"[The Congress shall have Power] . . . [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Case (with year)
McCulloch v Maryland, 1819
Chief Justice (just to familiarize ourselves a bit with the historical figures on the court)
John Marshall (1801-1835), nominated by John Adams
With the Federalists soundly defeated and about to lose both the executive and legislative branches to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, President Adams and the lame duck Congress passed what came to be known as the Midnight Judges Act, which made sweeping changes to the federal judiciary, including a reduction in the number of Justices from six to five so as to deny Jefferson an appointment until two vacancies occurred. (1)
Soon after becoming Chief Justice, Marshall revolutionized the manner in which the Supreme Court announced its decisions. Previously, each Justice would author a separate opinion (known as a seriatim opinion), as is still done in the 20th and 21st centuries in such jurisdictions as the United Kingdom and Australia. Under Marshall, however, the Supreme Court adopted the practice of handing down a single opinion of the Court. As Marshall was almost always the author of this opinion, he essentially became the Court's sole mouthpiece in important cases. His forceful personality allowed him to dominate his fellow Justices; only once did he find himself on the losing side (1827 Ogden v Saunders case).
Background
On April 10, 1816, the Congress of the United States passed an act entitled "An Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States" which provided for the incorporation of the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank first went into full operationin Philadelhpia. In 1817 the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland and transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes and performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform. Both sides of the litigation admitted that the President, directors and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch, or office of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the United States.
On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled, "an act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature".
James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect one half of the fine as provided for by the statute. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the Federal Government was authorized 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.
Synopsis
| ||
 | ||
| ||
| | ||
|
Consequences/Legacy
According to the necessary and proper clause, Congress generally may assume additional powers not specifically listed in the Constitution, sometimes called implied powers, if there is a link to a power that is listed in the Constitution. For example, Congress may allocate money to test a missile-defense system (something not specifically listed in the Constitution) because Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies".
While the above example may seem like an obvious extension of Congress's power, other powers that Congress has assumed over the years are not so obvious extensions of powers specifically listed in the Constitution.
I
Later History: McCulloch v. Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the High Court of Australia in D'Emden v Pedder, which dealt with similar issues in the Australian Federation; while recognizing United States law as not binding on them, nevertheless determined that the McCulloch decision provided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal government and the Australian States owing to strong similarities between the American and Australian federations, and specifically cited Marshall's opinion in deciding the case.
Dissenting Opinions (what the argument against the majority opinion was)
"We are unanimously of opinion that the law passed by the Legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional and void."
Further Discussion
IMPLIED POWER: Congress gives licenses to broadcasters to play music on the radio.
ANSWER: Clause 3 may justify this activity. It gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Broadcasting is a business. Thus, it is commerce. Airwaves cross over state lines, so it involves interstate commerce.
- Congress sets a federal minimum wage.
- Congress establishes the United States Air Force.
- Congress establishes national parks.
- Congress creates federal laws against pollution.
- Congress makes laws regarding discrimination in employment.
- Congress decides that televisions should have V-chips that enable parents to block certain shows.
- Congress passes the Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting anyone from possessing a firearm in a school zone.
1) Stites (1981), pp. 77-80.
2) Wikipedia: McCulloch v Maryland
3) http://www.landmarkcases.org/mcculloch/fedimpliedpowers.html
Posts
I did not add it to the 'further discussion' but DOMA is highly relevant here.
ReplyDeleteIf you could jog my memory as to why DOMA applies here it would be much appreciated. I thought the Constitution makes no reference to marriage. Have laws been written to make marriage an interstate commerce and thereby under regulation by the government?
ReplyDeleteDOMA, I argue, is unconstitutional as it ignores the enumerated powers of the Congress. Congress has no constitutional justification for passing such a law, but Congressmen do not have to justify any new law as constitutional before passing one.
ReplyDelete