Mcculloch V Maryland Icivics Answer Key

In the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, solidified the concept of implied powers, significantly expanding the authority of the federal government and establishing the principle of national supremacy. This 1819 decision continues to shape the balance of power between the states and the federal government in the United States, and understanding its context, arguments, and lasting impact is crucial for anyone studying American civics and constitutional law.

The Historical Context of McCulloch v. Maryland

The early 19th century was a period of significant debate over the role and scope of the federal government. The Federalist Party, which favored a strong national government, had largely faded from prominence, and the Democratic-Republican Party, while initially advocating for a more limited federal role, was grappling with the practical challenges of governing a growing nation.

One of the key issues at the time was the establishment of the Second Bank of the United States. The First Bank, championed by Alexander Hamilton, had been controversial and its charter was allowed to expire in 1811. However, the War of 1812 exposed the financial weaknesses of the country, leading to the creation of the Second Bank in 1816.

The Second Bank, like its predecessor, was a national bank chartered by Congress. It was intended to stabilize the economy, regulate state banks, and provide a uniform currency. However, it quickly became unpopular, particularly in the South and West, where it was seen as a tool of Northern financial interests. State banks resented the Second Bank's regulatory power, and many people distrusted centralized financial institutions.

Several states attempted to limit the Second Bank's operations within their borders. Maryland, in 1818, passed a law imposing a tax on all banks not chartered by the state legislature. This tax was clearly aimed at the Second Bank, which had a branch in Baltimore. James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch, refused to pay the tax, leading to a lawsuit filed by the state of Maryland.

The case quickly made its way to the Supreme Court, presenting two key questions:

• Did Congress have the power to create a national bank?
• Could a state tax a federal entity?

The stakes were high, as the decision would have a profound impact on the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Arguments Presented

Maryland's Argument:

Maryland argued that the Constitution was a compact between sovereign states and that the federal government only had the powers explicitly delegated to it in the Constitution. They pointed to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Maryland argued that the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to create a national bank. They maintained that the power to incorporate a bank was not essential to carrying out any of the enumerated powers, such as regulating commerce or coining money. Therefore, according to Maryland, Congress had acted unconstitutionally in creating the Second Bank of the United States.

Furthermore, Maryland asserted its sovereign right to tax any entity within its borders, including the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank. They argued that the power to tax was essential to state sovereignty and that allowing the federal government to operate tax-free within a state would undermine the state's ability to govern itself.

McCulloch's Argument:

McCulloch, representing the Second Bank, argued that the Constitution granted Congress not only the powers explicitly listed in the Constitution but also the implied powers necessary and proper to carry out those enumerated powers. He pointed to Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress the power "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."

McCulloch argued that creating a national bank was necessary and proper for carrying out several of Congress's enumerated powers, including the power to regulate commerce, coin money, and borrow money. He contended that a national bank could facilitate these activities by providing a stable currency, regulating state banks, and providing a source of credit for the federal government.

Furthermore, McCulloch argued that the states could not tax the federal government. He asserted that the power to tax was the power to destroy and that allowing states to tax federal entities would undermine the supremacy of the federal government and make it dependent on the states. He cited the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution and the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Supreme Court's Decision and Reasoning

The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, sided with McCulloch in a unanimous decision. The Court's opinion, written by Marshall, is considered one of the most important and influential in American constitutional law.

The Power to Create a National Bank:

The Court addressed the question of whether Congress had the power to create a national bank. Marshall acknowledged that the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress this power. However, he argued that the Constitution should not be interpreted narrowly and that Congress had implied powers necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers.

Marshall famously stated, "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding… intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." He argued that the Constitution was not intended to be a detailed code of laws but rather a framework for government that could be adapted to changing circumstances.

Marshall then turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause. He rejected the argument that "necessary" meant absolutely essential. Instead, he argued that "necessary" meant convenient or useful. He stated that "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

Applying this reasoning to the case at hand, Marshall concluded that creating a national bank was a legitimate means for Congress to carry out its enumerated powers, such as regulating commerce and coining money. He argued that a national bank could provide a stable currency, regulate state banks, and provide a source of credit for the federal government, all of which were necessary for a well-functioning economy. Therefore, the Court held that Congress had the power to create the Second Bank of the United States.

