Mcculloch V. Maryland Case Study

This decision expanded the power of the Supreme court in general by establishing the principle of judicial review (the power to declare a law unconstitutional) and declaring that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review with original jurisdiction. This decision was considered the biggest pyrrhic victory for Thomas Jefferson because he was not forced to deliver the commission to Marbury, but his executive powers were diminished with the Court not having the power to decide the constitutionality of laws and executive actions and declare them null and void if necessary.

The case of Fletcher revolved around a land grant approved by the Georgia legislature, which was later discovered to had actually been approved through bribery. The

Maryland, a case concerning the state of Maryland deciding to tax a federal bank within the state. McCulloch, a cashier for the bank refused to pay the tax, claiming that a state had no power or right to tax the federal government. The Supreme court held that the state of Maryland did not have the authority to tax the bank and established the superiority of the federal government. The reasoning the court used to reach this decision was as follows: while the Constitution does not enumerate the power of establishing a bank, it does include the powers to lay and collect taxes, borrow money, and regulate commerce. Since many enumerated powers of Congress would be useless if the laws that congress could be pass were limited, Maryland cannot tax the bank without violating the Constitution. Therefore, the act to incorporate the bank of the United States is constitutional. This case explicitly holds that the federal government is supreme to the states. Although the Tenth Amendment reserves any powers to the states that not been delegated to Congress, Congress can supersede these powers by exercising its implied powers. Additionally, this case held that the Constitution is a contract between the federal government not the

Titus, Matthew J. Franck, critique Robert L. Clinton’s article “How the Court Became Supreme” published in the January issue of the journal. In Clinton’s thesis, he argues that the conventional implication of the Marbury decision is incorrect because in the most often referenced section of Marshall’s opinion “No exclusive power to interpret the fundamental law is claimed for the Court here or anywhere else in [the opinion]. of the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” but only “of necessity,” whenever those “who apply the rule to particular cases” must determine which of two “conflicting rules governs the case.” In other words, the power of review claimed by the Court in Marbury is merely a power of discretion to disregard (not “strike down”—as the modern phrase suggests) existing laws in the decision of particular controversies Titus argues that Clinton’s suggestion that the Supreme Court has gone astray because it has misapplied the holding in Marbury v.