February 8, 2016 — Class Outline Federalism & Separation of Powers—not distinct doctrines but are intertwined and meshed together Three Modes of Legal Argument:

1. Common law style argument of analogizing or making factual comparisons a. Persuade the court to come out your way by finding authoritative case law and

then using the facts in those cases to liken or distinguish them from your case. 2. Authoritative Texts (e.g. statutes, constitutions, even contracts)

a. Tools for interpreting text: i. Textualism – plain, ordinary meaning governs its interpretation.

ii. Originalism – meaning is fixed at the time of enactment of the text. Meaning to who? To the drafters? The voters who passed it? (*Remember: Meaning is relative from person to person depending on what is in their brain.)

iii. Legislative History – Using what proponents of the legislation discussed when they were drafting the legislation in committee.

iv. Purposive approach – Looking at the purpose for which the statute was enacted.

v. Living Constitution – The text is flexible, dynamic, changing as we change, evolving as we evolve.

b. What sources of interpretive meaning will the Court turn to in order to interpret that text? This is what you, the lawyer, must try to figure out.

i. Can you use what proponents of the legislation discussed when they were drafting the legislation in committee? Can you argue the purpose of the statute? Know your audience and what they will find most convincing.

ii. Remember that texts are made authoritative by peoples’ wills (legislators, voters); they are authoritative because because people say so. And because peoples’ wills give authority to texts or determine how to interpret them, you must ask, “Who’s will, who’s brain, who’s interpretation is going to matter?”

3. Policy arguments – these deal with structural ideas, normative questions, societal goals and values. While policy arguments are often thought of as not really the law or that they are just a pretense that is independent of the law, in truth they are really just another kind of name for a legal argument. Professor Gowder thinks legal education has often gone too far in leading young law students to believe that political and moral claims are not legal claims, for judges take political and moral claims into account when they are pontificating upon the law. The difference between political philosophy and law is that law is authoritative, so discussions on the law require precedent and authoritative texts.

a. Example: What kind of ideals about state and federal power have we adopted as a community? What are our values as a community?

In your work as an attorney, you need to use all three modes of argument: analogizing from case law, using authoritative texts, and policy arguments. You also need to learn to identify all three modes of argument in cases. You need to consider how we interpret authoritative texts, and who’s brains will be relevant for purposes of textual interpretation. You need to discern the

structure of legal arguments so you can learn to deploy this way of arguing. You need to remember to not only analogize from case law and use authoritative texts, but to also make policy arguments, arguments from normative values. McCulloch v. Maryland: uber federalism

Facts: State of Maryland enacts a tax upon a branch of the Second United States Bank in Maryland.

Issues: (1) Does Congress have implied power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank? (2) Does Maryland have the power to tax an institution created by Congress?

Rule of Law:

(1) Yes, Congress has implied power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank for the following reasons:

a. The former opponents of the idea that Congress had implied power under the Constitution to incorporate a bank now believe it is constitutional for Congress to have this power.

b. In drafting the Constitution, as contrasted with the Articles of Confederation, the word “expressly” was omitted. (Contrasting the text at issue with previous texts is a key constructive tool for interpretation.)

c. Because in viewing the “necessary and proper” clause, as well as the structure of the Constitution, Congress would have to have implied powers as a means to accomplish the powers enumerated to it.

(2) No, Maryland does not have the power to tax an institution created by Congress for the following reasons:

a. The supremacy clause of the Constitution. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then claiming the power to diminish, or “destroy,” its power is in contradiction with the Constitution.

b. Taxing the bank of the United States would place a burden on the people of other states and Americans just fought a war over no taxation without representation.

ConLawCommunityOutline2/8/2016

Roadmapitems:

MovingintoSeparationofPowers

• Note:FederalismandSeparationofPowersareNotdistinctideaso Bothdrivewhoweallocatedecisionstoandthereasonswhy

IntrotoFederalismtoday

Consider:Whyarewesofocusedon“NormativeQuestions”inConLaw?

3ModesofLegalArgument(seewebsitehandoutandslidesforfulldetails)

1. CommonLawstyle(factualcomparisons/whatis“relevance”)a. “Casexhadtheserelevantlysimilarfacts,andcameoutmyway.”

i. “relevantly”isthekeywordb. “Caseycameouttheotherway,butthefactsarerelevantlydifferent”

i. “relevantly”isthekeywordc. Consider:whyareconcretenessandimminencerelevantfordistinguishingbetweenthe

twocases?

2. Textual(authoritativetext)a. Showsupin1L2dsemester(especiallyinConLaw&CivPro)b. Examplesinclude:Statutes,constitutions,evencontractsc. Linguistictools

i. Plainmeaning,etc.d. Interpretivetools

i. Meaningisrelativetostuffinpeople’sbrainse. Importanttounderstandtowhatsourcesofmeaningacourtmayturnfor

interpretationi. I.e.,whosebrainsarerelevanttodeterminemeaning?

f. Authoritativetextismadeauthoritativebypeople’swillsi. E.g.,Legislators,votersstampsometextauthoritativeandothertextnot

g. Primeexampleoftextualinterpretation:Marburyv.Madison:i. Usingexpressiouniusestexclusioalteriustointerpretart.IIIoriginaljurisdiction

1. expressiouniusestexclusioalterius(ek-spres[h]-ee-ohyoo-ni-əsest

ek-skloo-zhee-ohal-tə-ri-əs)[LawLatin]Acanonofconstructionholdingthattoexpressorincludeonethingimpliestheexclusionoftheother,orofthealternative.•Forexample,therulethat“eachcitizenisentitledtovote”impliesthatnoncitizensarenotentitledtovote.—

Lujan and Mass v. Epa

Alsotermedinclusiouniusestexclusioalterius;expressumfacitcessaretacitum;negative-implicationcanon.Cf.ejusdemgeneris;nosciturasociis;ruleofrank.EXPRESSIOUNIUSESTEXCLUSIOALTERIUS,Black'sLawDictionary(10thed.2014)

h. Originalismdebate:meaningofwordsinterpretedwithreferenceto1787brainsor

contemporarybrains?i. ShouldwelooktothepublicorFramers’understandingofwhatthe

Constitution’swordsmeant?ii. Comparetocontracts(tradeusagev.commonusage),statutes(useof

legislativehistory)

3. Goals/Valuesbased(structuralideas)a. “SeparationofPowers”isastructuralidea,butwhatdoesitmean?b. Federalism—what ideals have we adopted regarding state v. Fed power?c. Interpreting ideas such as “democracy” or “individual liberty”d. Normative and conceptual ideas

i. Compare to “policy arguments” in other areas of law1. Policy arguments—just another name for a legal argument (policy args.

as we commonly think of them don’t really exist)e. Example of Goal/Value based: Martin v. Hunter’s lessee

i. Arguments about importance of uniform Fed law and danger of State biasesf. Big question: where can/should we anchor these values?

i. We’re doing law, not political philosophy. 1. Law is meant to be authoritative whereas philosophy is not.

ThePoint:

The3modesaboveruntogetherinmostgoodarguments.Youneedtolearntouseall3modesofargumentinyourownargumentsandtospottheminothers’.

• Begintodevelopaninternalmodelofhowlegalarg.workssoyoucanlearntodeployiteffectively.

McCulloughv.Maryland(Federalism)

• Widelyconsideredthe2dmostimportantSCOTUScaseafterMarbury• AllaboutastatetaxingtheNat’lBank

Background:Hamiltonwasabigfanofthecentralizedgov’trunningaNat’lBankwhereashisagrarian,Southerncontemporariesdidn’tlikethebank.

Issue:DoesCongresshavepowertoincorporateabank?

• Marshallargues(CBp.76paragraph1)thatCongresscaninterprettheConstitutiontooandthatthoughtherewasdissentionduringthefirstroundof

In other words, what authorizes us to appeal to one set of values and not others

Well, in the context of con law I cases...

theNat’lBankdebate,mostwhoopposeditcamearoundtosupportitbythetimetheBankcharterwasrenewed.

o Practicalnote:ifoneusesmanystrongadjectivestomakehispoint(asdidMarshallinMcCullough),itisoftenasignthattheargumentisweak.

Thisisasfaraswegotinclass.

Title:McCullough v. Maryland (1819)Topic:FederalismPlace:SCOTUSFacts:MarylandpassedastatutewhichtaxedallbanksoperatingwithinitsbordersthathadnotbeencharteredbyMaryland,forcingthebankstobuyspecificpaperforallbanknotesandimposingpenaltiesagainstnoncompliantbanks.McCulloughwascashieroftheNat’lBank,Baltimorebranchanddidn’tcomplywiththeMarylandstatutebyusingdifferentpaperforfederalnotes.MarylandsuedMcCulloughforviolatingthestatestatuteandnotpayingup.ProceduralHistory:StatecourtfoundforMaryland(surprise),decidingthatCongress’Nat’lBankisunconstitutionalinthatthepowertocreatesuchabankisnotenumeratedintheConstitutionandthuscreatingbanksisreservedtothestates.McCulloughappealedIssues:

1. DoesCongresshaveConstitutionalpowertocreateaNationalBank?2. Canastate(Maryland)taxafederalinstitutioncreatedbyCongress(Nat’lBank)?

