The Second Bank of the United States
The Second Bank of the United States (BUS) had been created in 1816, receiving a 20-year charter. In 1832, Nicholas Biddle, the director of the BUS, applied to get the charter renewed four years early. President Andrew Jackson had always felt that the BUS had too much power, and he and Biddle had frequent arguments during Jackson’s first term. Jackson had to make a decision on whether to veto the renewal, losing the support of people who favored the BUS, or to approve the renewal, which would mean another 20 years for a bank he did not like. Congress approved the renewal and Jackson did veto it. The next year, Jackson ordered that federal money could no longer be deposited in the BUS, which ended up killing the bank.
The Supreme Court took up the issue of whether the Bank of the United States was constitutional at all. That’s what you will be reading about for this lesson.
Directions: Read the document below and then answer the questions that follow on your own paper using complete sentences.
1. What was the first question the Supreme Court took under consideration in this case?
2. The document discusses both “enumerated powers” (powers specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution) and “implied powers” (powers not specifically granted). According to the document, do the “enumerated powers” in the Constitution allow the federal government to incorporate a bank? Do “implied powers” allow it to do so? Explain why or why not.
3. What does the document say about the powers of the government?
4. Did the Court decision find the Bank of the United States to be constitutional? Write down one sentence from the document that supports your answer.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign State, denies the
obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union, and the plaintiff,
on his part, contests the validity of an act which has been passed by the legislature
of that State. The constitution of our country, in its most interesting and vital
parts, is to be considered; the conflicting powers of the government of the Union
and of its members, as marked in that constitution, are to be discussed; and
an opinion given, which may essentially influence the great operations of the
government. No tribunal can approach such a question without a deep sense of
its importance, and of the awful responsibility involved in its decision. But
it must be decided peacefully, or remain a source of hostile legislation, perhaps
of hostility of a still more serious nature; and if it is to be so decided, by
this tribunal alone can the decision be made. On the Supreme Court of the United
States has the constitution of our country devolved this important duty.
The first question made in the cause is, has Congress power to incorporate a bank?
Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people"; thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument.
Although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word "bank," or "incorporation," we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation, are entrusted to its government. It can never be pretended that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance, merely because they are inferior. Such an idea can never be advanced. But it may with great reason be contended, that a government, entrusted with such ample powers, on the due execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the nation so vitally depends, must also be entrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the nation to facilitate its execution. It can never be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution by withholding the most appropriate means. . . require it) which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise by withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such be the mandate of the constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it prohibit the creation of a corporation, if the existence of such a being be essential to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair inquiry, how far such means may be employed.
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. 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. . . .
The Court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the constitution has declared.
We are unanimously of opinion, that the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void.
This opinion does not deprive the States of any resources which they originally possessed. It does not extend to a tax paid by the real property of the bank, in common with the other real property within the State, nor to a tax imposed on the interest which the citizens of Maryland may hold in this institution, in common with other property of the same description throughout the State. But this is a tax on the operations of the bank, and is, consequently, a tax on the operation of an instrument employed by the government of the Union to carry its powers into execution. Such a tax must be unconstitutional.