The decision centered on Maryland's claim that because the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, the States were sovereign
The U.S. Congress has the power to make all laws that are considered 'necessary and proper.' This was established in 1819 in the case McCulloch v. Maryland.
AnswerVery little since it was a unanimous opinion.AnswerBy the time the Supreme Court heard McCulloch v. Maryland,(1819), Federalists no longer dominated the Court. Five of the seven justices were nominated by Democratic-Republican Presidents, and were Democratic-Republicans themselves.As the answer above indicates, the decision was unanimous; partisanship played little if any role in the outcome of the case, despite the decision favoring the federal government. It's unlikely a justice of any party would allow the states to block creation of or tax a federal bank, especially when the primary purpose of the tax was restraint of trade.The question of Federalism is invoked by the Court's decision that it is unconstitutional for the states to tax the federal government under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. While the decision subordinates state sovereignty to the central government, Marshall's position involved a logical interpretation of the Constitution that protected the interests of the federal government. This determination was shared by the five Democratic-Republican party members who represented the majority party on the Court.Chief JusticeJohn Marshall........Federalist PartyAssociate JusticesBushrod Washington......Federalist PartyWilliam Johnson............Democratic-RepublicanHenry B. Livingston.......Democratic-RepublicanThomas Todd................Democratic-RepublicanGabrielle Duvall.............Democratic-RepublicanJoseph Story.................Democratic-RepublicanFor more information on McCulloch v. Maryland, see Related Questions, below.
Yes, one of the significant changes in atmosphere in Jefferson's administration was that there were more common people involved in government.
Bottom Line: The US Supreme Court decided Congress has the right to create a national bank, but the states don't have a right to ban the bank or tax it.Simple ExplanationCongress created the Second Bank of the United States so the government would have a way to manage its money. They opened a bank in the state of Maryland. Maryland didn't want competition from the federal bank, so they decided to make a law forcing all banks that were started outside their state to pay extra taxes. The Second Bank of the United States was the only bank affected by this law because it was the only one operating in Maryland that was started somewhere else.James McCulloch, who was head of the Second Bank of the United States in Maryland, refused to pay the tax. McCulloch sued Maryland in the state courts, saying the tax was unconstitutional and unfair. Maryland replied that the Constitution didn't say the United States government could start its own bank, so Maryland thought the bank was unconstitutional. The state courts agreed with Maryland.James McCulloch appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided Congress had a right to start a bank under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of the US Constitution. The Necessary and Proper Clause basically says Congress has a right to do things not mentioned in the Constitution if their action is necessary to run the federal government and proper, or makes sense, serves a legitimate purpose, and is not forbidden by the US Constitution. The Supreme Court said the Necessary and Proper Clause gave Congress "implied powers," meaning the power to do some things not written in the Constitution, such as charter a bank to help the federal government collect and distribute money.The Supreme Court also said that the federal government "is supreme within its sphere of action," meaning the United States government is more powerful and had more authority than the state government when the US is doing things allowed by the Constitution. For these reasons, the state of Maryland was not allowed to tax the federal government, and the tax on the bank was overturned as unconstitutional.McCulloch v. Maryland was an important case because it was the first to explain Congress's "implied powers," and how they could be used. It also helped establish the balance of power between the state and federal government.Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
local, state, and federal
Some may claim most of Chief Justice Marshall's opinions involved a "loose" interpretation of the Constitution; however, the solution to the problem involved invoking specific clauses (Article I, Section 8, Necessary and Proper Clause; Article VI, Supremacy Clause) that were clearly intended for application when federal and state governments had a conflict in power. In my opinion, the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland was well-reasoned and fell within the original intent of the Framers; therefore, I would say this is not an example of a "loose" interpretation (one isn't concretely supported).Counter OpinionHe made a loose interpretation by basing his decision in part on implied powers that naturally arose from the exercise of enumerated constitutional powers awarded to the Legislative branch in Article I, Section 8.Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
The U.S. Congress has the power to make all laws that are considered 'necessary and proper.' This was established in 1819 in the case McCulloch v. Maryland.
Calhoun and other Southerners argued that tariffs raised the prices that they to pay for the manufactured goods they could not produced for themselves.
John Dickinson lived in Pennsylvania and Delaware during the colonial era. He was born in Maryland but spent most of his life in Pennsylvania and Delaware, where he was involved in politics and played a significant role in shaping the early American government.
Yes
A bilateral decision is taken by the two sides or two parties involved in the decision-making process.
AnswerVery little since it was a unanimous opinion.AnswerBy the time the Supreme Court heard McCulloch v. Maryland,(1819), Federalists no longer dominated the Court. Five of the seven justices were nominated by Democratic-Republican Presidents, and were Democratic-Republicans themselves.As the answer above indicates, the decision was unanimous; partisanship played little if any role in the outcome of the case, despite the decision favoring the federal government. It's unlikely a justice of any party would allow the states to block creation of or tax a federal bank, especially when the primary purpose of the tax was restraint of trade.The question of Federalism is invoked by the Court's decision that it is unconstitutional for the states to tax the federal government under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution. While the decision subordinates state sovereignty to the central government, Marshall's position involved a logical interpretation of the Constitution that protected the interests of the federal government. This determination was shared by the five Democratic-Republican party members who represented the majority party on the Court.Chief JusticeJohn Marshall........Federalist PartyAssociate JusticesBushrod Washington......Federalist PartyWilliam Johnson............Democratic-RepublicanHenry B. Livingston.......Democratic-RepublicanThomas Todd................Democratic-RepublicanGabrielle Duvall.............Democratic-RepublicanJoseph Story.................Democratic-RepublicanFor more information on McCulloch v. Maryland, see Related Questions, below.
The American Revolution and the US Civil War.
When you're drafted, no decision is involved.
A unanimous decision
There are a number of examples of a team decision that a person could have recently been involved in. This may be a group project that you lead for example.
A unanimous decision means that everyone involved agrees.