Holding:

1. Yep,CongresscanestablishaNat’lBank.2. Nope,FederalGov’tsaystothestates,“Can’ttouchthis”astheghostofAlexanderHamilton

doestheHamiltimedanceallthewaytothebank.RationaleforHolding:Constitutionisthesupremelawofthelandandthefederalgov’tcanmakeabankordoothernon-prohibitedthingsitfinds“necessaryandproper.”TheFedcanestablishbranchesofaNat’lbankinanystateandthatstatehasnopowertoblock,tax,orotherwiseimpedethatactionsolongastheactionisconstitutional.Also,Marshallarguesthattheoriginaldissentingviewsincongressregardingthebankdissipatedbythe2dNat’lBank,so...don’tworry,behappy.Thestatesdidn’tmaketheconstitution,thepeopledid.Decision:Reversed

A-mazing.

ConstitutionalLawI-Outlinefor2/8/16.CongressandLimitedFederalPowerThreeModesofLegalArgument

1. Commonlawstylea. Factualcomparisons

i. “Casexhadtheserelevantlysimilarfacts,andcameoutmyway”b. Taskofdistinguishingcasesisnecessarilyincomplete

2. Textuala. Authoritativetext

i. Statutes,constitutions,evencontractsb. Useinterpretivetools

i. FromWeek1forexample:currentnorms,socialevolution,representation-reinforcement,translation,originalintent,supremecourtprecedent,plainconstitutionaltext

c. Authoritativetextbecomesauthoritativeduetopeople’swilli. Example:Marburyv.MadisonandinterpretingArticleIIIandoriginaljurisdiction

d. Fundamentalquestion:whosewill?3. Goals/Values-Based

a. Structuralideasi. Whatdoes“separationofpowers”mean?

b. “Policyarguments”justanothernameforlegalarguments

Cross-Pollination

1. Themodesappeartogetherandarerecruitedtoresolvethecontestedpartsofoneanothera. Eachmodebyitselfisincompleteandneedtheothermodestofillouttheentirepicture

2. Purpose:needtolearntouseallthreemodesofargumentandhaveallthreeinyourtoolboxa. Inaddition,needtolearntospotallthreemodesofargumentincases

McCullochv.Maryland(U.S.1819)

FactsandHistoricalBackground:Seminalcaseindefiningscopeoffederallegislativepoweranditsrelationshiptostategovernmentauthority

1. Specificissue:MayMarylandcollectataxfromtheBankoftheUnitedStates?2. 1790:majordisputeinCongressandexecutivebranchoverwhetherCongresshasauthorityto

createanationalbanka. AlexanderHamiltonasSecretaryoftheTreasurystronglyfavoredsuchabankb. ThomasJeffersonasSecretaryofStateopposedthebank,arguingCongressthe

constitutionalauthorityc. JamesMadison,intheHouseofRepresentatives,alsoopposedthebankd. Ultimately,theFederalist-controlledCongresspassedlegislationtocreatetheBankof

theUnitedStates3. 1811:CharterforBankoftheUnitedStatesexpires

4. AfterWarof1812,U.S.facedeconomicproblemsandtheBankoftheUnitedStateswasre-createdin1816

a. JamesMadison,nowpresident,endorsedthere-creationofthebank,incontrasttohisoriginalopposition

5. Manyblamedthecontinuingeconomicproblemsonthere-constitutedBankoftheUnitedStates

a. Stategovernmentsinparticularangryatthebanksincethebankcalledinloansownedbythestates

b. Manystatesenactedlawstolimittheoperationsofthebanki. Somestateshadlawsprohibitingthebankwithintheirbordersii. Otherstates,suchasMaryland,taxedthebank

c. BankrefusedtopaytheMarylandtaxandwastakentocourt

ProceduralHistory:JohnJamessuedforStateofMarylandintheCountyCourtofBaltimore.McCulloch,thedefendant,wasthecashierofthelocalbranchoftheBankoftheUnitedStates.TrialcourtfoundfortheplaintiffandMarylandCourtofAppealsaffirmed.

Issue:CanMarylandtaxtheBankoftheUnitedStates?

Decision:No

Reasoning:Marshallexaminestwoquestions:1)DoesCongresshavetheauthoritytocreatethebank?And2)isthestatetaxonthebankconstitutional?

1) Congresshastheauthoritytocreatethebank.First,thereisahistoricalprecedentwheretheCongressdebatedandthencreatedthefirstiterationoftheBankoftheUnitedStates.Second,MarshallrejectstheideathatthestatesarealonetrulysovereignsinceitwasthestateswhoratifiedtheConstitution.Rather,MarshallstatesthatthegovernmentproceedsfromthepeoplebecausethepeopleapprovedtheConstitution.Sovereigntyassuchiswiththepeopleandnotwiththestates.Third,thescopeofCongressionalpowerisnotlimitedtoactslaidoutintheConstitutionbutratherCongressmayuseanymeansnotforbiddenbyCongresstoundertakeitslawfulauthority.Fourth,theNecessaryandProperClauseclarifiesthatCongressmayuseanymeansnotforbiddenbytheConstitutiontoundertakeitslawfulauthority.

2) Thestatetaxonthebankisnotconstitutional.TaxingtheBankoftheUnitedStateswouldhindertheworkingsofthebankandevenallowastatetotaxthebankoutofexistence.Additionally,allowingsuchataxwouldinessenceimposetaxeswithoutrepresentationonpeopleinotherstates.

ClassDiscussionofMarshall’sArgument

1. Marshallexaminestwoquestionsa. DoesCongresshavetheauthoritytocreatetheBankoftheUnitedStates?b. Andisthestatetaxonthebankconstitutional?

2. DoesCongresshavetheauthoritytocreatetheBankoftheUnitedStatesa. Historicalaspect

i. HistoryofcongressionaldecisionestablishedpowerofCongresstocreatethebank

ii. Kindofinterpretiveargument:peopleinCongressquitegoodatinterpretingtheConstitutionandtheysaiditwasconstitutional

iii. MarshallusedtheCongressionaldebateoverthebankasawaytointerprettheargument

Chapter 2- Federalism: History and Principles Section 1. The Locations of Sovereignty in the Federal System McCulloch v. Maryland 1819 Facts: Maryland passed an Act to impose a tax on all banks that were not created by the state legislature, therefore they began taxing the Second bank, a federal bank. John James who represented the state of Maryland sued James McCulloch the cashier of the Baltimore branch for refusing to abide by the laws of Maryland. Procedural history: In trial court John James won, on appeal it was affirmed. It was taken to the Supreme Court. The SC reversed the decision. Question: Was it constitutional for the state of Maryland to tax a bank that was created by congress? H&R: No. In the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Marshall the court stated that when the states ratified the constitution the laws of the constitution made it the law of the land. Moreover, on pg. 77 paragraph 3 the court states that the government which is limited in its powers has “supreme power” in the decisions it does decide to take. Which means its law has the most authority. The court further explains that the incorporation of the bank is constitutional on pg. 82 middle of the page. Finally, the court explains that states have the authority to tax their constituents and institutions of their states, because they were made by them (their representatives) but when they attempt to tax an institution of the federal government, which was created by people who are not their constituents, they are in violation. Pg. 84 third paragraph. Important argument: By Contrasting the constitution with the article of confederation justice Marshall reasoned that the framers purposely removed the word express, so that congress could have IMPLIED power over the states. Pg. 77. Important argument: The necessary and proper clause was placed to ensure that congress could pass legislation that is pertinent to Rational exam- examining acts of congress, to see if they were rationale. Important question concerning political review.

§ Whether the Constitution is not emanating from the people? There are 3 possible views of political review.

1. The constitution is supposedly law, and authorizes people to do things. We live in

a sort of democracy. The people of each State gave power to the national government. The federal government exists because of the state. If an authorization is from the state, the state can takes it away and the federal government’s intrusion must be construe strictly because the entity matter.

Rational basis. "Could congress have rationally thought this was necessary to its enumerated powers."

This is a little confused. Is there anyone who would disagree with the first two sentences? Also, what is "political review?"

2. No state is involved. The people of the U.S have the whole consent to the federal

government. Since states don’t give up, they don’t have the right to take it away. => Priority to the power.

3. Justice Kennedy. Split the sovereignty. People acting in the state authorize the

federal government as a source of the power.

§ “The necessary and proper clause” What does “necessary” mean? It is a textual issue. The Constitution talks about “necessary and proper” => The Framers’ willingness. It implied a special relationship between powers. Necessary might mean the Congress need to do it.

The Congress has a lot of financial powers especially financing commerce. So, it is not surprising to have a long list about financial powers in the Constitution. One way the Congress might control the financial system is to establishing back.

Does congress have the power to create a national bank? Yes because of the necessary and proper clause. Can the state of Maryland tax the bank? No because: Congress has the power to create therefore congress has the power to preserve their creations. By Congress having the power to preserve they take away the power from others to destroy their creation, in this case “others” is the state of Maryland. Marshall’s arguments

1. Congress has the power to create the bank. (Supremacy clause: we really mean “Congress has the power”, not congress has the power only if the states approve

2. The power to create entails the power to preserve 3. The power to preserve in A is inconsistent with the power to mess with in B, for all A, B 4. Nobody else may have the power to destroy the bank.

