History of Case
The case took place in 1819. It all started when the United States Congress decided to establish a National Bank in 1791. It was made to serve as a central bank for the country. President James Madison believed that a National bank was necessary to fulfill the powers of the National government. With these as his views, Congress decided to take advantage and proposed the idea of a second national bank in 1816. Madison decided to establish the idea and branches of the national bank were spread across the states.
Some states did not want the National Bank in their state because it would compete with the state banks. The states also found out that most of the managers of the newly established banks were corrupt. Eventually, state banks began to fail during the depression and the states pointed fingers at the national bank for their failure. The states began to think that the government was exerting too much power on the state governments.
Maryland decided to set a high waged yearly tax on "any bank not chartered within the state" at $15,000. They worded it as such to make it seem like they weren't just targeting the national bank. It was obvious they were, though, because the national bank was the only bank that wasn't chartered within the state. James McCulloch disagreed with the payment of $15,000 a year. Maryland took them to court.
The case was eventually presented to the Marshall Court when Maryland decided to sue McCulloch for his actions. Maryland's belief was "as a sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders"(Par 2 Line 3). As this is true, McCulloch's attorneys had a different viewpoint. They argued that in order for Congress to truly establish its enumerated powers, the national bank was necessary and proper for the matter.
Sources:
<http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/mcculloch-v-maryland-1819/>
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_mcculloch.html>
<http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/364/Background_Summary__Questions_>
Some states did not want the National Bank in their state because it would compete with the state banks. The states also found out that most of the managers of the newly established banks were corrupt. Eventually, state banks began to fail during the depression and the states pointed fingers at the national bank for their failure. The states began to think that the government was exerting too much power on the state governments.
Maryland decided to set a high waged yearly tax on "any bank not chartered within the state" at $15,000. They worded it as such to make it seem like they weren't just targeting the national bank. It was obvious they were, though, because the national bank was the only bank that wasn't chartered within the state. James McCulloch disagreed with the payment of $15,000 a year. Maryland took them to court.
The case was eventually presented to the Marshall Court when Maryland decided to sue McCulloch for his actions. Maryland's belief was "as a sovereign state, it had the power to tax any business within its borders"(Par 2 Line 3). As this is true, McCulloch's attorneys had a different viewpoint. They argued that in order for Congress to truly establish its enumerated powers, the national bank was necessary and proper for the matter.
Sources:
<http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-cases-and-the-constitution/mcculloch-v-maryland-1819/>
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_mcculloch.html>
<http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/364/Background_Summary__Questions_>