TEXT: McCulloch v. Maryland, Part II

Respondent's arguments (Maryland): (3)

(1) 10th Amendment ensures that all powers not expressly enumerated to USFG are reserved to the states. (2) Constitution was a compact between the STATES and USFG, not the people as an aggregate: supports the affirmative construal of 10th Amendment. (3) States have taxation power independent of constitution.

Marshall's rationale: why government of the US is supreme in its limited powers and its laws: (2)

(1) Supremacy clause was adopted by the people of the US: laws of the US are supreme provided that they are made in pursuance of the Constitution. (2) Constitution stipulates that the members of the state legislatures and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states take oath of fidelity to Constitution.

Petitioner's Argument (McCulloch): (2)

(1) Under Supremacy Clause, the laws of the US are supreme and control all state constitutions and legislation. (2) Allowing states to tax the bank implicitly allows them to control the federal government.

Maryland's action at center of federalism dispute:

Legislature had passed a law stating that banks operating in the state that were not chartered by the state - in other words, the national bank - could issue banknotes only on paper that the state taxed: state attempting to use authority to block federal program.

Marshall's rationale: democratically derived legitimacy of the supremacy clause:

Supremacy Clause was adopted by the people.

Ultimately, permitting state taxation of a federal operation would:

Transfer supremacy to the states: prostrate government at the foot of the states; would defeat all ends of the government; people did not intend that their national gov't be dependent on the states.

Marshall's rationale: why the power of a state to tax an operation of the federal government is problematic:

When a state taxes the operations of the government of the US, it acts upon the institutions created NOT BY THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS but by the people over whom they claim no control (i.e., the citizens of every other state).

Marshall's rationale: why the Constitution is contract between USFG and people, not between USFG and states:

When people act, they act in their states, but the measures they adopt do not cease to be the measures of the people themselves; do not become the measures of the state governments.