The people of Maryland give their consent to the state of Maryland, and then the state of Maryland gives its consent to the US government. Therefore, it was unconstitutional for Maryland to tax the Second bank. The court’s first argument was the history behind it, then that Congress debated about the bank, and decided that it constitutional.

It would be a good idea to review the sovereignty material in the casebook again.

Con Law I Notes Monday, February 8

We will be seeing issues with separation of powers throughout the course (separation of powers and federalism are intertwined)- both counter into broader considerations drive who we allocate principles to and why. Keeping that in mind, we will be moving into Federalism questions: limited federal power, commerce clause, economic regulations, taxing, spending, commandeering. Why are we so focused on normative (establishing general standards) questions in Constitutional law? Three Modes of Legal Argument: 1. Common law style (factual comparison): "Case X had these relevantly similar facts, and came out my way"

• Takes facts and fits them into a "doctrinal box" • These are the arguments we are most familiar with making (using authoritative

case law) • Can also take the opposite approach ("Case Y did not come out the same way but

is relevantly distinguishable from the current case) • Ex: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case

These are invariably flawed-how do we decide what a relevant fact is? To get an answer to the question of what facts are relevant you have to draw on the two other methods of legal reasoning 2. Textual analysis (authoritative text): Statutes, constitutions, and sometimes contracts

• Similar to common law in terms of drawing on precedent to determine best mode of interpretation

• Meaning is completely relative (who's meaning matters, why are we choosing that meaning)

• In the class we have authoritative text (the Constitution), and we have to decide what sources of interpretive meaning the court can turn to ("plain meaning", "textualism")

• In other classes this will be paralleled by analyzing statutes and what the legislature intended (and how much does what they intended matter)

• Authoritative text is not "magically" authoritative, it is authoritative because it is made that way by people's will (legislators, voters, etc.)

• Ex: Marbury v. Madison using "expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other" to interpret Art. III original jurisdiction (Congress can change the appellate court's jurisdiction means that Congress cannot change the court's original jurisdiction)

The issue here is whose brains are the brains that count? Does the meaning of words take on the brains of the writers of the Constitution or contemporary people? Public meaning or framers' meaning (This application is not limited to Constitutional law)? 3. Goals and Values based argument (structural ideas)

• Sometimes the only way to determine meaning is to drop to the normative level • There are two types of normative argument

1. Structural (what is separation of powers? What kind of division of authority between state and federal governments do we have?) 2. Normative and conceptual argument (defining abstract concepts to fill in gaps in other methods and determine what things are relevant, e.g. "democracy", "individual liberty")

• Compare to "policy arguments" in other areas of law (e.g. "reasonableness" standard in tort law draws on normative and conceptual ideas)

• Ex: Martin vs. Hunter's Lesse arguments about the importance of uniform federal law and danger of state biases (this was non-obvious legal conclusion at the time)

The issue here is where do you anchor your values? We have to focus on law not philosophy, and so we have to establish why a given line of reason is authoritative. Each of these methods of argument must appear together (you need to learn to spot all three modes of argument) Case: McCulloch v. Maryland Facts: Congress establishes the national bank. Maryland decides to tax the bank heavily because they do not like the idea of a federal bank. Someone brought suit against McCulloch, a cashier of the bank, on behalf of Maryland under the statutory penalty for issuing bank notes that did not comply with the tax laws. Procedural History: Suit was initially bought in the county Court of Baltimore County, and the case was decided against McCulloch. The case was taken up by the Supreme Court. Question Presented: There are two questions presented: 1) does Congress have the power to create a federal bank, and 2) if so, does the state have the power to tax the bank Holding: Congress has the power to create a federal bank, and Maryland does not have the power to tax the bank.

Good

may

Summary of the Arguments: To answer the first question, Justice Marshall makes several arguments: 1) the history of the congressional decision (it has survived reasoned arguments saying it was unconstitutional in Congress, and that carries weight). He uses this as persuasive evidence that the federal bank is valid. 2) The Constitution does not explicitly give the power to create a bank, but it does not exclude incidental or implied powers (the Constitution does not contain the word "expressly" like the Articles of the Confederation did) 3) The Constitution gives Congress the power to exercise the means needed to implement the things they have the power to create ("necessary and proper")

• Marshall takes a loose interpretation of "necessary" to include anything necessary to realize an end goal, not merely the best way of achieving that goal

To answer the second question, Marshall argues 1) The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state can tax something out of existence it will upset the Constitution's standing as the "supreme" law 2) Allowing the states to tax something which affects all citizens is wrong because citizens outside of that state have no say in the given state's legislature In-Class Discussion: (through Marshall's first argument for allowing creation of federal bank) Congress had educated and heated discussions regarding the constitutionality of the federal bank. Although the court has the power to declare something unconstitutional, the very founders of the Constitution have also decided that a federal bank falls within the framework. This should be given significant weight.

Very good explanation of the argument

OutlineDay5

McCullochv.Maryland(1819)--FederalismFACT• CongresscharteredtheSecondBankinBaltimore,Maryland• Marylandissuedastatutetotaxonanybankthatwasnotcharteredbythestateandthatthese

bankcanonlyissuebanknotessubjectedtoafeeo Violatorsofthisstatutewillhavetopayafineandtheinformerofthisillegalactwillbe

rewarded• JohnJamesbroughtthesuitagainstMcCulloch,thecashieroftheSecondBank

o McCullochadmittedthatthebankisdoingbusinesswithoutMaryland'sauthorizationandthathehadissuedbanknotesoutofcompliancetotheMarylandstatute

HISTORY• CountycourtforMaryland• CourtsofAppealsaffirmed• SupremeCourttookthecasethroughwritoferror

ARGUMENT1. DoesCongresshavethepowertoincorporateabank?

a. Court:Legislaturessaidthatit'soktoincorporateabankalthoughtherehasbeenfightsbeforei. Ultimatelythebankiscreatedoutofnecessity

b. Maryland:federalpowerisgrantedbystatesasasovereigntyandnotbythepeople;therefore,itmustbesubordinatetothestatesi. BUT:

1. Duringtheconvention,whichhadtobeheldineachstateseparately,statesonlygivesuggestionsastowhattoincludeintheConstitution;thosesuggestions/"instrument"didnotbindthefederalgovernment

2. ThepeopleacceptedtheConstitutionthatwasdraftedundertheir"names"("Wethepeople")andtheconstitutionbindseveryone,includingstategovernments

c. Court:ThereisnoenumeratedpowertoestablishabankbutthereisnobanonhavingimpliedpowersbecauseeveryminutedetailsofthepowercannotbeexpressedintheConstitutioni. constitutionhasonlyoutlinesofthemainobjectivesandnotthedetails

0. contrasttoarticlesofconfederationii. ConstitutionoutlinedabunchofrightsforCongress

1. Congressshouldbeabletochoosethemeanstoexecutethoserightsiii. Powertocreateacorporationisincidentaltopowersexpresslygiven

1. Unlikepowertotaxortogotowar;itispowertoserveitsownpurpose;corporationistoserveanotherpurposethusincidental

d. Court:"NecessaryandProper"ClauseallowCongresstocreatealllawsnecessaryandproperfortheexecutionoftheenumeratedpowersforallbranchesi. Necessary

1. Maryland:a. Canonlycreatelawsthatareindispensabletotheexecutionofpowerb. Withoutthoselaws,thepoweraredeemedworthless

2. Court:

a. No,"necessary"justmeansthatitis"convenient,useful,oressentialtoanother"i. Employingameannecessaryforanendmeansdowhateverittakes

toachievearesultb. Ifweusethatstrictsense,we'redeprivingthelegislaturefrombeing

flexibleinexercisingtheirdiscretionandpreventthemfromdealingwithproblemsastheyariseorthechangeincircumstancesduetoadvancementoftimei. Ex.Toestablishpostofficeandpostroads

1. Impliedthattheycanpunishletterthieves,falsifyingrecordsofmail--thosepowerarenotindispensabletoitsexistencebuttheyareessential

c. Intent:thenecessaryandproperclauseistoenlargetheCongress'spoweri. PutitwiththelistofCongress'spowerii. ThetermssuggestthatitistryingtoenlargeCongress'spower

d. ThebankisneededforCongress'sfiscaloperationi. Whenlawisnotviolated,SupremeCourtdoesn'thavetherightsto

judgethedegreeofnecessity1. Congresscanjudgeitsownnecessitybecauseifwerelyonthe

statestojudgethenecessityofcongress’sdecisions,thenfederalgovernmentmightdependtoomuchonstateanddefeatthepurposeofhavingafederalgovernment.

