the government's decisions in any way. It also established the idea that the Constitution gave Congress some 'implied' powers.

Answer 5

The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.