Organizacin Territorial McCulloch v.

Maryland 1
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819),
Was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United
States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law by its
language was generally applicable the U.S. Bank was the only out!of!state bank then existing in
Maryland and the law is generally recogni"ed as specifically targeting the U.S. Bank. The Court in#oked
the necessary!and!proper clause in the Constitution which allowed the $ederal go#ernment to pass laws
not expressly pro#ided for in the Constitution%s list of express powers as long as those laws are in useful
furtherance of the express powers.
This fundamental case established the following two principles&
that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution%s express
powers in order to create a functional national go#ernment and
that state action may not impede #alid constitutional exercises of power by the $ederal go#ernment.
The opinion was written by Chief 'ustice 'ohn Marshall a man whose many (udicial opinions ha#e
shaped modern constitutional law.
Background
The State courts upheld the Maryland law and ruled in the state%s fa#or. The case was appealed to the
Maryland Court of )ppeals where the state of Maryland argued that *the Constitution is silent on the
sub(ect of banks.* +t was Maryland%s contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state
that the $ederal ,o#ernment was authori"ed to charter a bank the Bank of the United States was
unconstitutional. The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court decision
The court determined that Congress had the power to charter the bank. Chief 'ustice Marshall supported
this conclusion with three main arguments.
-. The Court argued that the Constitution was a social contract created by the people #ia the
Constitutional Con#ention. The go#ernment proceeds from the people and binds the state so#ereignties.
Therefore the federal go#ernment is supreme based on the consent of the people. Marshall declares
the federal go#ernment.s o#erarching supremacy in his statement&
/ +f any one proposition could command the uni#ersal assent of mankind we might expect it would be
this0 that the go#ernment of the Union though limited in its power is supreme within its sphere of action.
1
2. Congress is bound to act under explicit or implied powers of the Constitution. 3ragmatically if all of the
means for implementing the explicit powers were listed then we would not be able to understand or
embrace the document4 it would not be possible to write them all down in a brief document. )lthough the
term *bank* is not included there are express powers in the ,eneral Welfare Clause. )lthough not
explicitly stated Congress has the implied power to create the bank in order to implement the express
powers.
5. Marshall supported the Court%s opinion textually using the 6ecessary!and!proper clause which permits
Congress to seek an ob(ecti#e that is within the enumerated powers as long as it is rationally related to
the ob(ecti#e and not forbidden by the Constitution. Marshall re(ected Maryland%s narrow interpretation of
USA
Organizacin Territorial McCulloch v. Maryland 2
the clause because many of the enumerated powers would be useless. Marshall noted that the
6ecessary and 3roper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress not the limitations.
$or those reasons the word *necessary* does not refer to the only way of doing something but rather
applies to #arious procedures for implementing all constitutionally established powers. Marshall wrote&
/ 7et 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. 1
This principle had been established many years earlier by )lexander 8amilton&9-:
/ 9): criterion of what is constitutional and of what is not so.... is the end to which the measure relates as
a mean. +f the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers and if the measure ha#e
an ob#ious relation to that end and is not forbidden by any particular pro#ision of the Constitution it may
safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion
which may materially assist the decision& ;oes the proposed measure abridge a pre!existing right of any
State or of any indi#idual< +f it does not there is a strong presumption in fa#our of its constitutionality.... 1
Chief 'ustice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without #iolating the
Constitution. The Supremacy Clause dictates that State laws comply with the Constitution and succumb
when there is a conflict. Taking as undeniable the fact that *the power to tax in#ol#es the power to
destroy* the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be le#ied against the go#ernment. +f states
were allowed to continue their acts they would destroy the institution created by federal go#ernment and
oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.
The Court held that Maryland #iolated the Constitution by taxing the bank and therefore #oided that tax.
The opinion stated that Congress has implied powers that need to be related to the text of the
Constitution but need not be enumerated within the text. This case was an essential element in the
formation of a balance between federalism federal power and states% powers.
Chief 'ustice Marshall also explained in this case that the 6ecessary and 3roper Clause does not re=uire
that all federal laws be necessary and proper. $ederal laws that are enacted directly pursuant to one of
the express enumerated powers need not comply with the 6ecessary and 3roper Clause. )s Marshall
put it this Clause *purport9s: to enlarge not to diminish the powers #ested in the go#ernment. +t purports
to be an additional power not a restriction on those already granted.*
7ater history
McCulloch #. Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the 8igh
Court of )ustralia in ;%>mden # 3edder which dealt with similar issues in the )ustralian federation4 the
(ustices while recogni"ing United States law as not binding on them ne#ertheless determined that the
McCulloch decision pro#ided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal
go#ernment and the )ustralian States owing to strong similarities between the )merican and )ustralian
federations and specifically cited Marshall%s opinion in deciding the case.
USA