2. WhethertheStateofMarylandmay,withoutviolatingtheconstitution,taxthatbranch?a. Constitutionisthesupremelawofthelandpg.83

i. Powertocreate=powertopreserveii. Powertodestroy,byadifferenthand,iscontradictorytopowertocreateandto

preserveiii. Whencontradictionhappens,thesupremepowercontrols

b. Poweroftaxation=powertodestroyi. Maryland:they'renotresistingCongress'slaw;buttheyjustwanttoexercisetheir

rights,andCongressjusthavetobelievethattheywon'tabuseitii. Court:

1. Thepowertotaxa. Statetaxisbasedontheirconstituentstomakesurethatitisnot

erroneousandoppressiveb. Federaltax,however,donothavethesameconstituents;itthefrom

everyoneforthebenefitofeveryonei. Onlyagovernmentwhichcontrolsallcanregulateit

c. Itisbasedonconfidencethatthosewhohadthepowerwouldnotabuseiti. Wouldthecitizensofonestatetrustthepeopleofanotherstateto

controltheirgovernment?ii. Ifitisallowedforthestatetotaxthisbank,thenthestatecouldtax

everyotherfunctionsofthegovernment--postoffice,judicialetc.1. Thismakesthefederalgovernmentdependentonthestates

d. BUT:thereisaconcurrentrighttotaxandfederalgovernmentcantaxstatecharteredbanks.Whycanstatetaxfederalcharteredbanks?i. Differentbecause:

Good insight. I'd add: this dependence on states to carry out functions delegated to federal government was one of the big problems with the articles of confederation, stands to reason framers were trying to avoid it

1. Whenfederalgovernmentistaxingthesebanks,theyaretaxingeveryonebecauseitistaxedequallyineverystatebutwhenstatedoesit,theyaretaxingonconstituentsthattheyhavenocontrolover

HOLDING:thestatelawisunconstitutional.ForP.

CLASSDISCUSSION

Sovereignty• pg.76:Maryland:generalgovernmentpowerisdelegatedbystatesandthegeneralgovernment

shouldbesubordinatetothestateso Peoplegivethepowerofgovernancetothestategovernments,stategovernmentsgive

authoritiestothefederalgovernment,sothestatetakecouldtaketheauthorityawayorconstrainitbytaxingit

• BUT:Marshall:Authorityfromthefederalgovernmentdirectlyemanatefromthepeople;thefederalgovernmentdoesn'trelyonthestate;therefore,thestatecannottaketheauthorityawayfromthefederalgovernment

• BUT:Kennedy--hybrid:authorityforthefederalgovernmentcomesfrom"wethepeople"asinallpeopleandfrom"wethestate"o HowdoesthatapplytoMcCulloch?Hardtosay…

Enumeratedpowersvs.impliedpower• CongresshasalotofpowersthatwasgiventoitbyArticleIandthosepowerimpliesotherpower

o Textualinterpretation• Compareconstitutiontothearticlesofconfederations

§ Articlesofconfederationsonlygaverightsthatareexpressed• 10thAmendment:noword"express"

§ Theframersdeliberatelyremovetheword"express"becausetheywantedtocreateastructurethatCongresscanhaveimpliedpowers.

§ SeeFederalist#44• Hamiltondefendingthe"necessaryandproper"clausebycontrastingitto

themistakesinthearticlesofconfederation.• Structuralargumentonpostoffice

• Thebasicideaofgivingpowertothegovernmentisalsogivingimpliedpowersnecessarytomakethepowerwork

• "Necessaryandproper"clause--whatdoes"necessary"mean?o "necessary"aswordoflimitation

• Theycouldhaveusedtheword"convenient"orsomethingalongthatline• Ex.ArticleIgivespowertoCongress"toprovideandmaintainanavy"butisitOKfor

Congresstorequireallschooltoprovideamandatorysailingclass?§ Maybenecessary,butisitproper?§ Consider:efficiencyandeffectiveness

o Separationofpower• Legislaturesareentitledtomakedecisionsaboutthesuccessandfailureinexercising

theirpower• ThecourtwillonlyevaluateCongress'sdecisiononarationalbasistest,toseeifit's

authorizedbyArticleI;isitminimallyjustifiable?

SovereigntyIdeaAlthoughsovereigntyiscoveredonp76,thisconceptisgoingtobecoveredbrieflyinclass.3possiblyviewsonwherepoliticalauthoritycomesfrom:Wheredotheygettheauthorityto‘beatyouup’whenyoudon’tdowhattheysay?#1-becausethisisademocracy,authoritycomesfromthepeopleandthereiscollectiveassent

-whosecollectiveassentandwheredoesitcomefrom?-MDsaysitcomesfromthegov'tofthestatesasthecollectiveauthority,thenthestategivesconsenttothefederalgov't-ideaisthatIFauthorityisthroughpeopleonlythroughthestate,thenthestategivethandtakethaway-suggeststhatfedgov'tintrusiononstateauthorityshouldbeconstruednarrowly

#2-(Marshallposition)Americanpeoplegivetheauthority,nostatesinvolved.Authoritytothefedgov'tcomesdirectlyfrompeople.StatesareseparateandstatesDON’TgivenandhaveNOauthoritytotakethaway.NormativeandsocialpressuretorejectMD'sargument#3(KennedyinTermLimitscase)Founderssplittheatomofsovereignty.We,thepeoplecollectively,ANDstatesauthorizefedgov't.Probablyrightinpureconceptualtermsbuthardviewtotranslateintoactualfederalismquestions.WhatisJusticeMarshallarguingonpage77,lasttwoparagraphs:Conghasmanypowers(art1,sect8)andthepowersimplyotherpowers.Marshallfindstheimplicationbyfindingcontrastthoughtextualinterpretation.HeinterpretstheConstitutionbycomparisontotheArticlesofConfederation(pastdocuments)InordertointerpretConstitution,looktoArticlesofConfederationwhereitretainsallrightsnotEXPRESSLYdelegatedtothefed.MarshallcontraststhistoArt1and10thAmend.Henotesthatthepassagesarenotablyabsenttheword'express'anditwasdeliberatelyremovedbytheFoundersasaresponsetoaweakcentralgov't.Theframersknewhowtowordthepassagesandthewordswerechosesspecificallytoallowimpliedpowers.Keystructuralargumentforimpliedpowers:FederalistPaper44:abouthalfwaythrough,HamiltondefendsConstitutionthroughtheNecessaryandProper(N/P)Clause.Hamiltoncontrastsitwiththemistakesintheconfederation.HesaystheycouldhavegonetheEXPRESSLYroute,butdefendswhyitwasnotagoodchoice(impliedpowersneedtobepossible).Hamilton'sargument:ifonlyenumeratedpowers,theprocessdoesn'tfunctioncorrectly(structuralargument).Example:Powertocreatepostoffice,butnotcrimetostealthemail?Constitutiondoesn'tsayCongesscanmakestealingmailillegal,butthenhowisthesystemmanaged?Hamilton/MarshallclaimthattheMEANSmustalsobewithinthepoweroftheConstitutiontodetermine.N/PClause:TextualissuesProblem:whatdoesnecessarymean?Broadornarrowconstruction?ExpressprovisionforimpliedpowersintheConstitutionhasthewords'necessaryandproper'(sect8).Arethesewordslimitations?Thewords‘convenient’or‘useful’or‘related’weren'tused.Specifically,theframersused‘necessaryandproper’sotherelationshipbetweenexpresspowersandimpliedpowersmustbecloselyrelated.Hypo:MaintainandprovideNavyANDexercisethepowertomakesailinglessonsnecessaryforallchildren.

Smallgroupdiscussionsaboutthenavyhypo.Ourgroupdiscussedthedraftandhowitisn'tappliedtowomen,sowhyuniversaltraining?AdditionallyahistoricalapproachthatdidnotnecessitatethisprogramtoruntheNavy.OthergroupsdiscussedCongressusingbriberyasmeansofcoercingbehavior.Discussionincaseaboutlimitedconstructionof'necessary'.Marshallusesstrangecomparisonbetweenconduciveandessential.(notthesamething).Hepromotestheideaof'essential'Forthiscase:whyistheincorporationofaBanknecessaryandproper?Art1,sect8isidentifiedthroughmanytasksthatwillbehelpedbyanationalbankbecauseofallofConstitution'sfinancialpowers.UndertheArticlesofConfederation,thefinancialsectorwasmeltingdownandawreck.TheConstitutionwasintendedtoallowacentralgov'ttoaidinthefinancialsystemthroughCongress.Onewaytoexercisethiscontroloverthefinancialsystemisthroughabank.InapplyingthisconcepttotheNavyhypo:success/failureisapolicyjudgmentandthisjudgmentispartoftheseparationofpowersbybeingpartofcongress'duties,notthecourts'RationalBasisTestMarshall:SCshouldgetinvolvedonlywhenCongressispursuingsomethingclearlywithoutconstitutionalobjective.Clauseisnottotallyunlimited-musthaveSOMETHINGtodowithArt1,Sect8.WasCongressactingproperlyunderrationalbasistest?Congress'policyjudgementsareevaluatedbydeterminingifitwasminimallyrationalbasedonC'sbeliefs.Secondquestion:Evenifit'smaybenecessary(broadinterpretation),isitproper?(NotmuchinterpretationonthisphraseuntilJusticeRobertsmuchlater)

(Or, arguably, anything Congress *could* have believed. That's what rational basis test means in other areas of con law. Not clear if that's the rule for necessary and proper though.)

Con. Law-Gowder February 9, 2016

Name: McCulloch v. Maryland

Facts & Procedure: The Bank of the Untied States (owned/operated by the Federal Gov’t) began to popup everywhere after The Banks re-creation in 1816. Many states unhappy with the establishment took action. Maryland enacted a law requiring the Bank of the US to pay an annual tax of $15,000 ($360,000 - 2015) or a tax of 2% on all of its notes. The Bank (McCulloch as cashier/rep) refused to pay and Maryland sued to recover the unpaid tax. The Trail Court rendered judgment in favor of the π (MD), and Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s): 1). Does congress have the authority to create “The Bank of the United States;” 2). is Maryland’s tax on The Bank unconstitutional?

