What was Jackson’s perspective on the McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court case?
Answer (3)
The Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to “make all 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.” It is not a free-standing grant of power, but rather was intended to give Congress the power to enact laws needed to “carry into execution” the various powers granted to the federal government by other parts of the Constitution. The wording of the Clause suggests that a law authorized by it must meet two separate requirements: it must be “necessary” to the execution of some power granted to the federal government, and also “proper.” Since at least the 1790s, debate has raged over the meaning of these two terms. In the early republic, debate over the interpretation of the Clause focused on the constitutionality or lack thereof of the First Bank of the United States. When the Bank was first proposed in 1790, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued that its establishment was not authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause because the word “necessary” should be interpreted to include only such measures as are truly essential to the implementation of other federal powers. By contrast, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton defended the Bank, arguing that “necessary” should be interpreted to include any law that is “useful” or “convenient.” The issue of the constitutionality of the Bank did not reach the Supreme Court until 1819, when the justices decided the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.
Jackson's Perspective on McCulloch v. Maryland:
Andrew Jackson's perspective on McCulloch v. Maryland was not directly recorded at the time of the Supreme Court decision in 1819 because he became president later, in 1829. However, Jackson was known for his opposition to the national bank throughout his presidency, which suggests he might have been opposed to the decision that reinforced the power of the federal government over state governments. The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland responded to two key issues: whether Congress had the constitutional authority to charter a national bank, and whether a state could tax a federal institution. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States, establishing that states could not tax federal operations and affirming the broad implied powers of Congress when connected with the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Jackson viewed the McCulloch v. Maryland case as an overreach of federal power, contrary to his beliefs in states' rights and the common man's cause. He opposed the central banking system, believing it favored the wealthy and infringed upon state sovereignty. This perspective shaped his later actions against the Second Bank of the United States.
;
