Mccullouch V. Maryland Case Study

The Federalist stronghold of the Marshall Court issued rulings that explicitly reshaped the balance of power between state and federal governments. The authority of the United States was questioned in the case of McCullouch v. Maryland (1819) in its ability to open the Second National Bank. Prior to the lawsuit, the extent of the federal government’s power was unclear. The state of Maryland believed it had the right to tax the federal government for opening the bank. Marshall’s ruling extended the power of Congress through the necessary and proper clause. The clause allowed Congress to approve laws that were necessary and proper to carry out the government’s duties under the Constitution. Subsequently, Marshall decided that Maryland had no mandate to tax the government and that it was constitutional to open the bank. His ruling declared, “the Government of the

The regulation of interstate commerce was the subject of the case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). New York state laws allowed Aaron Ogden to charge crossing fees through his waterways via legal New York monopolies. Thomas Gibbons, a steamboat trader asserted that the state was prohibited from superseding Congress in regards to interstate commerce. The Court invalidated the New York law simultaneously, confirming Congress’ power to manage interstate commerce via the Commerce Clause. Justice Johnson believed reversing state laws that impeded interstate commerce was solely the role and power of the federal government. Johnson wrote,” When speaking of the power of Congress over navigation, I do not regard it as a power incidental to that of regulating commerce; I consider it as the thing itself,” Irrefutably, Gibbons v. Ogden demonstrated the supreme power of the federal government over state governments and the federal governments ability to continuously weaken the role of the