<span>McCulloch vs. Maryland: "The power to tax equals the power to destroy" -- The state of Maryland attempted to tax the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States (federally-created) -- Confirmed the legitimacy (in Marshall's opinion) of the Bank of the United States, thus upholding Congress' use of the elastic clause. Also further emphasized Article VI (Supremacy Clause) that the states had no power to tax a federal institution. Clearly defining that federal law/power trumps state.
Gibbons vs. Ogden: Federally issued permit vs. State (NY) issued permit to navigate waterways around New York. Marshall court re-emphasized Article VI (Supremacy) stating that federal law trumps state AND this decision further emphasized the Commerce Clause stating that commerce was not defined solely as the buying and selling of goods, but the transportation thereof as well. Establishing that only the national Congress had the ability to regulate INTERstate trade, further strengthening the federal government over the states.
D.C. vs. Heller: Difficult to answer this properly as the District of Columbia is not a "state." A better case would be McDonald vs. Chicago, but anyway: DC placed a ban on handguns, a security guard who possessed a firearm on the job, brought the weapon home in violation of D.C. law. First major 2nd Amendment case since U.S. v. Miller (1939) which allowed SOME regulation of firearms. Decision: the 2nd Amendment protects a citizen's right to bear arms. The D.C. ban on firearms was unconstitutional. Along with the McDonald decision, this "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment as a right that must be protected by the states.
All of the above cases affect the nature of federalism in essence by reducing the rights/powers (10th) of the states and strengthening the powers/roles of the federal government. In terms of which case you use, pick your poison.</span>
The case <em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em> (2008) is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, and that banning handguns in the way that the District of Columbia had done violated this right.
This case relates with the issue of federalism because the case dealt with the District of Columbia. This is considered a federal enclave, and not part of any state. Therefore, the decisions that the District of Columbia makes are more akin to a federal decision, and not a state one.
