McCullough+v.+Maryland

Mason Cavanaugh Brad Damman

1. McCullough Vs. Maryland

2. February 22, 1819, to March 6, 1819.

3. Chief Justice John Marshall. He was a previous Secretary of State to John Adams. He was nominated for __supreme court justice__ by Adams, and was appointed January 27, 1801. Marshall was very reputable and http://grovesapush.wikispaces.com/McCullough+v.+Marylanda good politician. Adams thought him to be a good man for the supreme court. Marshall ended up serving 34 years on the Supreme Court. This was the longest Supreme Court term served in United States. John Marshall was born on September 24, 1755. Before being a politician, he served in the Continental Army as a captain. He studied law part time at William and Mary College while he was in the military.

4. The Constitution of the United States was the main document referred to and questioned in this case. The States Spending and Taxing Clause, and the States Sovereignty and States Rights Clause were observed to determine a verdict and solution. This later answered a few questions: Does Congress have power to form a bank under the Constitution? Do the states have the Constitutional power to tax the banks? These were main questions that the trial involved, and the Constitution was the document that was under question. **Supremacy clause? 10th Amendment that left power to the states?**

5. In 1816 Congress established 2nd national bank to control unregulated currency produced by state banks. In 1818 the state of Maryland set a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. James W. McCullough, a Federal cashier at the Baltimore Branch of the U.S. Bank, refused to pay the tax. Maryland filed a suit against McCullough. This case was an issue of Federal power. The question was: does the Constitution give Congress the power to create a bank? And can the individual states tax or ban banks?

6. The argument of this case was: Does Congress have the right to create a bank, and can the states tax the bank. The question was raised when McCullough refused to pay the tax, and the State of Maryland filed a lawsuit against him.

7. Congress ruled in favor of James McCullough and Congress. __Congress__ voted yes **(not Congress, Supreme Court!)**, that congress has power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank pursuant to the necessary and proper clause but voted no; the state of Maryland can not tax an institution created by Congress that follows the Constitution. The vote ended up as 7-0, a conclusion that clearly showed **_______________________ what?**

8. The ruling was unanimous. The vote was 7-0. All the Justices felt strongly that Congress was able to create a bank and that states can not tax such a bank. **Explain rationale for this!**

9. Years On Court **Chief Justice**- John Marshall (1801-1835) **Associate Justices**- William Johnson (1804-1834), Henry Brockholst Livingston (1807-1823), Thomas Todd (1807-1826), Gabriel Duval (1811-1835), Joseph Story (1811-1845), Bushrod Washington (1798-1829)

10. Our personal opinion of the case is that it was ruled the right way. The Federal Government trumps State Government in my opinion and the state of Maryland didn’t have the right to tax a bank set up by the Federal Government. It makes sense that the state of Maryland would not be allowed to tax a federal institution. Also we think McCullough did the right thing of standing up and refusing to pay the tax. He believed the tax was not appropriate according to the Constitution, and he ended up stopping the tax. It is an important thing in life to stand up for what you believe in if it is the right thing. If people did not take chances America would be a very different place. This situation may seem small in comparison to great stands such as Martin Luther King speaking for equal rights, but the fundamentals are parallel. McCullough stopped the tax on his bank, and stopped the tax from being possible in the future. This case was ruled correctly and played a small but effective role in the future of our nation. **The difference between McCullough and King is that McCullough represented the federal gov't. while King represented an oppressed minority whose rights weren't being guaranteed by either the states or fed gov't.**

11. If this case had gone the other way, states could tax banks formed by Congress or banks could not even be formed by __congress__. If this had happened, more people like McCullough could protest, and the bank system could change. People could stop working at banks because of the tax, and our economy could have changed. The fact that this case went the way it did determined the future of Congressional banks and set the rule that states could not tax such a bank.

Sources __[|http][|://][|ourdocuments][|.][|gov][|/][|doc][|.][|php][|?][|flash][|=][|true][|&][|doc][|=21]__

__[|http][|://][|history][|1800][|s][|.][|about][|.][|com][|/][|od][|/][|americanoriginals][|/][|a][|/][|jmarshallbio][|.][|htm]__

__[|http][|://][|www][|.][|infoplease][|.][|com][|/][|ipa][|/][|A][|0101281.][|html]__

__[|http][|://][|www][|.][|answers][|.][|com][|/][|topic][|/][|mcculloch][|-][|v][|-][|maryland]__

__[|http][|://][|www][|.][|vlib][|.][|us][|/][|amdocs][|/][|texts][|/][|culloch][|.][|htm]__

Pictures John Marshall Political cartoon on the tax

**4.5/7 Biblio -- this needs to be formatted properly using [|www.easybib.com]** **24/28 -Content -- looks like it could use some more explanation but your opinions at the end help save this wiki.** **4.5/5 Organization -- put the pics into the wiki itself instead of at the bottom.**

**33/40 Total**