Federal power in court: McCulloch v. Maryland, the commerce clause, and U.S. v. Lopez

Two Supreme Court cases show how the balance of federal and state power has shifted. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that Congress could create a national bank even though the Constitution does not list that power, because the necessary and proper clause allows implied powers that help carry out enumerated ones, and that Maryland could not tax the bank, since "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" and valid federal law is supreme. The commerce clause gives Congress power to regulate commerce among the states, and during the 1900s the Court read it broadly, upholding New Deal economic regulations and even the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination in hotels and restaurants serving interstate travelers. In United States v. Lopez (1995), however, the Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, ruling that carrying a gun near a school was not economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce, the first time in about 60 years it had limited Congress's commerce power. The cases show that the line between national and state power is set partly by how courts interpret the Constitution.

This explanation is AI-generated and can occasionally be wrong. 🚩 Report