Does Congress Have Implied Powers? | McCulloch v. Maryland

In the second episode of Supreme Court Briefs, Mr. Beat makes one of the most boring Supreme Court cases in American history somewhat more interesting. It was, after all, QUITE A FREAKING BIG DEAL.

Washington, D.C. 1816

The United States Congress gets together to create the Second Bank of the United States. I like to call it the Bank of the U.S. 2.0. The bank’s main purpose was to handle all monetary transactions for the federal government. Most who supported its creation thought that the economy wasn’t so stable without a central bank. And yet, the bank still had its critics.

The next year, it opened in Philadelphia, and everything was all groovy, until that same year the feds tried to open another branch in Baltimore, Maryland. But Maryland legislators were like, “oh, so you want to open a branch here? Ok fine, then you’ll have to pay a tax.” Well, it wasn’t quite like that. The state’s General Assembly just passed a law that said that all banks in Maryland not chartered by the state legislature had to pay a tax.

The head of the bank’s Baltimore branch, James McCulloch, said “ain’t no way we payin’ that tax.” He felt that the law had been passed to target the Bank of the United States to hurt its operation. After he refused to pay the tax, the state of Maryland sued him.

In a state court, Maryland argued that the Constitution says nothing about the federal government having the right to create a central bank. Therefore, any Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.

Maryland won the case, but eventually the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments on February 22, 1819. They ruled the federal government DID have the authority to create such a bank. Boom, take that Maryland. Their decision was unanimous. Chief Justice John Marshall, aka Lil’ John, argued there was precedence for a national bank. After, the First Bank of the United States came before the Second.

However, more importantly, Marshall argued that just because the Constitution does not explicitly say the federal government can create a bank, doesn’t mean it can’t. He brought up the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to help the nation. Marshall said the federal government had several powers that weren’t specifically listed out in the Constitution but still were implied.

Second, the Court said Maryland couldn’t tax the Bank because the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the Constitution said federal laws overruled state laws.

Finally, the Court argued Maryland’s tax violated constitutional sovereignty by throwing a penalty to all Americans in favor people of the people of just one state.

Man, Supreme Court. Mic drop. I guess McCulloch could take on an entire state after all.

McCulloch v. Maryland justified the idea of “implied powers.” After this case, the Necessary and Proper Clause meant the federal government had powers beyond what was explicitly stated in the Constitution. It also justified the Supremacy Clause, giving the federal government even more power over the states. In fact, I would argue that no other Supreme Court case has done more to strengthen the federal government compared to the state governments than this one.

[iammrbeat]

My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!

[PursuitofHistory]

Just now discovering your channel and am so impressed! Your videos are relatable, engaging and easy for students to understand. Definitely worth sharing with educators!

[chichieh]

Hi! I'm law student from Taiwan. Thank you for making this video which makes me get to know about this case much much easier!!!!

[williamcfox]

Just shared this video because I'm loving this series already! Just a quick tip, your mic is popping at times, and this could be solved most easily with a pop filter. I only can give this advice becuase I'm continually guilty of having pops on my 'p' and 's' sounds during my videos.
Keep it up, Matt!

[johndanielson]

This has to be the most important Supreme Court decision in American history when defining the scope of Congress's powers and delineating the relationship between the federal government and the states. The case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers to implement the Constitution's express powers to create a functional national government. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch, the scope of the U.S. government's authority was unclear. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government.

[RamshaAkber]

For real the best way of explaining something is to do it in an informal and friendly way, I finally understood this case after reading it quite many times and not actually getting it you explained it so well 😭😭

[StateoftheWorld]

Goodness, I started AP Gov last week and we were forced to read a very difficult analysis of this case. Yet I came here and boom I understand it in a few minutes

This will be an easier semester than I thought :)

[fcg]

Wow! I’m really impressed no other video could give a better example, but this one gave many Information and is easily understandable

[ranahamza]

Man John Marshall was truly a legend ✌

[whyamihere]

Yes! Thanks for Adding Maryland in here!

[ashtoncollins]

Chief Justice: Lil’ John Marshall
President during this time: James Monroe
Argued February 21 – March 3, 1819
Decided March 6, 1819
Case Duration: 13 days
Decision: 6-0 unanimous in favor of McCulloch (Todd didn’t vote)

[john_-]

What is it with Maryland and crazy taxes? We've had this bank tax that taxed all Americans, we've had the rain tax, and I think the death tax still exists (if it's still around it would really hurt someone I know there). I wonder what else MD legislators have done in the past.

BTW, I found you in my feed yesterday and I've watched some of your videos. I'm starting to like this channel a lot :)

[davidrudolph]

Hey Mr. Beats!!! Loved this video just as i always love your vids! I was thinking that a lot of people watching your vids must have many different opinions of this case. Anyways I would like to suggest Obergefell v. Hodges! please feel free to reply.

[jettforpresident]

Great video Mr. Beats! Can you do Miranda v. Arizona?

[defenselessswft]

THANK YOU FOR THIS! I had to do a PowerPoint on this case and this video really helped!

[AllenHunter]

U helped me so much on my Sa thx u so much mr. Beat

[deadchannel]

we watched this in government class recently! :D

[jbandfriends-ghbl]

I love this series I'm learning stuff I didn't know hey why don't you do either storytime with Mr beat of bio s of the president's or the history of VT or State gubertorial elections

[freeman]

Ineresting - John Marshall's rationale is the exact opposite of the argument made by Alexander Hamilton in his argument against (one of the federalist papers) the inclusion of a bill of rights. Clearly - Alexander Hamilton was wrong - as we continues to be proved wrong to this day on this specific issue.

[Nuclear_Flounda]

Mr beat you should do McGirt V Oklahoma, indian treaty And jurisdiction case recently Decided this year (2020)