1.8 P2 Mculloch and Lopez

Federalism Supreme Court Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Issue

  • Did Congress have the power to establish a national bank?

  • Did Maryland interfere with congressional powers by taxing the national bank?

Ruling

  • Yes, the federal government can charter a national bank.

  • No, a state cannot tax the national bank.

Why?

  • Ruled in favor of McCulloch referencing:

    • Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18 - Necessary and Proper Clause:

    • This clause allows Congress to use implied powers to carry out its enumerated powers, such as regulating national currency and levying taxes.

    • Article 6 Clause 2 - The Supremacy Clause:

    • The federal government holds supremacy over state laws.

    • If states could tax the bank, they could potentially undermine or eliminate it.

Significance

  • The case expanded Congress' powers to include those that are implied by the Constitution, establishing the concept of Implied Powers.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Background

  • In 1990, Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, prohibiting the possession of weapons in school zones.

  • In 1992, a student named Alfonso Lopez carried a gun into his school and was arrested under Texas law, which prohibited guns in schools.

  • The state charges were dropped, and Lopez was charged federally under the GFSZ Act.

Arguments

  • Lopez's lawyers argued that the Act was unconstitutional because Congress cannot control whether an individual can carry a gun into a school, as education falls under state powers.

  • They referenced McCulloch v. Maryland to argue about implied powers and the limits of federal authority.

  • The U.S. government asserted that the GFSZ Act was constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  • Lopez’s legal team countered that possession of a firearm in a school had no connection to interstate commerce, implying that if Congress could make that connection, it would allow the federal government to regulate anything under the Commerce Clause.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

  • Ruling: A narrow 5-4 decision favored Lopez.

  • The Supreme Court declared the GFSZ Act unconstitutional, viewing it as an overreach of federal power by claiming that firearm possession does not connect to interstate commerce.

  • It emphasized that ruling otherwise would blur the lines between national and local governance and grant the federal government excessive control over states, akin to police power, which is typically within state jurisdiction.

Significance

  • The Court's decision serves as a check on federal power.

  • It reinforced that the federal government cannot assert unlimited power solely by attaching any issue to the Commerce Clause, upholding the balance of power between federal and state governments.