The supreme court’s ruling in mcculloch v. maryland, that federal law is superior to state law, directly influenced which case?
a. marbury v. madison
b. united states v. stevens
c. united states v. simms
d. gibbons v. ogden


What was part of the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland?

State governments are supreme over the federal government.

Congress can establish a national bank.

The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.

The answer is Congress can establish a national bank.

the third one. The supreme court has the power of judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland

directly influenced the Gibbons v. Ogden case.


The case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) enabled the Supreme Court to establish that Congress had implied powers under the "Necessary and Proper Clause" of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States.  This ruling barred the state of Maryland from taxing the Bank, an establishment of the federal government.

In a unanimous judgement presided over by Justice Marshall, the court ruled that the Federal Government had the right and power to set up a Federal bank and that states did not have the power to tax the Federal Government or its establishment, concluding that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

The Facts of the case:

The branch of the federal government bank's in Baltimore, Maryland  refused to pay the tax imposed by the state of Maryland.  Maryland sued James McCulloch, who was the cashier of the branch, to enforce collection of the tax debt.  In his response, McCulloch noted that the tax was unconstitutional.  A Maryland State court ruled in favor of Maryland and the court of appeals affirmed the ruling, before it was taken to the Supreme Court, which reversed the ruling in McCulloch's favor.

The next case that benefit from the above Supreme Court judgement was the case of Gibbons v. Ogden.  In Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), another landmark decision was made by the Supreme Court of the United States in which it held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.  This opened the way for the federal government to regulate interstate trade.

Facts of Gibbons v. Ogden

A New York state law gave Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a 20-year monopoly over navigation on waters within state jurisdiction. Aaron Ogden and other competitors tried to forestall the monopoly without success.  Thomas Gibbons, a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal coastal license – formed a partnership with Ogden, which fell apart after three years when Gibbons operated another steamboat on a New York route belonging to Ogden. Ogden filed suit against Gibbons in New York state court, and received a permanent injunction.  The New York state court rejected Gibbons’ argument asserting that U.S. Congress controlled interstate commerce.

In their review and conclusion, Justice Marshall with other Justices, stated that only Congress had the power to regulate navigation by steamboat operators and others who were conducting interstate commerce in accordance with the Commerce Clause.  The law by New York state was therefore declared invalid.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank. Arguably Chief Justice John Marshall's finest opinion, McCulloch not only gave Congress broad discretionary power to implement the enumerated powers, but also repudiated, in ringing language, the radical states' rights arguments presented by counsel for Maryland.

At issue in the case was the constitutionality of the act of Congress chartering the Second Bank of the United States (BUS) in 1816. Although the Bank was controlled by private stockholders, it was the depository of federal funds. In addition, it had the authority to issue notes that, along with the notes of states' banks, circulated as legal tender. In return for its privileged position, the Bank agreed to loan the federal government money in lieu of taxes. State banks looked on the BUS as a competitor and resented its privileged position. When state banks began to fail in the depression of 1818, they blamed their troubles on the Bank. One such state was Maryland, which imposed a hefty tax on "any bank not chartered within the state." The Bank of the United States was the only bank not chartered within the state. When the Bank's Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax, Maryland sued James McCulloch, cashier of the branch, for collection of the debt. McCulloch responded that the tax was unconstitutional. A state court ruled for Maryland, and the court of appeals affirmed. McCulloch appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1819.

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court ruled that the Bank of the United States was constitutional and that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional. Concerning the power of Congress to charter a bank, the Court turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, which expressly grants Congress the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of its "enumerated powers." The enumerated powers of Congress include the power to regulate interstate commerce, collect taxes, and borrow money. Said the Court famously, "let the ends be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." In other words, because the creation of the Bank was appropriately related to Congress's legitimate power to tax, borrow, and regulate interstate commerce, the Bank was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Second, the Court ruled that Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank because, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States trump conflicting state laws. As Marshall put it, "the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action, and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land." Because "the power to tax is the power to destroy," Maryland was unconstitutionally undermining the superior laws and institutions of the United States.

Finally, the Court held that the "sovereignty" (political authority) of the Union lies with the people of the United States, not with the individual states that comprise it. The United States, not a simple alliance of states, is a nation of "constitutional sovereignty" with its authority resting exclusively with "the people" who created and are governed by the Constitution. To the Court, "the government of the Union is a government of the people; it emanates from them; its powers are granted by them; and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit." Maryland's tax, however, violated constitutional sovereignty because it acted as a levy against all the people in the United States by a state accountable to only some of the people.


Marbury v. Madison, which relied on precedent


The Marbury v. Madison case (5 US 137 1870) is a judicial proceeding before the Supreme Court of the United States and resolved in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 judges of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.

The new secretary of state of President Jefferson's government, James Madison, refused to hand over the appointment records because the new government was irritated by the federalists' maneuver to try to secure control of the judiciary by appointing members of its board. party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.

If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judicial Law, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.

I believe the answer is: B. Marbury v. Madison, which relied on precedent

Marbury v. Madison gave the power for the court to strikedown the constitutions that contravene the untied states constitutions. This influence the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland which allow the federal government to strikedown the legislations which passed by the state of Maryland.


Mc Culloh vs Mary land is the most important supreme court case about federal power. The cause for the case was that when Maryland placed a prohibitive tax on the banknotes of the second bank of the United States, the Maryland court upheld this law. The bank later appealed to the supreme court. The case was argued by Daniel Webster and others on behalf of the bank. The opinion of the court was written by chief justice John Marshall.  He said that Congress gave the congress the powers to make laws for carrying out the specific powers which were conferred by the congress in section eight of Article first of the constitution. It empowered the federal government.


B. Marbury v. Madison, which relied on precedent


-McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is one of the first and most important Supreme Court cases on federal power. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Congress has implied powers derived from those listed in Article I, Section 8.

-Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government.

D.Gibbons v. Ogden

The Answer Is D. Gibbons V. Ogden On Ed

Do you know the answer?

Other questions on the subject: History

History, 21.06.2019, amontgomery51
The House votes to determine who wins the presidency. Further Explanation: According to Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution the Electoral College is the body which elects...Read More
1 more answers
1) Republic2) He believed in the absolute power of kings.3) The bill ensured superiority of Parliament over the monarchy.4) He proposed that government be divided into separate bra...Read More
3 more answers