John Marshall, the fourth chief of justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, became perhaps the nation’s “most illustrious judicial figure” according to Charles Evans Hughes (Simon, 2012). He was strongly committed to the need to create a strong and effective government. Marshall quickly became a prominent political figure of the Federalist Party in the 1790’s, and in early 1801, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President John Adams. On assuming his duties, Chief Justice John Marshall took immediate action to strengthen the power of the Court (Fox, 2006). He raised the United States Supreme Court from an anomalous position to majesty and power. He shaped the Constitution by the depth and wisdom of his own interpretation. Likewise, he dominated …show more content…
Congress, as well as the executive and judicial branches of the government, can only exercise those powers listed in the historical document. Congressional powers are enumerated in several places within the Constitution. The most important of those powers, perhaps, is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and is often referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The very first power granted to Congress in the Constitution is the power to tax. The last paragraph of Clause 1 also grants Congress with the power “to make all law which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause was the subject of a rather heated debated between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton argued that the clause should be read broadly so as to exercise a broad range of many implied powers. Conversely, Jefferson argued that “necessary” was actually a restrictive adjective and what it really meant was essential. Hamilton’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause was more flexible and made for a strong national government, whereas Jefferson’s narrower interpretation would help strengthen States’ Rights. The debate between the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of State came to a head in the landmark case, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) (Linder, …show more content…
Maryland remains as one of the United States Supreme Court’s most important decisions and was the very first case in which the Court applied the Necessary and Proper Clause. By establishing the doctrine of implied powers, this decision helped eliminate the need for many amendments that attempted to expand congressional powers. It also enhanced the importance of explicit restraints on congressional powers such as those found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (McCulloch v. Maryland, 2014). The case of McCulloch v. Maryland presented the Court with two questions: Did Congress have the authority to incorporate a bank, and was it constitutional to impose a state tax upon such a bank? The answer to the first question, according to Chief Justice Marshall, was yes and to the second was no. It was one of the important opinions he gave over his long career. Nothing explicit was stated in the Constitution about establishing banks, nor did Congress have the power to grant charters of incorporation. Therefore such authority could only be supposed by the reasoning of the Tenth Amendment, and Maryland would have seemed within its right to legislate a state tax upon the bank. John Marshall, however, bypassed the objections with his interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. In the end, Marshall and the Court were “unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of The United States, is unconstitutional and
John Marshall believed in a strong national government. Marshall had the “united we stand, divided we fall” concept. The United States Supreme Court due to Chief Justice John Marshall
The McCulloch v. Maryland all was a supreme court case originally questioned does Congress have the power under the constitution to incorporate a bank even though it isn't clearly said in constitution? The other argument was does the state of Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by congress? The reason for Maryland trying to sue McCulloch was because they wanted money and he wasn't following state law
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority decision on March 6, 1819. The justices who voted in the decision were: Bushrod Washington, William Johnson, Henry B. Livingston, Thomas Todd, Gabriel Duvall, Joseph Story and John Marshall. The Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to establish a federal bank in Maryland and the state did not have the power to tax the bank. Marshall ruled in favor of McCulloch stating that the Constitution gives the government power to create any law that is "necessary and proper". This is known as the necessary and proper clause, which allows Congress to have powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution.
