Want this question answered?
The decision centered on Maryland's claim that because the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, the States were sovereign
He used the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
There was no dissenting opinion. The decision in McCulloch was formed unanimously, by a vote of 7-0. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the only opinion in the case.Chief JusticeJohn MarshallAssociate JusticesBushrod WashingtonWilliam JohnsonHenry Brockholst LivingstonThomas ToddGabriel DuvallJoseph StoryCase Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Citizens of the state of Maryland were infuriated by the decision in McCulloch v Maryland, and blamed both Maryland Attorney General, Luther Martin, and Chief Justice John Marshall for the outcome.According to Susan Dudley Gold, in her book McCulloch v Maryland: State v. Federal Power, "...Baltimore residents hanged Martin -- and Chief Justice John Marshall -- in effigy. The protesters labeled Martin "Lawyer Brandy-Bottle," no doubt a reference to the attorney's fondness for drink."Proponents of States' Rights continued to believe the bank was unconstitutional, despite Chief Justice Marshall's reasoning. Thomas Jefferson publicly supported the decision, but privately encouraged dissent.John Taylor wrote a book, Construction Construed,denouncing the decision, and others wrote newspaper articles and essays arguing against it. John Marshall allegedly responded anonymously to some of these letters in the Richmond Enquirer, a Virginia newspaper.Even President James Madison, who had signed the bill chartering the Second National Bank, was critical of the decision, believing Marshall's constitutional interpretation was dangerous. Both Madison and Jefferson favored addressing the matter as a political question outside the court's reach by constitutional amendment.Those who supported nationalism, like Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and John Quincy Adams applauded the decision.Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
The decision in McCulloch v Maryland (1819) strengthened the power of the federal government because the Supreme Court determined the Constitution granted Congress both enumerated and implied powers.Chief Justice Marshall held 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 facilitate the exercise of legitimate constitutional powers. Further, Marshall held that 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.Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
The decision centered on Maryland's claim that because the Constitution was ratified by State conventions, the States were sovereign
A+ : McCulloch vs. Maryland
A+ : McCulloch vs. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland
Federal government
Federal government
Federal government
McCulloch v. Maryland: ruled that states could tax the federal goveornment
Congress. Marshall's decisions set a precedent allowing the Legislative Branch to exercise "implied powers," in addition to the expressed powers listed in Article I of the Constitution.
He used the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
This case allowed for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.
It wasn't clear whether state laws could inferfere with Federal Laws