1. McCulloch v. Maryland
Constitutional Question: Did Congress have the power under the Constitution to establish a national bank under Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 18 of the constitution and did Maryland unconstitutionally tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders?
Background information: The U.S government created the first national bank in 1791, while in 1816; the second national bank of the United States was created. Many branches of the Bank of the United States opened throughout the country. States were worried about the increasing power of the national government because the national banks competed with state banks.
The State of Maryland tried to close a branch of the Bank by making that branch pay $15,000 in taxes. James McCulloch worked at the Baltimore branch bank and did not pay the tax. For that reason the State of Maryland took him to court. The State of Maryland argued that if the national government could regulate state banks, the state could make rules for the national bank. The State of Maryland also said that there was no permission in the Constitution for the national government to create a national. McCulloch was convicted of violating Maryland 's tax law then he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion: Unanimously the Court decided that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax branches of the national government employed in the action of constitutional powers. …show more content…
Concerning the power of Congress to charter a bank, the Court turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, which expressly grants Congress the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of its "enumerated powers." Maryland was unconstitutionally undermining the superior laws and institutions of the United States. Also Maryland 's tax violated constitutional sovereignty because it acted as a levy against all the people in the United States by a state accountable to only some of the people. 2. Gibbons v. Ogden Constitutional Question: who had the right to issue a license to operate boats on this interstate waterway, the state of New York or Congress? US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Act of February 1793, Section 1, Clause. Background information: The State of New York gave Aron Ogden a license to navigate between New York City and the New Jersey Shore. Ogden found himself competing with Thomas Gibbons, who has permission to use the waterways by the Federal Government. After the State of New York denied Gibbons access to the Hudson Bay, he sued Ogden. The problem was that the waterway between New Jersey and New York was an interstate waterway. Gibbons appealed the case to the Court of Errors of New York, which agreed with the lower court 's decision. Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion: The Constitution gave this power to Congress, ruling in Gibbons’s favor. The Court found that New York 's license for out-of-state operators was not consistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways. But all states were connected by waterways and have laws for the waterways, for that reason it would be hard to not navigate them. Therefore, the power to regulate transporting goods on waterways was necessary by Congress so that it would be easier to travel through waterways between states. 3. Barron v. Baltimore Constitutional question: Does the Fifth Amendment, as well as the other amendments of the Constitution, restrain the States? Background information: John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. He claimed that Baltimore ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by putting sand and dirt around the wharf from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock vessels. The city had taken away from him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment which provides that the government may not take private property without just repayment. The State court found that the city had unconstitutionally taken away Barron of private property and a verdict for $4,500 was given to Barron.
Constitutional Question: Did Congress have the power under the Constitution to establish a national bank under Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 18 of the constitution and did Maryland unconstitutionally tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders?
Background information: The U.S government created the first national bank in 1791, while in 1816; the second national bank of the United States was created. Many branches of the Bank of the United States opened throughout the country. States were worried about the increasing power of the national government because the national banks competed with state banks.
The State of Maryland tried to close a branch of the Bank by making that branch pay $15,000 in taxes. James McCulloch worked at the Baltimore branch bank and did not pay the tax. For that reason the State of Maryland took him to court. The State of Maryland argued that if the national government could regulate state banks, the state could make rules for the national bank. The State of Maryland also said that there was no permission in the Constitution for the national government to create a national. McCulloch was convicted of violating Maryland 's tax law then he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion: Unanimously the Court decided that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax branches of the national government employed in the action of constitutional powers. …show more content…
Concerning the power of Congress to charter a bank, the Court turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, which expressly grants Congress the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of its "enumerated powers." Maryland was unconstitutionally undermining the superior laws and institutions of the United States. Also Maryland 's tax violated constitutional sovereignty because it acted as a levy against all the people in the United States by a state accountable to only some of the people. 2. Gibbons v. Ogden Constitutional Question: who had the right to issue a license to operate boats on this interstate waterway, the state of New York or Congress? US Const. Art 1, Section 8, Clause 3; Act of February 1793, Section 1, Clause. Background information: The State of New York gave Aron Ogden a license to navigate between New York City and the New Jersey Shore. Ogden found himself competing with Thomas Gibbons, who has permission to use the waterways by the Federal Government. After the State of New York denied Gibbons access to the Hudson Bay, he sued Ogden. The problem was that the waterway between New Jersey and New York was an interstate waterway. Gibbons appealed the case to the Court of Errors of New York, which agreed with the lower court 's decision. Gibbons appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Opinion: The Constitution gave this power to Congress, ruling in Gibbons’s favor. The Court found that New York 's license for out-of-state operators was not consistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The Court acknowledged that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to regulate navigation on interstate waterways. But all states were connected by waterways and have laws for the waterways, for that reason it would be hard to not navigate them. Therefore, the power to regulate transporting goods on waterways was necessary by Congress so that it would be easier to travel through waterways between states. 3. Barron v. Baltimore Constitutional question: Does the Fifth Amendment, as well as the other amendments of the Constitution, restrain the States? Background information: John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. He claimed that Baltimore ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by putting sand and dirt around the wharf from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock vessels. The city had taken away from him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment which provides that the government may not take private property without just repayment. The State court found that the city had unconstitutionally taken away Barron of private property and a verdict for $4,500 was given to Barron.