Question

HELPPP!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

McCulloch v. Maryland case

Further Explanation:

In Supreme Court, McCulloch versus Maryland case held in 1819, under proper and necessary clause of Article1, section 8, court granted some implied powers to Congress for creating a second largest bank in the United States which “Maryland” was earlier lacking.

The situation implicated the appropriateness of “National bank” and tax which was imposed by the Maryland’s state government. The case also granted some implied powers of the United States Federal Government that are given in the Constitution under the “Proper and Necessary” clause and it granted congress authority to set up a Federal Bank.

The authorizing congress’s decision was to set up the bank which was applauded by “Chief Justice Marshall” with four opinions. According to him, establishing bank was a historic practice which further led to the foundation of banks. The case managed to keep the “sovereignty” of the country by approving the constitution. The ruling was supported by Marshall as it demanded the “Proper and Necessary” Clause, that allowed Congress to use the enumerated powers.

Learn More:

1. in Furman v. Georgia (1972), the supreme court ruled in William Furman’s favor, saying that Georgia had  brainly.com/question/2816742
2. Though the outcomes of the Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common? The government has a heavy burden to prove harm. The government can limit speech that causes harm. The government has unlimited power to limit speech. The government must follow the first amendment.  brainly.com/question/1804110

Answer Details:

Grade: High School

Chapter: McCulloch versus Maryland

Subject: History

Keywords: McCulloch versus Maryland, implied powers, Congress, national bank, federal government, sovereignty, enumerated powers

Answer 2

Well even though im not gigivng you the two paragraphs you need, I can give you information on two of the cases so that you can write about them: 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. Hope this works for you.