Killenbeck recounts how the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States refused to pay Maryland's tax on the bank and how that act precipitated a showdown in the Supreme Court, which addressed two questions: Yes, I know this doctrine flies in the face of much jurisprudence, but that conflicting jurisprudence is wrong.
Woodward Decided that the government could not terminate a contract between two parties unilaterally. The unanimous opinion was written by Chief Justice Marshall.
Not a bank performing banking functions. The plaintiffs in the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and black woman whose marriage was deemed illegal according to Virginia state law. Bank because it was the only bank operating in Maryland.
Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign.
Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable, the U.
It is further admitted that the said President, directors and company of the said bank had no authority to establish the said branch, or office of discount and deposit, at the City of Baltimore, from the State of Maryland, otherwise than the said State having adopted the Constitution of the United States and composing one of the States of the Union.
The state set a fee for the paper and issued penalties for disobedience.
The correct decision would have been that Maryland could impose the same tax on the Maryland branch of the National Bank as it imposed on other banks in Maryland, no more or less, but not on Union funds such banks might hold on deposit, or on their operations to administer those deposits.
The Government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the Constitution, form the supreme law of the land.
Equal protection of the laws. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government and oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.
Yes, I know this is also against established jurisprudence, but once again, established jurisprudence is wrong on a great many matters. Marshall noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.
And CJ Marshall was clearly wrong about the federal government being supreme within its "sphere of action". There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.
And it is further admitted that the Treasurer of the Western Shore of Maryland, under the direction of the Governor and Council of the said State, was ready, and offered to deliver to the said President, directors and company of the said bank, and to the said branch, or office of discount and deposit, stamped paper of the kind and denomination required and described in the said act of assembly.
The State within which such branch may be established cannot, without violating the Constitution, tax that branch. 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.
The Court held that Maryland violated the Constitution by taxing the bank, and therefore voided that tax.
The State governments have no right to tax any of the constitutional means employed by the Government of the Union to execute its constitutional powers. See McCulloch v. Maryland (“should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the [national] Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”).
mcculloch v. marylanD () Case Background case of McCulloch v. Maryland. While the Supreme Court has addressed the meaning of the word, “necessary” in a number of cases over time, it has focused far less attention to the meaning of “proper.” McCulloch v.
Maryland. On the third and fourth day, conduct a mini-moot court hearing on the U.S. v. Lopez case, using the materials in the Modern Debate over the Commerce Clause: The Case of U.S. v.
v. Lopez () activity. McCulloch v. Maryland17 U.S.4 Wheat.4 L. Ed. () The state of Maryland enacted a tax that would force the United States Bank in Maryland to pay taxes to the state.
McCulloch, a cashier for the Baltimore, Maryland Bank, was sued for not complying with the Maryland state tax. Access the world’s largest case brief library.
Now to the issue of the case. Could the State of Maryland tax the bank incorporated in the District of Columbia?
Yes, but only on the same basis as it could tax any bank incorporated in Maryland or in another state. In a letter to Spencer Roane, Sep. 2,an opponent of the opinion in McCulloch, James Madison condemned the opinion, saying.
Obergefell v. Hodges Facts. Obergefell, the named appellant, traveled to Maryland to marry his ailing partner who was suffering from ALS. His partner died in Ohio, the couple’s home state, shortly after they were married; but, because the laws of Ohio did not allow for same-sex marriage, Obergefell could not be listed as his partner’s surviving spouse on Obergefell’s death certificate.Case brief mcculloch v maryland