Books+ Search Results
James Madison to Spencer Roane regarding the McCulloch v. Maryland case, 2 September 1819
Title
James Madison to Spencer Roane regarding the McCulloch v. Maryland case, 2 September 1819.
Production
[Place of production not identified : producer not identified, 1819]
Physical Description
1 online resource.
Local Notes
Access is available to the Yale community.
Notes
Collection: The Gilder Lehrman Collection, 1493-1859.
Signer of the U.S. Constitution. In a direct attack on the new national bank, Maryland actually imposed a tax on its bank notes. The bank sued in federal court and in 1819 the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the landmark case of McCullough v. Maryland, which established the constitutionality of the second bank of the United States and denied states the right to exert an independent check on federal authority. In his decision, Chief Justice John Marshall dealt with two fundamental questions. The first was whether the federal government had the power to incorporate a bank. The justices said that the answer to this question was yes, because the Constitution granted Congress implied powers to do whatever was necessary and proper to carry out its constitutional powers--in this case the power to manage a currency. The second question was whether a state had the power to tax the notes issued by the bank. The court said no, ruling that the Constitution had created a new government with sovereign power over the states. Here, the father of the Constitution criticizes the court's decision, fearing that Marshall's broad construction of necessary and proper means will open the way to unlimited kinds of legislative tyranny.
Electronic reproduction. Marlborough, Wiltshire : AM, 2014. Digitized from a copy held by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Access and use
Access restricted by licensing agreement.
Summary
Responds to Judge Roane's critical comments on the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v. Maryland. Contends that the case did not call for the general & abstract doctrine interwoven with the decision, preferring that the court evaluate the meaning of the law from particular decisions, not abstractions. Worries about growing legislative powers of the federal government, the doctrine of expediency implied by the ruling, and the institution of a broad rule of [constitutional] construction. Argues that much misinterpretation of the Constitution arises from the use made of the species of sovereignty implied in the nature of Govt. Views local sovereignties as a control on the powers of the central government. Speculates that the United States' division of powers among state and federal government allocates powers where they might be preferred by those who alone had a right to make the distribution.
Variant and related titles
American history, 1493-1945. Module I.
Format
Books / Online
Language
English
Added to Catalog
March 18, 2024
Series
American history module 1
Subjects
Genre/Form
Correspondence
Also listed under
AM (Publisher), digitiser.
Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, owner.
Bookmark As
Citation
