The two Supreme Court cases, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden, were essential events in history that provided the power of the government needed to expand its control over domestic policy in the United States. But what is domestic policy to begin with? Often contrasted with foreign policy, domestic policy refers to the laws in place that deal with the internal workings of this country and this country only. An example of domestic policy for the United States would be social security. Before these cases the presidents didn’t have the kind of power they do now. Most of the power resided in Congress and to most Americans that set up was what the framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted. Article I had a strong Congress that made laws that
…show more content…
He refused to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland because he believed that the federal bank shouldn’t be allowed state taxation. The state of Maryland was the plaintiff and because they were using their land for their resources, the state believed that the federal bank should pay state taxes. At the end, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which states that “Congress has the power to 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 Untied States, or any Department of Officer thereof (Cornell University Law School, "Necessary and Proper Clause"), the Supreme Court ruled that “the creation Bank was constitutional and that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional because the creation of the Bank was legitimate through Congress’ power to tax, borrow and regulate interstate commerce (PBS, "Landmark Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland"). Secondly, it was also ruled that Maryland didn’t have the power to tax the Bank because of the Supremacy Clause that says the laws of the country overrides the laws of the state. In short, Maryland was undermining United State laws. And finally since the United States is a nation with sovereignty, with the power in the hands on the people for the people and not that states, Maryland’s tax violated that sovereignty …show more content…
Ogden, lead by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled “that the federal commerce clause, in effect outranked a state law that had granted a monopoly to one group of people (White)”. What happened was that New York had passed a law on steamship travel to a group of investors, among these investors was Aaron Ogden. Thomas Gibbons, a steamship trader, wanted the waterway throughout the state for his business too. He had been given federal permission to do so but was denied permission from the state of New York itself, leading Gibbons to sue Ogden. Marshall had said that the Constitution had a “commerce clause that allowed the federal government to regulate commerce, in this case trade, wherever, including the borders of the state (White)”. It was thought previously that the federal government only had power over interstate commerce, like state in the case above, but Marshall’s opinion said that the commerce clause applied to this case too. This led to the extension of the definition of interstate commerce and settled the federal government’s power over the
He refused to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland because he believed that the federal bank shouldn’t be allowed state taxation. The state of Maryland was the plaintiff and because they were using their land for their resources, the state believed that the federal bank should pay state taxes. At the end, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which states that “Congress has the power to 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 Untied States, or any Department of Officer thereof (Cornell University Law School, "Necessary and Proper Clause"), the Supreme Court ruled that “the creation Bank was constitutional and that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional because the creation of the Bank was legitimate through Congress’ power to tax, borrow and regulate interstate commerce (PBS, "Landmark Cases: McCulloch v. Maryland"). Secondly, it was also ruled that Maryland didn’t have the power to tax the Bank because of the Supremacy Clause that says the laws of the country overrides the laws of the state. In short, Maryland was undermining United State laws. And finally since the United States is a nation with sovereignty, with the power in the hands on the people for the people and not that states, Maryland’s tax violated that sovereignty …show more content…
Ogden, lead by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled “that the federal commerce clause, in effect outranked a state law that had granted a monopoly to one group of people (White)”. What happened was that New York had passed a law on steamship travel to a group of investors, among these investors was Aaron Ogden. Thomas Gibbons, a steamship trader, wanted the waterway throughout the state for his business too. He had been given federal permission to do so but was denied permission from the state of New York itself, leading Gibbons to sue Ogden. Marshall had said that the Constitution had a “commerce clause that allowed the federal government to regulate commerce, in this case trade, wherever, including the borders of the state (White)”. It was thought previously that the federal government only had power over interstate commerce, like state in the case above, but Marshall’s opinion said that the commerce clause applied to this case too. This led to the extension of the definition of interstate commerce and settled the federal government’s power over the