McCulloch v. Maryland | Foundations of American democracy | US government and civics | Khan Academy

A deep dive into McCulloch v. Maryland, a Supreme Court case decided in 1819. It established the supremacy of federal law over state law. In this video, Kim Kutz Elliott discusses the case with scholars Randy Barnett and Neil Siegel.

To read more about constitutional law, visit the website of the National Constitution Center. On this site, leading scholars interact and explore the Constitution and its history. For each provision of the Constitution, experts from different political perspectives coauthor interpretive explanations when they agree and write separately when their opinions diverge.

Khan Academy is a nonprofit organization with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere. We offer quizzes, questions, instructional videos, and articles on a range of academic subjects, including math, biology, chemistry, physics, history, economics, finance, grammar, preschool learning, and more. We provide teachers with tools and data so they can help their students develop the skills, habits, and mindsets for success in school and beyond. Khan Academy has been translated into dozens of languages, and 15 million people around the globe learn on Khan Academy every month. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, we would love your help! Donate or volunteer today!

[yaozuli]

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819 case)
- helped to define the relationship between state government and federal government


Main question:
1. Could the State of Maryland tax the bank of United States?
2. Did the Congress have the power to create the Bank of United States in the first place? (30 year controversy)

Maryland sued McCulloch (cashier at the Baltimore branch of the bank)

Result:

1. No, State of Maryland cannot tax the bank of the US
2. Congress does have the power to charter the bank with the necessary and proper clause.

Structural constitutional interpretation
1. Federal government is supreme within its sphere of action
2. Government can use necessary and proper clause

[Rob_aka_CancelProof]

Colonial strip and Lincoln's greenbacks both work a lot more effectively than the Easley crippled and broken fractional Reserve model especially since the end of Bretton Woods

[diora]

this is soo confusing but thanks i understand it a little more :(

[Rob_aka_CancelProof]

This is the problem with precedence because if presidents has established either wrongly or through corruption or a lack of understanding we get stuck with it as if it's gospel and written in stone as it is so difficult to overturn later I'm not saying it's good or bad I'm just saying it's somewhat semi-permanent at least requiring much more effort to change then it did to establish

[abelwalden]

Here because a 20min assignment is taking me 2 days

[falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo]

madison vs marbury tells the fed not to pursue powers, and ends doesn't justify the means, that should also have been in teh conclusion.

[orionjones]

my teacher made me watch this its boring

[monicavalencia]

so congress was like the national government?

[owlnyc]

Indispensible vs neccessary and proper. Enumerated vs non-enumerated. Anything, any law can be considered "necessary and proper"...The Congress or the president decides what is necessary and proper. Just because the president or the Congress says it is necessary and proper doesn't make it so. " There have ALWAYS been disagreements! 🤔😉😏🇺🇸

[oliviaclark]

wait but we have a national bank so how did it come back