{"id":969,"date":"2016-06-11T18:07:09","date_gmt":"2016-06-12T01:07:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/?p=969"},"modified":"2016-06-11T18:07:09","modified_gmt":"2016-06-12T01:07:09","slug":"mcculloch-v-maryland-1819-and-the-second-bank-of-the-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/?p=969","title":{"rendered":"McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and the Second Bank of the United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

Today, McCulloch v. Maryland<\/strong> (1819) is cited for its interpretation of Congress’ powers under the Constitution.\u00a0 But the case actually involved the Second Bank of the United States, a contentious period in our history.<\/p>\n

The first Bank of the United States was established in 1791 by Congress.\u00a0 It had a 20-year charter.\u00a0 Hamilton was a strong proponent.\u00a0 It was not rechartered at the end of its 20-year term.<\/p>\n

Then came the War of 1812.\u00a0 The war triggered additional financial obligations by the United States government.<\/p>\n

In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States.\u00a0 McCulloch v. Maryland<\/strong> was a challenge to the legality of the bank.\u00a0 Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor the bank.\u00a0 Today, the case is largely known for its discussion of Congress’s ability to enact “necessary and proper” legislation in furtherance of its powers.<\/p>\n

\"Fresno<\/a><\/p>\n

The specific legal issue in McCulloch v. Maryland<\/strong><\/a> involved a tax that the state of Maryland levied on the operations of all banks within the state, including the Second Bank of the United States.\u00a0 McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. McCulloch was sued by the state of Maryland, and found liable for the tax.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court held that the tax as levied on Second Bank of the United States<\/a> was unconstitutional, using the famous phrase, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy<\/span>.”\u00a0 At the same time, the court upheld the constitutionality of the bank.<\/p>\n

Then came Andrew Jackson, elected in 1828, and reelected in 1832.\u00a0 Jackson was\u00a0 strongly opposed to the bank.\u00a0 He vetoed congressional legislation in 1832 in 1834 and would have extended the charter of the bank.\u00a0 Thus, the national bank came to an end at the end of its 20-year term; the bank continued as a private corporation in Philadelphia,<\/sup> and was ultimately liquidated in 1841.<\/p>\n

There is some speculation that Roger Taney wrote Jackson’s veto of the 1832 legislation.\u00a0 Taney also served as Secretary of the Treasury and U.S. Attorney General.\u00a0 Interestingly, Taney became Chief Justice in 1836 after Marshall’s retirement.\u00a0 Taney is infamous for the Dred Scott decision.<\/p>\n

Not that I really understand national banking law, just that I can see how some of the pieces fit together.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is cited for its interpretation of Congress’ powers under the Constitution.\u00a0 But the case actually involved the Second Bank of the United States, a contentious period in our history. The first Bank of the United States was established in 1791 by Congress.\u00a0 It had a 20-year charter.\u00a0 Hamilton was a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-history"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/969"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}