Abstract In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence has shielded states from certain aspects of Congress's policymaking and enforcement authority. Through its interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, the Court has reminded Congress that its power to govern has limits. This article presents the major federalism cases of the 1990s, focusing on Alden v. Maine, the most important federalism decision of the 1998-1999 term. It concludes that the Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment and the sovereign-immunity doctrine, which has constrained the federal government's power to authorize private suits against states for violations of federal law, poses a threat to a fundamental principle of the rule of law: "where there is a right, there is a remedy." Show Journal Information Publius is an international journal and is interested in publishing work on federalist systems throughout the world. Its goal is to publish the latest research from around the world on federalism theory and practice; the dynamics of federal systems; intergovernmental relations and administration; regional, state and provincial governance; and comparative federalism. Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. IntroductionMcCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is one of the first and most important Supreme Court cases on federal power. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers derived from those listed in Article I, Section 8. The “Necessary and Proper” Clause gave Congress the power to establish a national bank. On this page you will find two different tools for teaching McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). There is a short eLesson activity featuring the case, as well as a more robust document-based question (DBQ) unit that includes classroom-friendly excerpts of the following documents:
Download the McCulloch v. Maryland DBQResources
SummaryIt was 1819 and the United States had been a nation under the Constitution for barely a generation when an important case about federal power reached the Court. After a first attempt in 1791, Congress established the second National Bank of the United States in 1816. Many states opposed branches of the National Bank within their borders. They did not want the National Bank competing with their own banks, and objected to the establishment of a National Bank as an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s power. The state of Maryland imposed a tax on the bank of $15,000/year, which cashier James McCulloch of the Baltimore branch refused to pay. The case went to the Supreme Court. Maryland argued that as a sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders. McCulloch’s attorneys argued that a national bank was “necessary and proper” for Congress to establish in order to carry out its enumerated powers. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word ‘bank,’ we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce 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.” Further, the Court ruled that Maryland could not tax the national bank: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy. If the states may tax one instrument, employed by the [federal] government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the states.” Marshall also noted an important difference between the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation (the United States’ first governing document that had been replaced by the Constitution). The Articles said that the states retained all powers not “expressly” given to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment, Marshall noted, did not include the word “expressly.” This was further evidence, he argued, that the Constitution did not limit Congress to doing only those things specifically listed in Article I. Questions
Which Supreme Court case supports the supremacy of the national government over the states?Second, federalism is a system of shared power between state governments and the national government, but the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland established and reaffirmed the fact that the United States has a strong central government and that federal law has authority over state law.
What Court case established the supremacy of federal law?McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is the U.S. Supreme Court case that defined the scope of the federal legislative power and the federal government's relationship with state governmental authority.
How did McCulloch v Maryland help establish the supremacy of federal over state laws?On March 6, 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress had the authority to establish a federal bank, and that the financial institution could not be taxed by the states.
|