Holding & Rationale: Short answers: 1). Yes. 2). Yes Much like Marbury, Justice Marshall took the liberty to expand on the sole question of taxation in the controversy and gave the court’s opinion regarding the expansion of Federal power. This then sparked the broader issue of the

�1

Highlights:

Three theories on the creation of Authority.

1). MD theory (Camp Madison) The people consent to the State; the State is at liberty to accept or reject the provisions of the constitutions; and that State operates as Sovereign; independently of the fed. gov’t.— “What the State giveth, the state can taketh away; blessed be the name of James Madison”

2). “Marshall" theory- (Camp Hamilton) Congress’s authority to enforce the laws that it creates is empowered by the direct consent of the People—bypassing the States power. “the government proceeds directly from the people. . .[and} the people are perfectly at liberty to reject or accept [the constitution]. . . “ without the affirmation of the state.

3). Kennedy Theory- (Camp Hybrid). With a moral philosophy frame work. Our nations was created with the two political capacities, each with its “own privity” and “protected from incursion by the other.” The people are directly connected to the “national gov’t,” but the “ people of United States [do] not have a political identity . . . independent of their identity as citizens of the State of their residence.”

CON LAW I Ch. 2: Federalism § 1: The Location of Sovereignty in the Federal System

This is neat.

Con. Law-Gowder February 9, 2016

division of powers between State and the Federal Government. Marshall breaks his argument into four parts: 1). The historical argument. He relies on the history of how the first bank was created—using this to sustain the constitutionality of the second. This further establishes his philosophy of the separation of powers—granting Congress the power to interpret the constitution when creating policy and impliedly reaffirming Marbury—the courts ability to judicially review those policies when they create a case/controversy . 2). Next he puts the States in its place on the food chain of authority. He declares that the States do not have ultimate Sovereignty simply because they “ratified the constitution.” Suggesting that if this were true then the States would have the power to ignore federal actions, therefore, rendering the National Gov’t useless. Marshall argument is that “the PEOPLE ratified the constitution,” therefore people are sovereign, and the States merely ratified as agents of the people binding itself to the law therein. (preamble: “We the People of the United State. . .”). 3). Marshall next, using a contrast analysis, draws a distinction between the confederate papers and Art. I. § 8. highlighting the deliberate removal of the word “expressly.” Concluding that such deliberateness creates reasonable implications. Essentially, with one stroke of his quill, Marshall carved a wide hole in the ceiling of Congressional Power. 4) he construes the a necessary and proper clause to declare that Congress may select any means that is not prohibited by the Constitution to carry out its enumerated duties.

To the 2nd issues of Maryland’s Tax- Marshall explains that Congress’s authority to “establish” things necessarily includes its authority to preserve what it has created. For States to impede on what congress has created would frustrate its purpose and, therefore, prevent Congress from carrying out its constitutional duties.

Disposition: Reversed

�2

Hypos:

Does Congress have the power to create a law mandating naval education/training in grade schools?

Prof. Gowder: Probably Yes-if we apply the Marshall/Federalist approach to the word “Necessary” in Art. I § 8. This would involve a calculation of policy judgments—was Congress acting “rationally?” This question is worthy of investigation to determine if the “necessary” clause is applicable.

small group answer: It Depends. If you apply the Jeffersonian restrictive view of “necessary” (absolute) then it would seem outside the scope of the congressional power. Or if you use Marshall’s historical method of reasoning one could argue that, if the first congress democratically decided it didn’t need to have the law and has successfully (calculation judgment) operated without it, then perhaps it fails the necessary requirement (a hint of originalism). Also, does it support another power?

Con. Law-Gowder February 9, 2016

Methods for analysis: When faced with a question of Congress authority to create, do the following

1) look to its enumerated powers ( Art. I. § 8)

2) look for inference that arise from those powers (ability to tax, create schools, create TSA, require law students to file court documents).

3) Which view of Necessary and Proper is appropriate?

4) Is it rational?

5) Does it violate any other amendments?

�3

Good

ConLawIOutlineforTuesday,February9,2016CaseMcCullochv.Maryland17U.S.316,4Wheat.316,4L.Ed/579(1819)Facts:CongresspassedcharterforSecondBankoftheU.S.in1816.AbranchwasestablishedinBaltimore,MD.Inresponse,MarylandpassedlegislationimposingataxonallsuchinstitutionsnotcharteredbythelegislatureofMaryland.AnactionwasfiledbythestateofMarylandagainstoperatoroftheBaltimorebranch,JamesMcCulloch,forviolatinganactpassedbythestatelegislatureandnotpayingthetax.McCullochdidnotdisputethathehadnotpaidthetaxoroperatedwithoutstatecharter.Procedural:ThestateofMarylandprevailedintheBaltimoreCountyCourt.TheMarylandCourtofAppealsaffirmedthisdecision.AwritoferrorbroughtthiscasetotheSupremeCourt.Issue:DoesCongresshavethepowertocreateanationalbank?Holding:Yes.ItiswithinCongress’powertocreateanationalbank.Marshallreasons:-Thisisn’tthefirsttimethebank’sconstitutionalityhascomeup.We’vebeendownthatroadbefore.We’vehadthosearguments.Eventhewisestandboldestdetractorshavecometotheirsensesandnotonlysawtheconstitutionalityofsuch,butitsnecessityaswell.Getinline,Maryland.-TheFederalGovernmentdoesn’tderiveitspowerfromthestates,butfromthepeopleinthosestates.Throughthepeoplesinteractionsintheconventionprocessthepowerswerecreated.Thesepowersaretobeexercisedforthepeoplesbenefitbutmoreimportantly“[t]hegovernmentoftheUnion,thoughlimitedinitspowers,issupremewithinitssphereofaction.”-Whilethepowertocreateabankisn’tdirectlystated,itsnotdirectlyprohibitedeither -i.e.,the10thAmendment-Congressmustbeabletochoosethemeansforwhichitreachesanendiftheendisanexpresspowerdelegatedtocarryout-Marylandcan’ttaxthebank,asitisCongress’dutytopreservethatwhichithascreatedandapowertotaxwouldineffectbeatoolofdestructionutilizedbyallstatestotheirowninterest.Anystateactsayingthisispossibleyieldstothesupremelawoftheland.ClassDiscussionSovereigntyThreepossibleviewsofwherepoliticalauthorityisderivedfrom.

N&P clause

Fromwhodoesthepoweremanate?

Insomesense,it’sfromthepeople.Towhatdegreedoescollectiveassentofthepeopleplayintothis?

MarylandassertsitisthroughthisthatthepoweroftheFederalGovernmentisderivedfromthestate,i.e.,thepeopleofeachstatewhomhavegiventheirconsenttothegov’toftheirindividualstatestorepresentthem.1.)Peopleoftheequalstatesgivetheirconsenttothegovernmentoftheirstates(TheMarylandView) -Stategov’tsarethefundamentalunitsofcollectiveauthority -Statesthengive2ndorderconsenttotheFederalGov’t

-Ifauthorityisderivedthisway,whatthestategivestothefederalgovernment,thestatecantakeawayfromtheFederalGovernment.

2.)Americanpeopleasacollectivewithnostateinvolvement(TheMarshallview)

-Powerisderiveddirectlyfromthepeopleasawhole -“Statesdon’tgive-ith,statescanttake-ithaway” -UsingnormativeandconceptualpressuretorejectMaryland’sview3.)TheHybridApproach Kennedy“Splittingtheatomofsovereignty”

-TheFederalgov’tderivesitpowerbothfromthepeopleasacollectiveandfromtheseveralstatesratherthanfromoneindividually

Congresshasalotofpowers(Art.1Section8)-Alotofthosepowershavetodowith$$$Surely,thosepowersmustimplyotherpowers.Let’sjustifythisideabycomparingandcontrastingthedocumentinquestion,theConstitution,withthedocumentitsettoreplace,theArticlesofConfederation.Atextualandinterpretiveanalysisapproachisutilized.Discernthedifferencesinthedocumentsandaccountforthechanges.ArtofConfederationused“Expressly”inadeliberateattempttolimitthepoweroftheFederalGov’t.ComparethistoArticleIoftheConstitutionandtothe10thAmendmentforcontrast.TheyeachsaysomethingverysimilartotheArticles,onlytheword“express”isomitted.Thismustbeforareason?

