MCCULLOCH V MARYLAND 4 WHEAT 17 U.S 316 1819 MCCULLOCH V MARYLAND U.S CONSTITUTION U.S GOV'T JUDICIAL U.S GOV'T LEGISLATIVE BANKING/FINANCE U.S GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTION SIGNIFICANCE THIS RULING ESTABLISHED THAT CONGRESS HAD THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CHARTER A NATIONAL BANK IT ALSO UPHELD THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONAL SUPREMACY ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI STATES THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COME BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS OF THE STATES BACKGROUND IN 1816 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SET UP THE SECOND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES SO IT COULD RAISE MONEY FOR WAR DEBTS BY BORROWING MONEY FROM ONE CENTRAL INSTITUTION INSTEAD OF FROM SEVERAL STATE BANKS OPPOSED TO THE COMPETITION PROVIDED BY THE NEW BANK MANY STATES PASSED LAWS TO HINDER IT INCLUDING HEAVY TAXES THE NEW BANK REFUSED TO PAY THE TAXES WHICH LED THE STATE OF MARYLAND TO SUE JAMES MCCULLOCH THE CASHIER OF THE BALTIMORE MARYLAND BRANCH OF THE NATIONAL BANK DECISION THIS CASE WAS ARGUED FEBRUARY 22 MARCH 3 1819 AND DECIDED ON MARCH 6 1819 BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0 CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL SPOKE FOR THE UNANIMOUS COURT WHICH RULED THAT THE BANK WAS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT HELPED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CARRY OUT ITS OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS ANY ATTEMPT BY THE STATES TO PREVENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM ACCOMPLISHING ITS PURPOSES COULD NOT BE PERMITTED MARSHALL ALSO ESTABLISHED THE NEED FOR A BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION OF THE COURT LET THE END BE LEGITIMATE LET IT BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALL MEANS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE WHICH ARE PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THAT END WHICH ARE NOT PROHIBITED BUT CONSIST WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
