Chief Justice John Marshall, in the Supreme Court’s opinion from McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), in which the Court had to decide
whether the Constitution gave Congress the power to create a national bank: “[The] Constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. To have prescribed the means by which Government should, in all future time, execute its powers would have been to change entirely the character of the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur.”
Question:
What does Chief Justice Marshall say about the Constitution's adaptability? Based on this quote, would Marshall be considered to be a loose constructionist or an originalist?
The Chief Justice Marshall explains that the US Constitution was made to endure ages, the only way makes it last is to provide mutable rules that adapt into the new times. Because of this, he defends that the Government should execute its powers to change the characters of instruments.
Because of this, he is known to this day to be the judge that expanded the US Supreme Court ability to interpret the constitution. This can be seen clearly in the case McCulloch v. Maryland with the attempt of the federal government to create a national bank.
No, because in command economies, there is no competition. So, there are no other repair services that would offer higher-quality repairs or cheaper equipment. Additionally, no incentive exists for the technician to provide high-quality service.