Theabsenceof“express”mustmeantheframersdeliberatelyremoveditasaresponsetotheissuesatthetime.Further,theconstitutionwasmeanttocreateastructureforCongresstohaveimpliedpowers,notasarestrictionontheirpowers.Federalist#44reinforcesthisidea.-Hamilton,insupportingtheConstitutionandthe‘N&P”clause,highlightsthemistakesundertheArticlesofConfederationrelatedtotheFederalGovernment’sineffectivenessasitlackedanypowersnotexpresslydelegated.-Hamilton’sideaseemstobethatimpliedpowersaremadepossiblebystrikingtheword“expressly”fromsimilarclauses.-Hamilton’sargumentstemsmorefromastructuralismapproach.TheConstitutionsurelycouldnothavemeantforasystemofbrokenpowersthatwouldn’tallowCongresstoreachtheendpointoftheirpowersduetotheirlackingthemeansofgettingthere.ButwhatdoesNecessarymean? -Doesitlimitorexpandpowers?ClassHypo:CouldCongressmandatesailingeducationinschoolsbaseduponthepremisethatithasthepowertomaintainanavy?SmallGroup:Wefeltlikeitcouldbejustified.We’veinstitutedadraftinpreviousdecades,whywouldn’titbesomethingCongresscoulddoiftheyfeltit“necessary”?-ItseemslikelywithuseoftheN&PClause.WhileCongressmayfinditnecessary….isitproper?N&PClauseisnotunlimited.MusthavesomethingtodowithArtISec8powers.McCulloughv.Marylandclassdiscussion:WhichpowersofCongressgiveittheabilitytocharteraNationalBank?Congress’broadenedfinancialpowersundertheConstitution.TheArticlesmelteddowninlargepartduetofundingdifficulties.Asaresult,manymorefinancialcontrolsareputinthehandsofCongressundertheConstitution.OnewayCongressmightcontrol,organize,makeefficientthesepowersisthroughaNationalBank.InevaluatingConstitutionalquestions,wemustexaminepolicyquestionsaswell.InexaminingthepolicyjudgmentofCongress,weneedtofigureoutiftherewasarationalbeliefontheirbehalfthatcreatingaNationalBankwouldcreatemeanstoanend(s).Ifit’srational,it’sprobablynecessaryintheeyesofCongress.

Argument2ofMcCullochv.MarylandWednesday,February10,2016

McCullochv.Maryland:Summary:ThestateofMarylandenactedataxthatwouldforcetheUnitedStatesBankinMarylandtopaytaxestothestate.McCulloch,acashierfortheMarylandBankwassuedfornotcomplyingwiththeMarylandstatetax.Rule:Congressmayenactlawsthatarenecessaryandpropertocarryouttheirenumeratedpowers.TheConstitutionisthesupremelawofthelandandstatelawscannotinterferewithfederallawswhentheyareinthescopeoftheConstitution.Facts:CongresscharteredtheSecondBankoftheUnitedStates.Brancheswereestablishedinmanystates,includingMaryland.Inresponse,theMarylandlegislatureadoptedanActimposingataxonallbanksinthestatenotcharteredbythestatelegislature.JamesMcCulloch,acashierfortheBaltimorebranchoftheU.S.Bank,wassuedforviolatingthisAct.McCullochadmittedhewasnotcomplyingwiththeMarylandlaw.McCullochlostintheBaltimoreCountyCourtandthatdecisionwaslateraffirmedbytheMarylandCourtofAppeals.ThecasewasthentakenbywritoferrortotheSupremeCourt.Issue:DoesCongresshavetheauthoritytoestablishaBankoftheUnitedStatesundertheConstitution?Held.Yes.Judgmentreversed.MarylandclaimedthatbecausetheConstitutionwasenactedbytheindependentstates,itshouldbeexercisedinsubordinationtothestates.However,thestatesratifiedtheConstitutionandgaveconsent.Therefore,theConstitutionissupremeandtakesprecedentoverthelawsofthestates.ThereisnoenumeratedpowerwithintheConstitutionallowingforthecreationofabank.However,thenecessaryandpropersaysthatCongresshasthepowertomake“alllawswhichshallbenecessaryandproperforcarryingintoexecutiontheforegoingpowers.”TheSupremeCourtdeterminesthroughConstitutionalconstructionthat“necessary”isnotalimitation,butratherappliestoanymeanswithalegitimateendwithinthescopeoftheConstitution.BecausetheConstitutionissupremeoverstatelaws,thestatescannotapplytaxes,whichwouldineffectdestroyfederallegislativelaw.Therefore,Maryland’sstatetaxonthenationalbankisunconstitutional.RECAP:Question/Argument1was“DoesCongresshavethepowertocreateanationalbank?Yes!

• Dependedoninterpretingthe“necessaryandproper”clause

Today’sArgument/Question2:CantheStateofMarylandtaxthatbank?CreationàPreservationGiventhatCongresshasthepowercreate,someoneELSEmustnothavethepowertodestroy!Let’sbreakitdowninlogic:

1. Congresshasthepowertocreatethebank.(Alreadyestablished)a. Supremacyclause:Wereallymean“Congresshasthepower,”not“Congresshas

thepoweronlyifthestatesapprove.”2. Thepowertocreatenecessarilyentailsthepowertopreserve.3. ThepowertopreserveinAisinconsistentwiththepowertodestroyinB,forallA,B

a. “Apowertodestroywieldedbyadifferenthandishostiletoandincompatiblewiththesepowerstocreateandtopreserve”,saysMarshall

4. Therefore,nobodyelsemayhavethepowertodestroythebank.a. Whenthishappens,thesupremeauthoritymustcontrol,saysMarshall

**Taxing=destruction.Istaxingdestruction?

• MeddlingwiththebankISdestroyingit• There’sarightforthebanktobeunchanged/unmessedwith…andnooneelse

shouldhavethepowertobeabletodothat• Supremacyclause…Congresshasthepowertodoso,sotoobadforthestates!

o WhenCongresschoosestoexercisethispower,itdoesn’tmatterwhatthestateswant.

Otherconsideration:

• States’rightsconsiderations,normativeprinciples• Slipperyslopeargument…howfarcouldthetaxinggo?• Isthereabenefitforstatestobeabletoimpedefederalinitiatives?Keepthe

governmentincheck….

Hypo:Canastatedefythefederalgovernmentwhenthefederalgovernmentisrequiringsomethingthat’sunconstitutional?

• AlienandSeditionactswereunconstitutional• Fundamentally,allpowersstilldependonpublicsupport• SupremeCourtcanclaimfederalpowerissupremeaslongasitwants,butifthe

politicalprocessandthepeoplesayotherwise,itdoesn’treallymatter• Whohasthepower?Depends!

Whatwe’rereallyaskingiswhatthepeoplecanbeconvincedtoacceptaboutthestructureoftheirpoliticalinstitutions?

• Wemustconsiderthisatalltimes…whatareyouaskingthecourttodo?Willtheydoit,regardlessofwhatthelawsays?Lawispolitics!Lawoperatesatthistensionbetween

whathappenshastobepoliticallyacceptableandbecarriedoutbypeople,butbyitself,itcarriesitsownintellectualweight.Everythingisadelicatenavigationbetweenthepowerofformallawtopersuade,andtherealitythatformallawcanonlypersuadesofar.

General Outline for 10 FEB 2016 Case Brief

McCulloch v Maryland (CB p75)

Summary

The US Government has the power to create a National Bank via the necessary and proper clause

Maryland does not have the authority to tax it because the power to tax is the power to destroy and the people of the US did not intend to give to the people of other states the means to destroy an institution of the federal government that is designed and created to meet the goals of the Congress.

Pro His

James McCulloch, cashier of the 2nd Bank of the United States Baltimore branch was charged for violating a tax law in Md. designed to tax all banks in the state. The trial court found for Maryland, and so did the Maryland appeals court (its highest court). It was then appealed to the Supremes

Facts

In 1818 Md. passed a law that would tax the 2nd Bank of the United States and created penalties for dodging the tax. McCulloch violated the law by not using the required stamped paper for notes and was charged under the law.

Issue

May the Congress create a bank? And if it may, may the state of Maryland tax its operations?

Rule of Law

"The government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action." (p 77 2nd full para) Congress has the power to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for the carrying out of its enumerated powers. Any law it passes within its authority is supreme to any created by the states on the same issue.

Holding

MD's law taxing the US Bank is unconstitutional and void.

Yes, Congress may create a bank (necessary and proper A1S8) and No, Maryland may not tax its operations (supremacy). Necessary does not mean "indispensable" or "actions without which the end cannot be achieved in any other way" - it means that Congress has many options available to it to carry out its responsibilities and is not required to choose any one way of doing something over any other.

The necessary and proper clause was placed among the powers of Congress, not among its limitations, and the terms of the clause would seem to enlarge, not shrink the powers of the government. It does not restrict government, it enables it.

On taxation, if Congress has the power to create a bank, but states have the power to tax it to death, then Congress doesn't really have the power to create the bank because the power to create must include the power to preserve. If we give the power to destroy to someone else (the states), then this is in conflict with the power to create and preserve. When there is conflict between lawful acts of Congress made pursuant to the US Constitution, then the Congressional action is supreme (A6CL2). The Constitution draws its power directly from the people, not the states. The federal government is its own sovereign because the people voted directly for the people in their states who then voted to ratify or reject the constitution. Can’t let a state sovereign claim authority over taxing a federal entity because only people from Maryland have a say in that government’s structure. Non-Marylanders would effectively be disenfranchised if Maryland could tax the fed (and every other state’s people in the process).

