Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
McCulloch v. Maryland
Transcript of McCulloch v. Maryland
He appealed the decision to the Maryland Court of appeals, but failed because they still believed that he was disobeying the state law, so he took it to the Supreme Court to win the argument.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Argument of Maryland
Maryland argued that as a sovereign state, they were allowed to regulate tax institutions inside their borders. The regulation of banks was long accepted as constitutional. No authority to charter a federal bank is included in the Constitution, so the Bank of the U.S. is unconstitutional. Therefore, McCulloch is violating the Constitution.
The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous with 7 votes for McCulloch and 0 votes against.
The Court ruled that the U.S. did have the right to establish a bank in Maryland and that the state could not tax the bank for doing so without violating the Constitution.
The Court ruled that Congress had the right to establish a bank because of the nessesary and proper clause of the Constitution.
John Marshall quoted that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
There was no dissent in this case because the decision was unanimous.
The immediate impact of this case was that it showed people that a state didn't have the power to destroy an institution of the federal government, like a bank.
The long term impact of this case was that it defined the scope of the federal legislative power and the federal government's relationship with state government authority.
In 1816 the United States decided to incorporate a federal Bank through a legislative act.
Maryland was unhappy with the Bank of the U.S.
Shortly after that, Maryland imposed a tax on any bank that didn't possess a state charter.
In 1819 the state obtained judgement against James W. McCulloch (cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the U.S.) for refusing to pay the $15,000 annual tax when he was called upon to pay it.
Maryland sued McCulloch for failing to pay the taxes under the Maryland statute and McCulloch contested the constitutionality of that act.
By: Alexa Hernandez
Ruling(s )of the Lower Court(s)
Argument of McCulloch
McCulloch argued that Congress defined the creation of the national bank as "necessary and proper. Minute details of national operations can't be specified in the Constitution, which is only framework. The bank was a legitimate federal function with which no one could interfere. The Maryland tax on the bank was unconstitutional.
James W. McCulloch
2nd National Bank
Boundless. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/federalism-3/history-of-federalism-31/early-u-s-supreme-court-decisions-mcculloch-v-maryland-1819-gibbons-v-ogden-1824-and-barron-v-baltimore-1833-182-4252/>.
Cornell Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mcculloch_v._maryland_1819>.
Education Portal. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-case-of-mcculloch-v-maryland-summary-decision-significance.html#lesson>.
History. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.history.com/topics/mcculloch-v-maryland>.
Lawnix. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.lawnix.com/cases/mcculloch-maryland.html>.
Oyez. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1819/1819_0>.
PBS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_mcculloch.html>.