Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- U.S. Supreme Court case (4)
- Constitutional law (3)
- Federal power (3)
- Legal history (3)
- Necessary and Proper Clause (3)
-
- Taney Court (3)
- Constitutionality (2)
- Enumerated power (2)
- Implied federal powers (2)
- Implied powers (2)
- States rights (2)
- Tucker's rule (2)
- Bank Recharter Bill (1)
- Bank Veto Message (1)
- Chief Justice John Marshall (1)
- Compact theory (1)
- Constitutional history (1)
- Constitutional pedagogy (1)
- Deference to Congress (1)
- Enforcement provisions (1)
- Fifteenth Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Judicial power (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Jurisprudence of states' rights (1)
- Legal text (1)
- Legislative authority (1)
- National powers (1)
- Nationalist project (1)
- Partisan supremacy (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Burying Mcculloch?, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
Kurt Lash is a superb constitutional historian trapped inside the body of an originalist. He is one of the few originalists bold enough to acknowledge that McCulloch v. Maryland needs to be ejected from the (conservative) originalist canon of great constitutional cases. While he attributes to me an intention “not to praise the mythological McCulloch, but to bury it,” it is Lash who seeks to bury McCulloch, which he views as a fraudulent “story of our constitutional origins.”
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Mcculloch V. Madison: John Marshall's Effort To Bury Madisonian Federalism, Kurt Lash
Arkansas Law Review
In his engaging and provocative new book, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, David S. Schwartz challenges McCulloch’s canonical status as a foundation stone in the building of American constitutional law. According to Schwartz, the fortunes of McCulloch ebbed and flowed depending on the politics of the day and the ideological commitments of Supreme Court justices. Judicial reliance on the case might disappear for a generation only to suddenly reappear in the next. If McCulloch v. Maryland enjoys pride of place in contemporary courses on constitutional law, Schwartz argues, then this …
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
What Is "Appropriate" Legislation?: Mcculloch V. Maryland And The Redundancy Of The Reconstruction Amendments, Franita Tolson
Arkansas Law Review
I am thankful for the opportunity to review Professor David Schwartz’s really thoughtful and incisive critique of McCulloch v. Maryland. The book is a creative and masterful reinterpretation of a decision that I thought I knew well, but I learned a lot of new and interesting facts about McCulloch and the (sometimes frosty) reception that the decision has received over the course of the last two centuries. Professor Schwartz persuasively argues that modern views of McCulloch as a straightforward nationalist decision that has always had a storied place in the American constitutional tradition are flat-out wrong. The Spirit of the …
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Does Importance Equal Greatness? Reflections On John Marshall And Mcculloch V. Maryland, Sanford Levinson
Arkansas Law Review
David S. Schwartz’s The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland, is a truly excellent book, for which I was happy to contribute the following blurb appearing on the back jacket: "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of thesingle most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism.”
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Defying Mcculloch? Jackson’S Bank Veto Reconsidered, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
On July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued the most famous and controversial veto in United States history. The bill in question was “to modify and continue” the 1816 “act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States. This was to recharter of the Second Bank of the United States whose constitutionality was famously upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland. The bill was passed by Congress and presented to Jackson on July 4. Six days later, Jackson vetoed the bill. Jackson’s veto mortally wounded the Second Bank, which would forever close its doors four years later at the …
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Overruling Mcculloch?, Mark A. Graber
Arkansas Law Review
Daniel Webster warned Whig associates in 1841 that the Supreme Court would likely declare unconstitutional the national bank bill that Henry Clay was pushing through the Congress. This claim was probably based on inside information. Webster was a close association of Justice Joseph Story. The justices at this time frequently leaked word to their political allies of judicial sentiments on the issues of the day. Even if Webster lacked first-hand knowledge of how the Taney Court would probably rule in a case raising the constitutionality of the national bank, the personnel on that tribunal provided strong grounds for Whig pessimism. …
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
M'Culloch In Context, Mark R. Killenbeck
Arkansas Law Review
M’Culloch v. Maryland is rightly regarded as a landmark opinion, one that affirmed the ability of Congress to exercise implied powers, articulated a rule of deference to Congressional judgments about whether given legislative actions were in fact “necessary,” and limited the ability of the states to impair or restrict the operations of the federal government. Most scholarly discussions of the case and its legacy emphasize these aspects of the decision. Less common are attempts to place M’Culloch within the ebb and flow of the Marshall Court and the political and social realities of the time. So, for example, very few …
Mcculloch At 200, David S. Schwartz
Mcculloch At 200, David S. Schwartz
Arkansas Law Review
March 6, 2019 marked the 200th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s issuance of its decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, upholding the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States, the successor to Alexander Hamilton’s national bank. McCulloch v. Maryland involved a constitutional challenge by the Second Bank of the United States to a Maryland tax on the banknotes issued by the Bank’s Baltimore branch. The tax was probably designed to raise the Second Bank’s cost of issuing loans and thereby disadvantage it relative to Maryland’s own state-chartered banks. Marshall’s opinion famously rejected the Jeffersonian strict-constructionist argument that implied powers …