Which Supreme Court cases established a broad scope for the doctrine of implied powers?

Answer 1

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)

The Supreme Court held that the "necessary and proper clause" (Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 18) gave Congress the authority to establish a national bank as a legitimate vehicle for support the federal government's need to collect and distribute money.

The Marshall Court noted that the Constitution grants Congress not only enumerated powers, but implied powers that are inferred from the language of the original Articles.

Necessary and Proper Clause

"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."

Supreme Court Reasoning

Marshall reasoned that application of the "necessary and proper clause" (also called the Elastic Clause) allowed Congress to employ any appropriate means not specifically prohibited by the Constitution in order to carry out the business of the government.

"If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

"The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

"If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

State Tax on a Federal Bank

The Court also held the State lacked authority to tax a federal bank or other entity established by the government in order to exercise its constitutional powers.

Supreme Court Reasoning

In the opinion of the Court, Marshall wrote (in part):

"The Bank of the United States has, constitutionally, a right to establish its branches or offices of discount and deposit within any state.

"The State within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch.

"The State governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed by the Government of the Union to execute its constitutional powers.

"The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government."

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 2

McCulloch v. Maryland

(1819) Decision of the supreme-court-of-the-united-statesthat affirmed the constitutional doctrine of Congress's implied powers. The case concerned the legitimacy of the authority of a newly created national bank to control the issuance of currency by the states, including Maryland. The unanimous opinion, written by john-marshall, established that Congress possesses not only the powers expressly conferred on it by the Constitution but also the authority appropriate to the utilization of such powers, in this case the creation of such a bank. This doctrine, drawn from the "elastic clause" of Article 1, became a significant factor in the steady growth of federal powers. It also bolstered the mcculloch-v-marylandof judicial-reviewestablished in marbury-v-madison(1803).

Read more: mcculloch-v-maryland

Answer 3

To the framers of the constitution there were two types of powers. Expressed power and implied. The expressed powers are ones that are stated like the power to declare war is given to congress, but to the framers it was clear that they didn't mean to have these powers be the final word so they built in a " fail safe" method to give leeway in what congress can do. They used a clause in Article 1 stating what was " necessary and proper." This means that congress can make laws to carry out the expressed powers. To a strict constructionist this is hazy and they are fearful that the government might take on too many powers and they claim that the constitution limits congress to powers only expressed in the constitution. A loose constructionist feel that congress not only has the power but the responsibility to adapt to changing times by making new laws. The existence of the clause in Article 1 indicates that the Framers knew the government would change and have to take on additional powers or obligations. The Supreme Court brought the concept of implied powers to life by hearing cases like aMcCulloch v Maryland in 1819.

Answer 4

Mucholuc V Madison

Answer 5

McCulloch vs. Maryland

Answer 6

Marbury v. Madison (1803)