• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Extracts from this document...


Joanna Rodriguez September 29, 2003 Period 3 McCulloch v. Maryland and the Necessary and Proper Clause The United States was a newly independent country in 1791 still recovering from the effects of the dominion of Great Britain during its years as a colony. The government leaders were still unsure if a strong federal government was the best option for the country. Many of them such as Thomas Jefferson, who the Secretary of State at the time felt that a limited government was the best option because it did not centralize all the powers into the national government. Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a charter to Congress that would create a national bank. Jefferson with his ideas of a limited government was against this charter because it would give the federal government too much power. He debated Hamilton by saying that no where in the Constitution did it state that the national government had the power to create a national bank and that the government had only the explicit powers the Constitution gave it. ...read more.


In defense of McCulloch his attorney argued that Congress' establishment of a national bank was a "necessary and proper power of Congress". He insisted that the creation of a national bank helped exercise other powers stated in the Constitution and therefore it was an implied power of Congress to create one. McCulloch was convicted of violating Maryland's tax law and in a series of appeals his case reached the Supreme Court where led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the states had no right to tax the national banks and that even though creating a national bank was not one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution the government "entrusted with such ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution". The Framers of the Constitution were thinking of future incidents such as McCulloch v. Maryland when they included the necessary and proper clause in Article one, Section eight of the Constitution. ...read more.


If the ruling had gone in the favor of Maryland, it would have taken away more power from the central government. The ruling could have been a step back for the country bringing it back to the same position it was in when the Articles of Confederation were in effect and there was a weak central government and strong states. One of the purposes of creating a new Constitution was to create a stronger central government because the Framers felt that it was necessary. A ruling for Maryland in this case would have contradicted that purpose. When Chief Justice John Marshall said that government "entrusted with such ample powers . . . must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution" he gave Congress the power to whatever it deems necessary to execute the Constitution. Without this ruling Congress would be limited in power and would have to abide by the laws created in 1788 that could be outdated today. With his ruling Marshall and the Supreme Court established the basis for a strong central government in the United States that is still in effect today. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. Politic- president v PM

    in effect a guarantee of legislative success, especially true with the current Blair government which holds a massive majority in parliament, so much so that even legislation which faces much opposition from within can pass with ease. The governing party's majority, the existence of whipped voting and the application of

  2. How is Britain's constitution changing in the 21st century?

    Conclusion As an issue for voters, Bogdanor's research ascertained that constitutional reform came sixteenth out of sixteen during the 1997 General Election campaign (Bogdanor, 2001, 144). The electorate's interest concerning the constitution is distinctly inconsequential. However, central policies such as Europe are those that abstrusely affect the constitution.

  1. The Articles of Confederation.

    Paterson also defended the concept of states' rights at the Convention, believing that it was the will of the people to protect the powers of the states from federal encroachments. He noted that "the idea of a national government as contradistinguishing from a federal one, never entered into the mind

  2. The Australian Constitution is the ultimate law ruling in Australia

    Even with these powers, the state may find federal actions overriding them. Generally, the states are involved in some important social areas that are not likely to be seriously affected by federal activities. The include the basic civil law of the country relating to contracts, property and civil wrongs, such

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work