James McCulloch
v.
State of Maryland
17 U.S. 316
Supreme Court of the United States
Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals
Decided March 6, 1819
Facts and Procedural History: In 1816, Congress established the Second Bank of the United States, which became active in Maryland. In 1818, the Maryland legislature passed an Act to tax any bank not chartered by the Legislature of Maryland, thus taxing the U.S. Bank. The law provided for private remedies against the bank operators. One of these bank operators was James McCulloch, and the law provided the framework to seek remedy from him.
The Baltimore District trial court heard James McCulloch’s testimony in a case ensued by John James, a debt collector standing to withhold about 50% of the …show more content…
He argued that the power to establish a national bank could not be classified as an implied power because it is not expressly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, Martin argued that Congress did not in fact have the power to establish a national bank. He suggested that this would be a power that would be reserved to the states. On the issue of Maryland taxing the bank, Martin argued that the state had the right to tax the bank because it was within the state’s border. He explained that states had the right to tax businesses and institutions within their borders.
Justices Tahir and Parsotan delivered the opinion of the Court: We granted certiorari in this case to determine:
1. Whether or not the Congress has the power to institute a bank
2. If Maryland, being a state, has the power to tax federal institutions, like the U.S. Bank, without violating the Constitution
After careful review and consideration, we find:
1. Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United Sates Constitution, or the elastic clause, Congress does in fact possess the power and ability to establish a bank within the United States.
2. We further find that Maryland’s power of taxation violates the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article, within both Clause 18, and 1, in that Congress is specifically given the power to tax. Even more so, we found that Maryland’s power to tax is an interference of Congressional duty, and thus
v.
State of Maryland
17 U.S. 316
Supreme Court of the United States
Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals
Decided March 6, 1819
Facts and Procedural History: In 1816, Congress established the Second Bank of the United States, which became active in Maryland. In 1818, the Maryland legislature passed an Act to tax any bank not chartered by the Legislature of Maryland, thus taxing the U.S. Bank. The law provided for private remedies against the bank operators. One of these bank operators was James McCulloch, and the law provided the framework to seek remedy from him.
The Baltimore District trial court heard James McCulloch’s testimony in a case ensued by John James, a debt collector standing to withhold about 50% of the …show more content…
He argued that the power to establish a national bank could not be classified as an implied power because it is not expressly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, Martin argued that Congress did not in fact have the power to establish a national bank. He suggested that this would be a power that would be reserved to the states. On the issue of Maryland taxing the bank, Martin argued that the state had the right to tax the bank because it was within the state’s border. He explained that states had the right to tax businesses and institutions within their borders.
Justices Tahir and Parsotan delivered the opinion of the Court: We granted certiorari in this case to determine:
1. Whether or not the Congress has the power to institute a bank
2. If Maryland, being a state, has the power to tax federal institutions, like the U.S. Bank, without violating the Constitution
After careful review and consideration, we find:
1. Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United Sates Constitution, or the elastic clause, Congress does in fact possess the power and ability to establish a bank within the United States.
2. We further find that Maryland’s power of taxation violates the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article, within both Clause 18, and 1, in that Congress is specifically given the power to tax. Even more so, we found that Maryland’s power to tax is an interference of Congressional duty, and thus