Class Discussion

We open with McColloch and Marshall's core arguments regarding the validity of creating the bank and how the states may exercise authority over it (They can't!):

Marshall's argument

1. Congress has the power to create the bank (Supremacy Clause - Means Congress has the power, not Congress has the power, but only if the states approve)

2. The power to create entails the power to preserve

3. The power in A to preserve is inconsistent with the power in B to mess with A

4. Nobody else may have the power to mess with the bank, including the states

(in other words and drawings)

Creation ---> Preservation

Power to preserve inconsistent with the power to destroy in someone else

Additional normative argument - States do have authority to tax their citizens and businesses in their states, but only because the people of that state elect their government officials. The states derive their power to tax from the people themselves, but the states don't have the right to tax people in other states, which is effectively what they'd be doing by taxing a bank of the United States. Here, the structure of government does not prevent abuse of the taxation power because the people being taxed, at least those not from Maryland, have no voice in the structure of Maryland's government and their taxation policies. Not a question of trust, it's a question of democracy. (State Rights vs Government Structure/Democracy)

Hypo

Constitution Federalism: May a state defy a federal law that is unconstitutional? May a state defy it even after the Supreme Court says it IS constitutional?

Group discussion: The fed can start cutting off funding to enforce states to obey the law - essentially no, the states cannot disregard the federal laws, but there will be negative implications. On the other side, the

state could just say "We don't need your stinkin' money." Scary - federal troops vs state troops (national guard).

Class discussion: There would be consequences - loss of congressional funding. State refusal could come in the shape of refusing to assist the federal government in carrying out its policies (for example, not informing immigration enforcement agents of presence of unauthorized immigrants). One of the first things the 1st Congress did was pass an unconstitutional law. The Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and so the states wrote resolutions essentially saying it was their job to prevent the "evil" of that act from coming in to force in their states. Class question: Could a state police officer arrest a federal police officer (DEA) for "stealing"/seizing personal property/federally illegal drugs? Hard to answer, but probably not going to end well in federal court.

Brief Theory Discussion: "Con Law is serious stuff - you get Con Law too wrong and bullets start flying." These serious questions about who has the authority to decide constitutionality are make or break. We're asking, "What can we convince people to accept about the structure of their government?" The Justices have to find solutions that don't tip too far into a political direction so as to avoid a constitutional crisis if the political centers don't accept the decision. It's law, but it's also very careful, very skillfully exercised politics. Law operates in tension between the moral force of the law and the fact that people must implement it.

Class Adjourned

McCullochv.Maryland

Facts:

• TheUnitedStatesestablishedanationalbankduringtheWashingtonAdministration,inspiteofprotestsfromThomasJefferson(TJ)andmembersofhisburgeoningpoliticalparty

• Afterthefirstbankexpired,CongressandtheMadisonadministrationdecidedtorenewtheNationalBankinwakeofthefinancialdifficultiesfollowingtheWarand1812andotherindustrialshenaniganswroughtbyperniciousfinanciers

• Thesecondtimearound,thenationalbankgarneredmoresupportfromthosethathadoriginallycontesteditsconstitutionality

• Afteritsreauthorization,thebankestablishedabranchinBaltimore• ThismademanypeopleinthestateofMarylandveryunhappyandwaswidelyregardedasa

badmove;thestatelegislatureattemptedtoexertitspowersoftaxationonthebank• Thebankmanagerrefusedtopaythesetaxes,resultinginthislawsuit

Proceduralhistory:

• ThelawsuitinitiatedinMaryland,withthestatecourtssidingwiththestate’srighttotaxateachleveloftheappealsprocess;thefinaldecisioninMarylandwasappealedtotheUSSupremeCourt(therewerenofederaldistrictorcircuitcourtsatthistime,IIRC)

Issues:

• DoestheConstitutionallowthefederalgovernmenttoestablishNationalBank?• DoesthestatetaxationofafederalinstitutionviolatetheConstitution?

Holdings:

• TheConstitutionallowsthefederalgovernmenttoestablishanationalbankbecauseaproperconstructionofthe“necessaryandproperclause”andthe10thAmendmentaffordsthefederalgovernmenttherighttoexercisepowersthat,whilenotenumeratedintheConstitution,areimpliedorincidentalinthefulfillmentofthoseenumeratedpowers

• AstatemaynottaxafederalinstitutionbecausetheConstitutionandalllawsenactedinpursuanceofthedutiestherein,bytheirnature,rulesupremeoverthelawsandconstitutionsoftheindividualstates;thepowerofastatetotaxbankinginstitutionsisbothcontradictoryandinferiortothepowerofthefederalgovernmenttocreateanationalbank,sotheformermustbynecessitygivewaytothelatter

Reasoning:

• Theconstitutionalityofanationalbanko Thefactthatthebank’sopponents–whobelievedittobeunconstitutional–had

changedtheirmindssincethefirstbank’sexpirationisevidence(thoughpoorevidence,inthisauthor’shumbleopinion)thatthebankisconstitutional

o Maryland’scontentionisthattheConstitutionwascraftedbytheindividualstatesactingintheirsovereigncapacities;assuch,thestatesremainthesupremepowersinthelandandcantaxanyinstitutionwithintheirborders

§ ChiefJusticeMarshallrejectedthispositionbecausetheConstitution,inhisopinion,wasenactedbythepeopleoftheUnitedStatesdirectly;thefactthattheyactedthroughstateconventionswassimplyanecessityofthispoliticalactratherthananaffirmationofstatesovereignty;thepeoplethuselectedtobindstatesovereigntybeneaththeConstitutionandthefederalgovernment

o MarshallconcludedthattheConstitutiongrantedCongressthepowertocreateanationalbank

§ TheConstitutionenumeratesthepowersofthefederalgovernment,andthe“necessaryandproper”clausemeansthattheenumerationofaspecificpowerimpliesthatthefederalgovernmentcanexercisepowersnotenumeratedinordertoaccomplishtheformer

§ Marshallbroadlydefines“necessary”tomeananylawthatmightbe“convenient,oruseful,oressential”totheenumeratedpower

• Thiscanbecontrastedwiththedefinitionof“necessary”givenbyMaryland(whichMarshallrejected),that“necessary”onlyreferstolawsthat,withoutwhich,theenumeratedpowerwouldbewhollyunattainable

§ ThepowertoestablishanationalbankorcorporationisnotenumeratedintheConstitution;however,aseriesofbroadenumeratedpowersover"theswordandthepurse"convincedMarshallthatthepowertoestablishanationalbankconformswithhisdefinitionofnecessity,sincesuchabankwouldbeextremelyusefulinexercisingfederalpowerofthe"swordandpurse"

§ MarshallfurthercontendsthatsurelytheframersoftheConstitutiondidnotintendtoimposeastrict,narrowreadingoftheimpliedpowersthatwouldinhibitCongressfromchoosingthebestmeansavailableinfavoroflimitedmeansjustifiedonlybystrictnecessity

• TheconstitutionalityofMarylandtaxingafederalinstitutiono TheConstitutionisperfectlyclearthatitslawsandthefederalinstitutionsitestablishes

aresuperiortostatelawsandconstitutions;statesovereigntywasboundedintoaninferiorpositionovertheConstitutionandtheFederalgovernment

o Doesstatetaxationofafederalinstitutionviolatethishierarchy?§ Thepowertocreateabankimpliesthepowertopreservethebank§ Thepowertotaxabankimpliesthepowertodestroythebank§ Thefederalgovernmentexercisedtheformerpower,whileastategovernment

exercisedthelatterpower§ Sinceonlyonepowercanprevail,thesuperiorpower(thefederalgovernment)

mustnecessarilyprevailo Marylandcontendsthatitdoesnotintendtoresistthefederalinstitution,butmerely

exerciseitsownlegitimatepowersupontheinstitutionwithintheboundsoftheConstitution(thatis,exercisetheirlegitimatepowerswithoutabuse)

§ Marshallrespondswiththepositionthattherightforapoliticalentitytotaxislimitedonlytothosepersonsandinstitutionsthataresubjecttoanddemocraticallyrepresentedbythatpoliticalentity

§ Thenationalbank,beinganationalinstitution,isanultimatecreationofallthepeopleoftheUnitedStates;astatetax,however,canonlybecreatedorabolishedbythepeopleofMaryland;thisfliesinthefaceofthedoctrinethattaxationandrepresentationshouldexistparalleltooneanother;acreationbyallforthebenefitofallcanonlybetaxedbythegovernmentofall

o Failingtofindotherwiseinthiscasewouldputfederalgovernmentatthemercyofthestates,andthiswasnevertheintentoftheframersoroftheAmericanpeoplewhentheyadoptedtheConstitution

• Thus,Marshallconcludesthat“thestateshavenopower,bytaxationorotherwise,toretard,impede,burden,orinanymannercontrol,theoperationsoftheconstitutionallawsenactedbyCongresstocarryintoexecutionthepowersvestedinthegeneralgovernment.[We]areunanimouslyofopinion,thatthelawpassedbythelegislatureofMaryland,imposingataxontheBankoftheUnitedStates,isunconstitutionalandvoid.”

