| Main Menu | Social Science Dept. | TPHS Home | ||
| McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) | ||
|
U.S. Supreme Court Points to Consider:
Mr. 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…. If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind,
we might expect it would be this-that the government of the Union, though
limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would
seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of
all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for
all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no
state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those
subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts.
But this question is not left to mere reason: the people have, in express
terms, decided it, by saying, [17 U.S. 316, 406] 'this constitution, and
the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof,'
'shall be the supreme law of the land,' and by requiring that the members
of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial
departments of the states, shall take the oath of fidelity to it…. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions
of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they
may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal
code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would, probably,
never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that
only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated,
and the minor ingredients which compose those objects, be deduced from
the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by
the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from
the nature of the instrument, but from the language…. 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,
[17 U.S. 316, 408] 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.
Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico,
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended,
armies are to be marched and supported. The exigencies of the nation may
require, that the treasure raised in the north should be transported to
the south, that raised in the east, conveyed to the west, or that this
order should be reversed. Is that construction of the constitution to
be preferred, which would render these operations difficult, hazardous
and expensive? Can we adopt that construction (unless the words imperiously
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, [17 U.S. 316, 409]
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…. It being the opinion of the court, that the act incorporating the bank
is constitutional; and that the power of establishing a branch in the
state of Maryland might be properly exercised by the bank itself, we proceed
to inquire-- Whether the state of Maryland may, without violating the constitution,
tax that branch? That the power of taxation is one of vital importance; that it is retained
by the states; that it is not abridged by the grant of a similar power
to the government of the Union; that it is to be concurrently exercised
by the two governments-are truths which have never been denied. But such
is the paramount character of the constitution, that its capacity to withdraw
any subject from the action of even this power, is admitted. The states
are expressly forbidden to lay any duties on imports or exports, except
what may be absolutely necessary for executing their inspection laws.
If the obligation of this prohibition must be conceded-if it may restrain
a state from the exercise of its taxing power on imports and exports-the
same paramount character would seem to restrain, as it certainly may restrain,
a state from such other exercise of this power, as is in its nature incompatible
with, and repugnant to, the constitutional laws of the Union. A law, absolutely
repugnant to another, as entirely [17 U.S. 316, 426] repeals that other
as if express terms of repeal were used. On this ground, the counsel for the bank place its claim to be exempted
from the power of a state to tax its operations. There is no express provision
for the case, but the claim has been sustained on a principle which so
entirely pervades the constitution, is so intermixed with the materials
which compose it, so interwoven with its web, so blended with its texture,
as to be incapable of being separated from it, without rending it into
shreds. This great principle is, that the constitution and the laws made in pursuance
thereof are supreme; that they control the constitution and laws of the
respective states, and cannot be controlled by them. From this, which
may be almost termed an axiom, other propositions are deduced as corollaries,
on the truth or error of which, and on their application to this case,
the cause has been supposed to depend. These are, 1st. That a power to
create implies a power to preserve: 2d. That a power to destroy, if wielded
by a different hand, is hostile to, and incompatible with these powers
to create and to preserve: 3d. That where this repugnancy exists, that
authority which is supreme must control, not yield to that over which
it is supreme…. If we apply the principle for which the state of Maryland contends, to
the constitution, generally, we shall find it capable of changing totally
the character of that instrument. We shall find it capable of arresting
all the measures of the government, and of prostrating it at the foot
of the states. The American people have declared their constitution and
the laws made in pursuance thereof, to be supreme; but this principle
would transfer the supremacy, in fact, to the states…. 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….
|
||