More handpicked essays just for you.
McCulloch v Maryland and Gibbons v Ogden essay
McCulloch v Maryland and Gibbons v Ogden essay
Development of the American constitution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day. The Second Bank of the United States opened in 1816 under the presidency of James Madison and was located in Baltimore, Maryland. The primary idea of the federally operated bank was to maintain …show more content…
Maryland 's main arguments were as follows: 1) they had the right to regulate businesses and taxes within their state 2) the Federal government regulated state banks so why couldn’t a state regulate a Federal bank 3) the Constitution gives the Federal government no authority to set up a bank, and therefore it was unconstitutional. On the other side, McCullough 's arguments were: 1) Congress had deemed the creation of a national bank as necessary and proper as a way to conduct financial operations 2) the Constitution is only a framework and not all national operations that may arise could have been listened 3) the federal government is supreme over the state government, and therefore Maryland has no right to question the Second Bank of the United States. In the end, John Marshall gave his verdict in favor of McCulloch and the federal government. In his explanation, he said because of Article I, Section 8 Congress could indeed do whatever they felt was necessary under the “Elastic Clause”. Also, Marshall referred to the Supremacy Clause when he said “As long as the national government behaved in accordance with the Constitution, it’s policies took precedence over state policies”. Finally, Marshall laid out the groundwork for the “implied powers”, which are the powers of the government which have not been explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
In the summer of 1832 and Congress renewed the Bank’s charter even though it wasn’t due until 1836. Jackson hesitated to approve of the charter, so Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle went on the offensive to attempt to persuade Jackson to pass the bill. Jackson, having had his opinion on the banks cemented by Clay’s presence in the organization, then committed to de-establishing the Second National Bank. He waged war against Biddle in particular to make sure Biddle lost power. He vetoed the bank bill, and after winning the race to be reelected, he closed Biddle’s bank. He ordered his Secretary of the Treasury to move money from the Second National Bank to smaller, state banks. When Congress returned from its summer recess, it censured him for his actions. In 1836, Bank of US was dead, and the new democratic-congressmen expunged Jackson’s censure. Because Jackson had no formal plan for managing the nation’s funds after the Second National Bank closed, it caused problems in Van Buren’s administration. He destroyed the Bank of the United States, in the main, for personal reasons. Jackson hated the bank before his presidency because as a wealthy land and slave owner he had lost money due to its fiscal policies. He believed that Congress had no right under the constitution to charter a
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
The United States government in 1816 chartered the Second Bank of the United States. It had a 20-year charter, which was to expire in 1836. Despite this, the Bank was privately owned and during the age of Jackson, the president was Nicholas Biddle. The Bank was large in comparison to other banks, being responsible for 15-20% of bank loans in the United States and accounting for 40% of the bank notes in circulation. Also, the Bank held a specie reserve of 50% of the value of its notes, when normally other banks only had a specie reserve of 10-25% (Davis 1).
Andrew Jackson didn’t like the bank, he thought it was evil. In his mind he saw that the bank only helped the wealthy people. The president of the 2nd bank was Nicholas Biddle. He always challenged Jackson’s investigations of the bank. Andrew Jackson takes $ and puts it in state banks. The Inflation leads to the Panic of 1837.
Showing that he makes personal decisions instead of political ones. He violated the McCulloh v. Maryland, showing that he did not follow interpretation of the law, ruled by Supreme Court. Jackson violated separation of powers through the destruction of the national bank. Although Jackson believed he would help the poor by terminating the national bank; he did violate the separation of powers. As stated in the McCulloh v. Maryland “the necessary and proper clause gave Congress the right to charter the bank and that if the states could tax the bank, they could also destroy it.” Jackson ultimately disregarded this court decision made by the Supreme Court that the national bank was constitutional. He also defies the Supreme Court by enforcing the Indian Removal Act seeing as he did not hold up their treaty with the Native Americans, denying the interpretation of the treaty. Jackson had no valid reason to kick the Native Americans out of the land they owned first. He forced them to move because of the color of their skin. He did not recognize the Native Americans as citizens and only wanted them out of it because he believed that the land belonged to the white people. He saw himself in a position that higher authority than Supreme Court, showing that he thought he was the president he could do as
This bank held government money and controlled the economy by making it easier for local banks to borrow money from it to loan it to manufacturers and factories. As the idea arose the cabinet, Jefferson protested that such a bank was unconstitutional because it favored the north over the south since the bank did not loan money to farmers for land expansions. Being true as it is, the bank drastically boosted our economy and had a great future for our nation. Since it was unconstitutional, a compromise said that the bank would only be funded for 20 years. So as soon as Andrew Jackson was elected, he destroyed the bank. In response to this, our nation suddenly falls into a major depression. No one had jobs and the economy was dying. This showed the brilliance of the national bank and how much it helped our economy. Adding onto this, the bank began the formation of the Federalist and Democratic
Despite the downfall of the Federalist Party in the early nineteenth century, John Marshall continued to exert a strong Federalist influence on the government, which acted as a catalyst to ignite political controversy. In the McCullough vs. Maryland trial of 1819, Marshall deemed Maryland taxing the second bank of the United States as being unconstitutional, which gave even more power to the central government. (Doc D) Majority of the American population was against his ruling and refuted it because many people believed that having a strong central government was bad because if a bad decision was made, it would have affected the entire union, whereas if there was a strong state government, a bad decision would have just hurt the state. However, this was not the only time where the economy had failed in the early 1800’s. In 1816, John Randolph addressed congress and stated that it was unjust to tax the poo...
First, Andrew Jackson, aimed towards all of the strict constructionists, brought up the point that the formation of a national bank is not in the Constitution, and therefore there is no reason why we should be able to use it. President Jackson also said how the national bank is “rebellious of the rights of the states, and dangerous to the liberties of the people”. Jackson could see that the bank was a monopoly, and the danger that this could bring. He said how the bank is run primarily by 25 people, 20 of which are elected by the bank stock holders, the other five are elected by the bank officials themselves, who in the long run can keep reelecting themselves, and corruption is bound to follow.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
After the first War for Independence, The United States was approximately $52 million in debt. Due to having such bad financial problems, the United States created a national Bank to create one unified currency, to take away all state debts, and to issue loans to the people to promote growth. This National Bank was created by Alexander Hamilton who was a Federalist, and once Jefferson came to be the President, he continued the idea of the national bank because it was helping to reduce the national debt. The primary reason for the National Bank being a representation of a Federalist idea was because since it was issuing loans to people it was able to promote industrial growth which was one of the main goals of the Federalist party. From Jefferson continuing the use of the National Bank thru his presidency he demonstrates his need to continue a loose constructionist idea.
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...