Jump to content

Talk:McCulloch v. Maryland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

removing vandalism by [65.120.80.8 (4×)]

Added supreme court form on right side

[edit]

New to editing wikipedia, but I added the court case table on the side, working of that from another case. All the infomation is correct, but I neglected to add the 'Previous History' or 'Citations' as I am unsure of the correct format.

Thanks for adding that. I did some finishing work on it; see User:Postdlf/court case infobox for full instructions and another example on how to complete it. Postdlf 02:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, just what I needed. Is there an easy way to find a list of citations? Or do you need access to lexisnexis/US court reporting? What is the etiquette for adding it to the list of boxed cases at you page? Ec- 02:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just a question... How was the case argued on Feb. 29 if 1819 is not a leap year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.169.144 (talk • contribs)

Good catch—it wasn't. The argument date in the article was changed from February 22 to February 29 by a vandal a couple weeks ago.[1] Thanks for noticing that! Postdlf 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments

[edit]

I hope somebody can help me. This case was argued before the Supreme court. The decision -- which is significant -- is posted in many places on the web. But I have not been able to find any listings of the arguments for either side. The atorneys for the bank and the state had to present clear concise legal arguments to the court for a decision to be made. They had to present oposing arguments -- not wrong arguments. Maryland argued a view which was considered valid by lower courts. The bank's arguments were struck down by the lower courts. I am wondering what those arguments were. Does anybody know of a site where the texts of the arguments in this case can be found? --Jason Palpatine 05:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really answer your question per sé, but in general it is much more difficult to find things like full argument transcripts than the decisions. This is even more true for a case that likely took place before consistant court stenographing (a word?). It probably exists somewhere, but you most likely need a access to some sort of specialized print resources. --Ec- 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be better to see if any historians have written on the subject and summarize what they say—surely since it's such a well-known case, there is at least one scholarly book that discusses the various arguments that were made. --Delirium 18:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LexisNexis. Also check your local law library. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic contains some summaries of the sides. Among other tidbits, it also points out that the case was rigged in the lower courts - the Bank and the state agreed on the state's victory so as to get the case to the Supreme Court for constitutionality checking ASAP. Link hyrule5 (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is full of false information. but i heard bryan burchall was gay and thats true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyman14295 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

The Background section contains "The legislature handed down also stated", which is ungrammatical. The page is protected so I can't fix it. What needs to be done to fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattKraai (talk • contribs) 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the phrase "handed down". In the future you can have an administrator edit pages by using the {{Editprotected}} template: ~ Eóin (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it not be incorporated? The burden of proof is on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.186.116 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to the description of the second established principle:

"2. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government."

Nowhere in the text of the Opinion submitted by Justice Marshall does the word Federal appear (with one exception wherein it is not capitalized, denoting the meaning federation, not a proper name). What we today call a Federal Government, and what that name actually means and its relationship to the constitution is a topic for debate. What is not is that the Justice recognized a Federal Government at the time of the opinion. ChewyBees (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source from redirected page

[edit]

The page James William McCulloch is redirecting here - but before it did that, it has a source that isn't listed in this article:

  • Hall, Kermit L. et al., American Legal History: Cases and Materials, second ed., Oxford Press:New York. 1996.

Use it as you will. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The power to tax is the power to destroy

[edit]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" is used quite frequently and came out of this case. Perhaps a section on this would be in order? TMLutas (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that was a phrase said by Daniel Webster. Although I may be wrong... Lord Roem (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.bartleby.com/73/1798.html. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding mention of promissory notes

[edit]

Even newer to editing, so want to tread very carefully, but I noticed a factual error a short time ago and corrected it, and just noticed that it had been reverted: the term "discount promissory notes" is incorrect. According to Black's Law Dictionary, a bank is a financial institution that takes deposits, makes loans and issues promissory notes. Promissory notes are issued when discounting or rediscounting ("accepting") bills of exchange, thus, a bill of exchange is "discounted" (or rediscounted), where a promissory note is "issued." Also, a banknote is simply a small denomination promissory note. I realize most people won't know the difference, but the primary purpose of commercial and central banks is to offer "accommodation" in the form of discounting and rediscounting bills of exchange, as it states in the original preamble to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. User:Justicesoldier —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the opinion itself, not Black's. "...as a branch of the said Bank of the United States, by issuing bank notes and discounting promissory notes, and performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform..." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 318 (1816) (emphasis added). As I said in my edit summary (you should really read those) when I reverted your edit, what Black's currently says about banks generally is completely irrelevant; only what the Supreme Court said about this bank two hundred years ago is factually correct. Now if you can find a source specifically commenting on this opinion and calling out the Court for making an error, that would be a different matter. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McCulloch v. Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McCulloch v. Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McCulloch_v._Maryland&oldid=1208384896"