McCulloch v. Maryland

Yesterday, Gibbons v. Ogden, today, a dramatization of McCulloch v. Maryland:

[T]he Constitution of the United States has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means for the execution of the powers conferred on the Government to general reasoning. To its enumeration of powers is added that of making 'laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department thereof.' [. . .]

[T]he 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 consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

< Lowered Expectations | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Shall we expect a "Marbury v. Madison" (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    episode to follow?  I was surprised, when I read this article in NYT, to learn C.J. Marshall was also Secretary of State when Marbury was decided.

    He wasn't (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    He was the Secretary of State who did not issue the commission to Marbury in 1801.

    Yup (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:42:06 PM EST
    He was the one who screwed up/ran out of time and didn't deliver the commission. Talk about a huge conflict of interests though!

    Me thinks I read too much into the linked (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:07:15 PM EST

    Marshall referenced Federalist 44 (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    without citation. Madison:

    It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted. Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.