Mcculloch Vs. Maryland Case Study

McCulloch v. Maryland is the record of one of several federalism court cases, which concern states' rights over the federal government. On March 6, 1819, the record was delivered by chief justice John Marshall, in the light of the huge debts the United States incurred after the War of 1812 against Britain. The holding of the Court was in favor of the Second Bank of United States.
The excerpt claims that the taxation of a state, Maryland in this particular case, will be a precedent for future taxations on other things such as mail, mint, patent rights, papers of custom house, and judicial process. Generally, since a Supreme Court’s decision can be cited for future decisions, an approval of Supreme Court for Maryland’s right to tax on Second Bank of the United States may lead to other states’ similar decisions. However,

other states might not only tax the bank but also other instruments, thus they can tax any supposedly federal-controlled instruments.
Corning the whole record, the excerpt portrayed a hypothetical scenario in which the states would go over the limit of their rights, where subsequences would be undesirable to Americans.

Those unwanted results include unlimited rights to tax of states, a fact that opposes the Constitution giving the right to tax the the Congress. The theme of the document is dual federalism, a concept that state governments and federals governments have their own powers. These powers are clearly separated, and each level of the governments can exercises its power without intervention of the other. As a result, the establishment of the Second Bank is protected by the power of the Congress against taxation of Maryland, since the national legislature is supreme in its sphere of power. The tax on the bank is an interference of state on federal government's right. Specifically, the power to create, vested the Congress, the bank is accompanied with the power to preserve the bank. However, this preservation is useless if the state can destroy the bank by taxing it. In short, the holding of the Court made clear the verge between national and state legislature's

powers.
This ruling of the Court has an enduring effect on the relationship between federal and states' rights. The federal government gained more power after the holding. The Court decided that the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers through the elastic clause, meaning that the national government can make any laws that are "necessary and proper". By "necessary and proper" laws, the national legislature can commit to its duties as long as it give benefits to people. Later in history, the elastic clause is used several times to expand the power of the national government. For instance, in time of the Great Depression, the New Deal, initiated by FDR, made various reforms to control interstate commerce, reduced unemployed rate, and bring up the economy levels. Many of these reforms were executed under the interpretation of elastic clause.