McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819):

1. What are the advantages for the federal government of establishing a national bank? Read through Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution to determine which functions of Congress might be helped by such a bank.
A: It was a place for storing government funds, collecting taxes, and issuing sound currency.

2. Why would states feel threatened by a national bank?
A: Many states opposed opening branches of a national bank within their boundaries for several reasons. First, the Bank of the United States competed with their own banks. Second, the states found that many of the managers of the Bank of the United States were corrupt. Third, the states felt that the federal government was exerting too much power over them by attempting to curtail the state practice of issuing more paper money than they were able to redeem on demand.

3. In your opinion, does the United States government have the authority to establish a national bank? Provide justification for your answer. You may want to review Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution to see what powers it specifically gives Congress.
A: As Daniel Webster argued, the establishment of a national bank is a "necessary and proper" function of the U.S. government. In order for Congress to execute its specifically delegated powers, such as collecting taxes, issuing currency, and dealing with funds, the Constitution granted to it the power to do whatever is necessary, and hence, in order for these actions to be carried out properly, a national bank is vital.

4. If the United States does have authority to establish a bank, does Maryland have the authority to tax that bank? Why or why not?
A: Maryland does not have the authority to tax a bank established by the U.S. government. This would be a direct violation of the supremacy clause and doctrine, which state that the national government, under its constitutional powers, is superior to state and local law.

5. Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear this case? What larger principles were at stake?
A: The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case since it was a direct conflict between the power of the states and the power of the national government. The larger principle of who possesses more political authority was at stake here.


Gibbons v. Ogden (1824):

1. Under what authority, state or federal, did Ogden operate his steamboats? Gibbons?
A: Aaron Ogden held a Fulton-Livingston license to operate steamboats under this monopoly, issued by the New York state legislature. However, Thomas Gibbons held a federal coasting license, granted under a 1793 Act of Congress, and operated steamboats between New Jersey and New York that competed with Ogden's.

2. What argument did Ogden use to support his license to operate steamboats? Gibbons?
A: Ogden's lawyer contended that states often passed laws on issues regarding interstate matters and that states should have fully concurrent power with Congress on matters concerning interstate commerce. The monopoly, therefore, should be upheld. Gibbons' lawyer, Daniel Webster, argued that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and that to argue otherwise would result in confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies.

3. The background information states that Gibbons relied on the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to justify his case. If Ogden wanted to use the U.S. Constitution to back up his case, what section or amendment might he use?
A: If Ogden wanted to use the Constitution to back up his case, he might have used the Clause 6 in Article I, section 9, of the Constitution, which deals with Congress no being permitted to treat different ports within the U.S. differently in terms of taxing and commerce powers; he might have also used the Tenth Amendment, which deals with the reserved powers of the states.

4. The Commerce Clause was meant to clarify who had authority over interstate commerce; however, like most of the U.S. Constitution, the clause is stated in general terms that leaves open the possibility for interpretation. For instance, in this case there was a question about whether the transport of people constituted commerce. Try to think of another circumstance where the application of this clause would be unclear.
A: Another circumstance in which the application of the commerce clause would be unclear would be if Congress tried to regulate goods and services that states offered in order to attract more citizens.

5. This case appears to be a local dispute between two businessmen. However, the decision in this case is one of the most important in constitutional history. Please explain.
A: This case, decided 35 years after the ratification of the Constitution, was a key turning point for the expansion of federal power to address national problems. Though the clause clearly gave Congress some power over commerce, it was unclear just how much. It was also unclear what constituted commerce. The Gibbons case clarified some of these issues under a decision issued by Chief Justice John Marshall, who had nationalist intentions. Hence, this case helped to resolve some issues concerning the power of Congress, as well as of the states, to regulate interstate commerce.