The Power of a State to Tax a Federal Entity:

Having established that Congress had the power to create a national bank, the Court turned to the question of whether Maryland could tax the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank. Marshall argued that the power to tax was the power to destroy and that allowing states to tax federal entities would undermine the supremacy of the federal government.

He stated that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" and that "a power to create implies a power to preserve." He argued that if states could tax federal entities, they could effectively nullify federal laws and policies. This would undermine the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which makes federal laws supreme to state laws.

Marshall also pointed out that the states were represented in Congress and that Congress could be trusted to protect the interests of the states. However, he argued that the federal government was not represented in state legislatures and that allowing states to tax federal entities would give the states an unfair advantage.

Therefore, the Court held that Maryland's tax on the Second Bank was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the states could not tax the federal government because the power to tax was the power to destroy and that allowing states to tax federal entities would undermine the supremacy of the federal government.

The Significance and Legacy of McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland is a landmark decision that has had a profound impact on American constitutional law and the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

• Implied Powers: The decision established the doctrine of implied powers, which holds that Congress has powers beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution. This doctrine has allowed the federal government to adapt to changing circumstances and address new challenges. The implied powers doctrine has been used to justify a wide range of federal actions, from regulating interstate commerce to establishing a national defense system.
• National Supremacy: The decision affirmed the principle of national supremacy, which holds that the Constitution and federal laws are supreme to state laws. This principle is essential for maintaining a unified nation and preventing states from undermining federal policies. The national supremacy doctrine has been used to strike down state laws that conflict with federal laws in a wide range of areas, including civil rights, environmental protection, and economic regulation.
• Strengthening the Federal Government: McCulloch v. Maryland significantly strengthened the power of the federal government. By recognizing implied powers and affirming national supremacy, the Court gave the federal government the tools it needed to address national problems and promote the general welfare. The decision laid the foundation for the growth of the federal government in the 20th century and its role in addressing issues such as the Great Depression, World War II, and the Civil Rights Movement.
• Ongoing Debate: Despite its significance, McCulloch v. Maryland remains a subject of debate. Some argue that the decision gave the federal government too much power and that it has been used to justify an unwarranted expansion of federal authority. Others argue that the decision was necessary to ensure a strong and effective national government and that it has been essential for addressing national problems. The debate over the proper balance of power between the federal government and the states continues to this day.

The iCivics Connection

iCivics, a non-profit organization founded by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, provides educational resources to teach students about civics and American government. McCulloch v. Maryland is often featured in iCivics materials as a key case for understanding the principles of federalism, implied powers, and national supremacy.

iCivics provides interactive games, lesson plans, and other resources to help students learn about the case and its significance. These materials often include:

• Case summaries: Concise explanations of the facts, issues, and holding of the case.
• Arguments: Outlines of the arguments made by both sides in the case.
• Constitutional provisions: Excerpts from the Constitution that are relevant to the case, such as the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
• Discussion questions: Prompts to encourage students to think critically about the case and its implications.
• Interactive games: Engaging activities that allow students to apply their knowledge of the case.

By using iCivics resources, students can gain a deeper understanding of McCulloch v. Maryland and its importance in American history and government.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

• What is the main issue in McCulloch v. Maryland?

  The main issues were whether Congress had the power to create a national bank and whether a state could tax a federal entity.

• What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

  The Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) gives Congress the power "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."

• What are implied powers?

  Implied powers are powers that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution but are implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause.

• What is national supremacy?

  National supremacy is the principle that the Constitution and federal laws are supreme to state laws, as stated in the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the Constitution.

• Why is McCulloch v. Maryland important?

  The case established the doctrines of implied powers and national supremacy, significantly strengthening the power of the federal government and shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

• How does iCivics teach about McCulloch v. Maryland?

  iCivics provides interactive games, lesson plans, and other resources to help students learn about the case and its significance.

Conclusion

McCulloch v. Maryland stands as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, profoundly shaping the relationship between the federal government and the states. By establishing the doctrine of implied powers and affirming the principle of national supremacy, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, laid the groundwork for a stronger, more unified nation. The decision continues to be relevant today as debates over the proper scope of federal power persist. Resources like iCivics play a vital role in educating future generations about this landmark case and its enduring impact on American civics. Understanding McCulloch v. Maryland is essential for anyone seeking to comprehend the complexities of American federalism and the ongoing evolution of constitutional law.