During the United States history, there have been events that have impacted the course and development of politics, becoming part of what is currently, and the McCulloch v. Maryland case has been one of the most influential events in the economic area. In addition, I believe that the courage that McCulloch had to refuse to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland was an elemental key part to continue with the processes of the growth of the United States National Bank and the regulation of the coin produced by the state banks; bringing at the end a financial balance. Furthermore, in a deeper insight, it promoted the analysis of the power of the Congress and the Constitution, because at the beginning the Constitution was taken as a literal explanation
The idea the the Supreme court alone had the last word on the question of constitutionality. In this landmark case, Marshall inserted the keystone into the arch that supported the tremendous power of the Supreme Court in American life.” This textual evidence shows that John Marshall from the previous paragraph that he pushed the authority of the court which lead to now the promotion of judicial review. The judicial review was the idea that the Supreme Court had the last response on the questioning of constitutionality. The judicial review was a long term ramification because it is still used still today to review the a law that is brought before it through a
Daniel Webster argued on behalf of McCulloch that the bank was a necessary and proper way for Congress to conduct the financial affairs of the country (site). and the state had no right to tax. Daniel Webster stated in the case, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” (Wheeler 1905). The decision of Supreme Court was in favor of McCulloch because the bank was created lawfully under the constitution as a function of national government. Moreover, state may impede the federal government and thus Maryland Law that directly taxed the U.S. Bank unconstitutionally interfered with the congressional
John Marshall was a Federalist and should have taken Marbury’s side of the case, but it did not happen. Instead, he feared that the Court would be chastised for giving Marbury the commission. He did not want his authority to be ignored by the Republican Party if he did grant the document to be pushed through. He also feared that people might think that the court acted out in fear of the government. Marshall was in a dilemma all on his own with trying to make the right
The significance of this triad is that Dartmouth, McColloch, and Gibbons are three landmark Supreme Court cases decided by Chief Justice John Marshall that affected the interpretation of the Constitution and the federal government’s powers. Dartmouth College v. Woodward was decided in 1819 and found that the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution which says no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts was good law. It separated public and private charters and created the American business corporation and the free enterprise system. McCulloch v. Maryland was decided in 1819 and allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers. It further developed the
The states righters of Marshall’s era, much like the antifederalists of the previous era, believed that the Constitution served as a generic limit on federal power while the Tenth Amendment served as a general grant of, near, limitless discretionary power for the states. The antifederalists, chiefly those who supported the ‘league’ concept of the Articles of Confederation, feared a strong central government that wielded discretion and its accompanying power. In the same way the state righters desired state independence and discretion, not to be infringed upon by a unified Federal government. This mindset lead to, on multiple occasions, conflicts in which states challenged Federal supremacy.
He concluded it did not. The Court having also found that the Judicial Act of 1789 was unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Marshall was refusing to have the Court enter into a political issue on “the grounds that Congress could not constitutionally grant to the Court powers not authorized by the Constitution.” Thus this case established Judicial
He expanded the power of the Supreme Court by declaring that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the Supreme Court Justices were the final deciders. In the Marbury vs. Madison case, Marshall wrote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” John Marshall was clearly in favor of judicial power, and believed that the Supreme Court should have the final say in cases involving an interpretation of the Constitution. While establishing this, he kept the separation of powers in mind, as he wanted equal representation among the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches. In the Marbury vs. Madison, John Marshall declared that the Judicial Branch could not force Madison to deliver the commission.
He wanted the court to present a clear opinion on the matters. With Marshalls outspoken personality, most justices followed his views. But his views were not always followed by everyone. His view was shot down in the case of Ogden v. Saunders of 1827. His interpretation of the Constitution was this, “To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail, that this intention must be collected from its words, that its words are to be understood in the sense in which that are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended.
The Civil Rights Movement, which was at its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, was a time period in which African Americans fought to secure equal opportunities and access for basic rights and privileges in the US, nationally and locally. Some ways they attempted this was through negotiations, nonviolent protests and petitions (Civil Rights Movement: An Overview). People also tried to take legal course of action and one prominent figure in this aspect of the Civil Rights Movement was Thurgood Marshall. He was the first African American associate justice in the US Supreme Court and was the legal counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP. He did not conform to the formalities of law and was driven by his strong
The Supreme Court case McCulloch v Maryland originally originated in Maryland when the Maryland legislature decided to levy a tax on all branches of the banks. It was aimed to destroy the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States. James McCulloch was a cashier at the Baltimore branch. He was issuing bank notes without complying with the Maryland law. Maryland had sued McCulloch for refusing to pay the taxes under the Maryland statute.
Then the state of Maryland sue him in a state court, the state argued using the 10 amendment, that since the power isn't given to the federal government or prohibited from the states, it is “reserved” to the states. The court ruled that since the power to create a national bank isn't explicitly delighted in the constitution, it is unconstitutional, therefore the state of Maryland has the power to tax the national bank. The bank was found unconstitutional. Ultimately the case was appealed to the supreme court. A few arguments given consisting of: the branches are doing their job and no rules are being broken, the power is in the constitution are to be interpreted and expanded and it's strongest argument, the national bank is necessary and proper for the general well being.