ClassNotes:

• DaythreeoftheMcCullochv.Marylandconflict(also,ThomasPainewasacommunist)

• Marshall’s2ndQuestion:CanthestateofMarylandtaxafederalinstitution?

o Answer:no!

o Thepowertocreateimpliesapowertopreserve,andthepowertotaximpliesthepowertodestroy

§ Inthiscase,thefederalgovernmentistryingtocreate(andthuspreserve)whilethestateistryingtotax(andthusdestroy)

§ Thisisanevidentcontradictionwhereonepartymustprevail

§ ItisclearintheConstitutionthatthetextofthatdocumentandthefederalgovernmentwhichitcreatesaresuperiortothelawsandconstitutionsofthestategovernments

§ Thus,thepowertocreateandpreserveonthepartofthefederalgovernmentmustprevailintheconflictagainstthestate’spowertotaxanddestroy

o PG’ssyllogism:

§ Congresshasthepowertocreatethebank

§ Thepowertocreateentailsthepowertopreserve

§ ThepowertopreserveinAisinconsistentwiththepowertodestroyinB,forallA,B

§ Therefore,nobodyhasthepowertodestroythebank

o PGgoingfullphilosopher:whatisthebankoftheUnitedStates?IsitanentityastheCongresscreatedit?Ifso,taxingitinanycapacitymightconstituteadestructionofCongress’abilitytofullypreservethebankasCongresswishesittobe;thefinallinein

thesyllogismmightberephrased“Therefore,nobodymayhavethepowertomesswiththebank”

o Questionsonthesupremacyclause:whatifthenationalbankweretoprovideserviceslikesellingheroin,shootinglocalpoliceofficers,orfundingAl-Qaeda?DoesthefactthatCongresshasthepowertocreatesuchaninstitutionstillmeanthatthestatemustabidebyitandnotinterferewiththebank’soperationbyenforcingstatelawsagainstsuchegregiousacts?

o Modifythefirstlineofthesyllogism:“Supremacyclause:wereallymean‘Congresshasthepower’,not‘Congresshasthepoweronlyifthestatesapprove.’”

o Marshall’sresponsetothepossibilitythatCongressmightpasssuchegregiouslawsisthefactthatweliveinademocracy,andthevotersmayresistsuchmeasuresattheballotbox

§ Butisn’tthenormativeissueof“democracybeingthesolution”problematicduetotheissueofslavery?Marshall’spositionlendsauthoritytothe“states’rights”argumentthatfurtheredtheexistenceofslavery,causedthecivilwar,andresultedinacenturyofsegregationandcivilrightsabusesbecausetheindividualstatepolitiesresistednationalpolicybyexercisingthe“sovereignty”oftheindividualstate

§ MarshallwouldlikelyrespondtothiscriticismbyarguingthattheresistancetoameasurepassedbyCongresswouldbethroughnationalpoliticalchannels–Congressionalelections,Presidentialelections,Senatorialappointments,andsoon;resistingnationalpolicythroughstateauthoritydefiesthesupremacyoftheConstitutionandthefederalgovernment,meaningthatsuchresistanceisalreadyillegitimate

• Smallgroupquestion:Mayastatechoosetoignoreorresistafederallawthatthestatebelieves,withgoodreason,thatthelawisunconstitutional?Whatifthefederalcourtsrulethatthestatemustabidebythelaw,butthestatecontinuestoresist?

o Afewstudentssaidno,afewmoresaidyes,andafewwereinthefuzzymiddle(mostdidn’traisetheirhandsatall)

o ConsidertheVirginiaandKentuckyresolutions–twostategovernmentsproclaimedthattheywouldnotabidebytheAlienandSeditionActspromulgatedbythefederalgovernment

§ CouldKentuckyorVirginiaimprisonanagentofthefederalgovernmentthattriedtoenforcetheAlienorSeditionactinoneofthosejurisdictions?JeffersonandMadisonwouldlikelysayyes;itwasanopenquestionbackthen

§ Nowadays,couldColoradoarrestaDEAagentthatseizedastate-sanctionedmarijuanadispensary?Theycouldtry,butnodoubtthefederaljudiciarywouldinterveneandeitherpreventorendthedetentionofthatfederalagent

• Julius’comment:lawsagainstsegregationmayhavebeenenforcedatthestateandnationallevel,butsegregationisstilladefactorealityinmanycommunitieseventhoughithasbeendejurerepealed

o PG’sanswer:lawscanbehelpful,buttheyarenotpenicillin;clarifyingamatteroflawtoachieveasocialgoodcanonlygosofarwhensocialforcesatworkbeyondpoliticsorlawcanrecreate,reinforce,oralterthesocialproblemthelawattemptstofix

• TheCivilWarwastheultimateanswertowhathappenswhenaquestionofconstitutionallawispushedtoitsfurthestextent(“Ifyougetconlawtoobad,bulletsstartflying”)

• ConLawisabouttowhatextentcanwe,aslawyers,convinceotherpeopleisthestructureand/orfunctionofgovernment(asopposedtoabroad,theoreticaldiscussiononthemetaphysicsorontologyofthelawasasterilepoliticalphilosophyremovedfromtherealworld)

o Sometimes,thecourtswilldeclarethatwhatthelawsayssometimesmustgivewaytowhatthepublicsays;lawisultimatelypolitics,andcourtsarehesitanttoruleinsuchawaythatwouldbeanegregiousviolationofwhatconstitutesjusticeinthepubliceye

Outline for 10 February 2016

McCulloch v. Maryland (continued…)

Class on the 8th and 9th of February thoroughly discussed the facts and 1st issue before the Court: Does Congress have the authority to create a central Bank of the U.S.? Answer is Yes. For today, we moved on to the 2nd issue then before the Court: Did Maryland have the authority to tax the Bank of the U.S.? Chief Justice Marshall neatly laid out the argument that Maryland did NOT have that power. Central to this was the idea that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

- Since it was conclude in the 1st issue that Congress has the authority to create, then someone else doesn’t have the power to destroy it.

o Premise 1. Congress has power to create bank. (Supremacy Clause: We really mean “Congress has the power,” not “Congress has the power only if the states approve.”) therefore…

o Premise 2. Power to create entails power to preserve, therefore… o Premise 3. Power to preserve in A is inconsistent with the power to destroy in B,

for all A, B.: nobody else may have power to destroy the bank. Topic: But is the power to tax the same as the power to destroy? Chief Justice Marshall says on p.83 that it is “too obvious to be denied.”

- Hypo: all Microsoft products are subject to 10 million % sales tax. Pretty clearly that tax is to destroy, but what about 1%? Might do a dent, but not destroy.

- Could Marshall have just ruled Maryland can tax, but can’t tax them “a lot?” - If Bank of U.S. is an entity, the States might be destroying it by just changing its

operations. “Meddling with the bank is destroying it” it could be said. “Can’t mess with the bank” might have been the ruling.

o If Congress has power to do something, it doesn’t matter if it violates States policy. Supremacy Clause. See premise #1.

All Chief Justice Marshall’s work is done by issue #1 and supremacy clause. - After we satisfy whether Congress can create the bank, 2nd issue is pretty easy to see.

o Once Congress supremacy is established, then its easy to flow because of supremacy clause.

Topic: Normative argument by Chief Justice Marshall. Democracy, the American people, can vote out those people who create horrible legislation; what would they tolerate? p.83.

- But problem: States were engaged in Slavery at this time, so the normative issue (States’ rights) is undermined. Big Constitutional issue at the founding and still is today.

o Slave owners said we have our States rights and we can keep slavery legal otherwise we’ll leave. Went through Jim Crow. Another States rights issue, “fugitive slave act” North could have said “we have our states’ rights issue and we aren’t going to send anyone back.”

Topic: Other issue is taxation without representation. You can’t tax people from other states, “we just fought a revolution over this issue.”

- Comments from Class: Founders really didn’t like taxes. Other comment “slippery slope” may have been part of Chief Justice Marshall’s issue, wanting to avoid what states can tax. Uncooperative federalism brought up because it forces democracy to happen. Is

Chief Justice Marshall re-affirming Judicial Review? Yes, saying the Federal Government and Federal Judiciary get final word on these things.

Hypo: May a State choose to defy a Federal statute when they feel it’s unconstitutional? And even after the Supreme Court may say it’s wrong? No clear majority from the class on this question.

- States Cannot: - States Can: - Somewhere in the middle: State could just say it’s unconstitutional, and fed cuts off $.

Consequences for the States actions. o State defiance comes in many forms. Won’t carry out its policy (immigration,

won’t detain illegal immigrants), or states coming to their own conclusion (VA resolution and Kentucky Resolutions – states the position they have the right and duty bound to interpose their own powers p.89)

§ One of the first things the 1st Congress did was pass an unconstitutional law (alien and sedition act)

§ Or States could impede when the Supreme Court isn’t’ available because its non-judiciable (political cases). Luther v. Borden (1849) for example.

o “How much work can law do?” § Are the people going to put up with the States defying the Government is

the real question/answer to our hypo. • We’re asking what the people can be convinced to except of their

political institutions, one of the fundamental constraints of our system. Courts always remember this, so its important for us (as future lawyers) ask ourselves. ObamaCare, and what Chief Justice Roberts did. Big debate on what he did, was it political. Always must be on our minds.

• Law is politics, everything is politics. People often respect the authority because of our system (Bush v. Gore) There were no guns used.

o All Law must be politically acceptable because the people need to buy in to it. Delicate navigation between powers of law to persuade but that can only go so far.

These are pretty solid; read them all together and there's a really good grip on McCulloch v. Maryland, and a solid start on the federalism thing