Case Study: Mcculloch V. Maryland 1819

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...

Federal Sovereignty vs. Rights of the States Continued…. Federal Sovereignty versus States Rights was not a new problem to the United States. First appearing during the writing of the Constitution and continuing through Hamilton’s Bank and the Federalist Papers, this debate raged right into the 19th century, beginning with the Hartford Convention, where delegates proposed that a state had the right to “interpose authority” in a case of “dangerous and palpable infractions.” However, this was only the first in a series of arguments that would in the end, result in civil war. The next major step was the handling of cases for businesses. During the 1810’s and 20’s Chief Justice John Marshall passed made several rulings reducing state power. In Sturges v. Crownshield, he decided that a state could pass bankruptcy laws but could not be applied to debts incurred before the ratification of the law. During Dartmouth College v. Woodward, he ruled that a state (or any party) could not cancel a contract without the consent of the other side. He struck again, in 1815, this time at the New York ferry monopoly by saying that the state could not regulate commerce on borders. Finally, in 1819, he stated that the bank was constitutional and that the federal law was supreme over the states, who had no right to tax it. In doing this, he sharply defined the rights of the states as subordinate to those of the nation’s. However, Marshall’s rulings did not last long. During the term of Andrew Jackson, the Bank was destroyed by the president. Staring with vetoing the renewal of the Bank’s charter, he set out to eliminate what he though was a corrupt monopoly. By demolishing the Bank, he allowed smaller state banks to assume more power. Finally, during the early 1830’s, nullification came into question. In this situation, South Carolina had declared a government law, (tariff bill) void because a convention found it to be unconstitutional. While John Calhoun argued that the Constitution was based on false assumptions and that a minority of the nation could reassume its independence. However, Jackson saw the truth. He knew that if a state could ignore the laws then the Union would cease to exist. Because of Jackson’s strong will and the Force Bill (allowing more federal power with the president’s authority to execute revenue laws), South Carolina backed out and the Union was saved….

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

McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding

President Jackson hated the Bank of the United States. No bank in America had more power than it, and Jackson mistrusted monopolistic banking. The Bank of the U.S. controlled much of the nation’s gold and silver. The President of the Bank was Nicholas Biddle. The war between Jackson and Biddle erupted in 1832, when Daniel Webster and Henry Clay presented Congress with a bill to renew the Bank of the United States’ charter. The re-charter bill was passed through Congress, but was vetoed by President Jackson. The veto not only stopped the bank bill, but increased the power of the President. Jackson said that the bank was unconstitutional, but was actually saying that he personally found it harmful to the nation. The Supreme Court had said that the Bank of the U.S. was constitutional earlier. Jackson decided he was going to slowly shrink the amount of money in the Bank by using it to pay for day-to-day expenses of the government, this way the Bank of the U.S. would surely die.

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

Despite the oncoming bankruptcy of the state banks, prior to Jackson’s administration the government did not show much support in their survival. In fact, the government played a large role in the functioning of the Second Ban...

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

1-Governor Robert McDonnell’s conviction for violation of the federal bribery statute was overturned by the Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 (see McDonnell v. U. S. No. 15–474)

The Supreme Court requires that waiver in criminal proceedings be made voluntarily. The Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure may be waived voluntarily when there is a showing of consent. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination requires that waiver (in the context of confessions) must be made voluntarily. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court made it clear that the voluntariness of the waiver of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was a fundamental concern central to the creation of Miranda Warnings. There, the Court was concerned about the coercive effect of interrogation and sought to protect individuals from the coercion by requiring the iteration of Miranda Warnings in order to establish