Culloch v. State of Maryland

Decision Date01 February 1819
Citation4 L.Ed. 579,4 Wheat. 316,17 U.S. 316
PartiesM'CULLOCH v. STATE OF MARYLAND et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Webster, for the plaintiff in error,3 stated: 1.That the question whether congress constitutionally possesses the power to incorporate a bank, might be raised upon this record; and it was in the discretion of the defendant's counsel to agitate it.But it might have been hoped, that it was not now to be considered as an open question.It is a question of the utmost magnitude, deeply interesting to the government itself, as well as to individuals.The mere discussion of such a question may most essentially affect the value of a vast amount of private property.We are bound to suppose, that the defendant in error is well aware of these consequences, and would not have intimated an intention to agitate such a question, but with a real design to make it a topic of serious discussion, and with a view of demanding upon it the solemn judgment of this court.This question arose early after the adoption of the constitution, and was discussed and settled, so far as legislative decision could settle it, in the first congress.The arguments drawn from the constitution, in favor of this power, were stated and exhausted in that discussion.They were exhibited, with characteristic perspicuity and force, by the first secretary of the treasury, in his report to the president of the United States.The first congress created and incorporated a bank.Act of 5th February 1791, ch. 84.Nearly each succeeding congress, if not every one, has acted and legislated on the presumption of the legal existence of such a power in the government.Individuals, it is true, have doubted, or thought otherwise; but it cannot be shown, that either branch of the legislature has, at any time, expressed an opinion against the existence of the power.The executive government has acted upon it; and the courts of law have acted upon it.Many of those who doubted or denied the existence of the powers, when first attempted to be exercised, have yielded to the first decision, and acquiesced in it, as a settled question.When all branches of the government have thus been acting on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3251 cases
  • Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • March 30, 2006
    ... ... SEATTLE POPULAR MONORAIL AUTHORITY; Washington State Department of Licensing; and Fred Stephens, its director, Respondents ... Supreme Court of ... See WASH. CONST. art. II, § 1 ... 2. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 428, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819) ("The only security against the abuse of this ... ...
  • Mannino, In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1971
    ... ... 1 He contends (1) that the state may not grant the privilege [14 Cal.App.3d 957] of probation on conditions requiring the ... Court's reviewing power over legislation, 'that it is A constitution we are expounding.' M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407, 4 L.Ed. 579. I say the phrase is mischievous because it radiates a ... ...
  • Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 14, 2018
    ... ... CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant. Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN ... 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the defense that the complaint "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," generally referred to as a motion to dismiss. The Court ... ...
  • Elsinore Christian Center v. City of Lake Elsinore, CV 01-04842 SVW (RCx) (C.D. Cal. 6/23/2003)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • June 23, 2003
    ... ...         Four years later the Supreme Court struck down RFRA, at least as it relates to state and local governments, 1 in City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997) ... McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U.S. 316, 4 Wheat 316 (1819); see also The Federalist No. 45, p. 292 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
89 books & journal articles
  • Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 74-3, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...Rights . . . was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.").54. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 406-07 (1819).55. See Worcester, 31 U.S. at 561-62.56. See Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S. Ct. 2486, 2493 (2022) (citing U.S. CONST. amen......
  • Diversity, Democracy & Pluralism: Confronting the Reality of Our Inequality
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 66-3, March 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...dynamic and capable of accommodating itself to evolutions of time and circumstance rather than being fixed dates to McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), where Chief Justice Marshall famously remarked, "[W]e must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding,'' and subseque......
  • The Political Remedies Doctrine
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...but generally legislation with substantial support from the minority party should qualify as bipartisan. 239. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 401 (1819).240. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 526 (2014).241. See James B. Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constit......
  • Bias and Immigration: a New Factors Test to Examine Extrinsic Evidence of Animus in Immigration Cases
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 71-1, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...137, 177 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 407 (1819) ("[W]e must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding."). 55. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a) (providing that foreign nationa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT