The Mccullough Vs. Maryland Case

In 1816 the Congress chartered the second Bank of the United States. Referred to as BUS. The bank was controlled by private stockholders, even though it was the depository of federal funds. State banks saw this bank as a competitor, and when the state banks began to fail during the 1818 depression, they blamed it on the BUS. One of the states laying blame on BUS was Maryland. We impose a large tax on banks not chartered within the state, and the only bank not chartered within the state was BUS. The BUS’ Baltimore branch refused to pay the tax, and Maryland sued James McCulloch, cashier for the branch. McCulloch responded by saying that the tax was unconstitutional, one of the state courts ruled in favor of Maryland, and the court of appeals

The tenth amendment was involved in this Supreme Court Case. The amendment protects the power and rights of states.

In McCuloch v Maryland, the court turned to the "necessary" and "proper" clause which grants Congress enumerated powers which include the power to regulate collect taxes. President Jackson explains the necessity in regards to the functions that the bank is trying to fulfill: The "degree of its necessity,”

Jackson felt that the National bank was a monopoly that solely benefited the wealthy and elite. According to Symposium on Successful Presidential Economic Policies, an academic journal, Jackson distrusted eastern banks and the National bank because it gave too much power to elites. Jackson was unhappy with the bank's lending policies and thought it was unconstitutional, even though he went directly against the Constitution by ignoring the supreme court's ruling in the Worcester vs. Georgia case. Stated in Article 3 section one of the Constitution, “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court,”. The Supreme court declared the National bank to be constitutional. However, the power to renew the bank’s charter laid in the hands of Jackson, whom despised the National bank for seemingly no valid reason. Jackson denied the charter to renew the bank and removed all the government money from the bank. By regularly changing bank notes for coins, the National Bank limited inflation within the country, something state and private banks failed to do. Destroying the only bank that limited inflation soon caused a depression since inflation occurred. Inflation is when there is so much money in circulation that prices rise since the value of the money decreases. Despite Jackson distrusting the bank, it was the bank whom should have distrusted him, for he was the leading force behind the five year financial crisis within the United

Under Brady v. Maryland, for a prosecutor to withhold exculpatory evidence violates the due process rights of the defendant as well as “casting the prosecutor in the role of an architect of a proceeding that does not comport with standards of justice.”(more later on how that plays with 3.8)1 It is not the case that the prosecutor has to wait for the defendant to ask for the exculpatory evidence, but is required to hand it over.2 As for the timing for when that has to handed over Model Rule 3.8 only requires “timely disclosure,” and we have seen how that is open to interpretation.3 This disclosure of exculpatory evidence, is not just limited to what a prosecutor intends to directly admit at trial, but also what promises and induces that were

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

Maryland. The case developed because of the Second National Bank that Madison created. The state of Maryland placed a tax on the National Bank. An employee of a bank branch in Maryland refused to pay this tax. When tried in the Supreme Court, Congress’ establishment of this bank was found to be constitutional. John Marshall claimed that “The power to tax was the power to destroy” thus the tax that Maryland placed on the bank was ruled unconstitutional and had to be removed The supremacy clause originated from McCulloch v. Maryland. The clause states that the Supreme Court has the final ruling on discrepancies between state and federal

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

In 1819, McCullogh v. Maryland took place. McCullogh, a business manager, is taxed twice, once at a state level, and once at a federal level. Thinking this is unjust, McCullogh sues Maryland and McCullogh wins. This court case declares national supremacy over banking.

However, the state of Maryland tried to block the activity of the national bank by imposing tax to all the notes that were issued. The branch manager of the bank in Baltimore refused to pay taxes and lawsuits were filed in the Maryland Court. However, the case was brought up to the U.S Supreme Court as the Constitution did not subjectively describe that Federal Government had the authority to establish a bank. The U.S Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled out the case that acknowledges that the Congress has the rights to establish a national bank under Article 1 Section 8 in the American Constitution. This shows that the US Constitution was vaguely described and gave the Congress an insight to pass laws as long as it is within the Constitution. However, this gave the Federal Government to create the mentality to indirectly gain more power which restricts the States sovereignty.