Chapter 7: Federalism
Federalism refers to the integration of a general government and small regional governments in a whole single political system.
This is seen in the United States as there’s a federal government with its own laws, but every state also has its own set of laws.
There is a major difference between the Supreme Court’s reviewing the constitutionality of an act of Congress and the Court’s reviewing the states’ interpretations of federal law.
Under the supremacy clause, there is little doubt that federal law trumps inconsistent state law.
The Court’s power to review state court decisions about federal law was settled in 1816 in Martin v. Hunters Lessee (14 U.S. 304). In that case, the Court interpreted and applied a treaty of 1783 that protected Lord Fairfax’s claim to certain pieces of land in Virginia.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court faced the dual challenge of assessing national legislation under the standard of Marbury and of declaring conflicting state legislation unconstitutional.
Congress had established a national bank, and the State of Maryland sought to impose a tax on all banks, including the federal bank.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government establishing banks.
The bank represented a commitment to industrialization and commerce, a conception of the United States strongly resisted by the agrarian populists.
Federalism refers to the integration of a general government and small regional governments in a whole single political system.
This is seen in the United States as there’s a federal government with its own laws, but every state also has its own set of laws.
There is a major difference between the Supreme Court’s reviewing the constitutionality of an act of Congress and the Court’s reviewing the states’ interpretations of federal law.
Under the supremacy clause, there is little doubt that federal law trumps inconsistent state law.
The Court’s power to review state court decisions about federal law was settled in 1816 in Martin v. Hunters Lessee (14 U.S. 304). In that case, the Court interpreted and applied a treaty of 1783 that protected Lord Fairfax’s claim to certain pieces of land in Virginia.
In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court faced the dual challenge of assessing national legislation under the standard of Marbury and of declaring conflicting state legislation unconstitutional.
Congress had established a national bank, and the State of Maryland sought to impose a tax on all banks, including the federal bank.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government establishing banks.
The bank represented a commitment to industrialization and commerce, a conception of the United States strongly resisted by the agrarian populists.