Meme: Supreme Court Cases

[dlgood]

Meme gacked from liz_marcs: In an upcoming interview with Katie Couric to be aired this week, Sarah Palin is unable to name any Supreme Court Case other than Roe v. Wade.

The Rules: Post info about ONE Supreme Court decision, modern or historic, to your lj. (Any decision, as long as it's not Roe v. Wade.)

Given my home state, and the current credit crisis, I felt I would go with this noteworthy case from the John Marshall Court:

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

The State Legislature of Maryland imposed a tax that the Bank of the United States to issue its notes on special stamped paper. The legislature also stated that the BUS needed to pay the state $15,000 annually or go out of business. James McCulloch, a cashier at a branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax and a suit was filed. The State of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the Federal Government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.

Although the Constitution didn't specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it did delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank was a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws hold supreme over state laws, Maryland didn't have the power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it.

The most memorable phrase in

McCulloch

was Marshall's comment that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy". The Court ruled that a State could not levy taxes against Federal Government Agencies because this would run counter to the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.

Comments

[maquisleader.livejournal.com]

I learned about two actually in my Govt class and my Hist 120 class just a year or so ago. Brown v. The Board of Education and Plessy v. Ferguson. Off the top of my head, since in an interview I wouldn't be able to jump on the 'net.

I think that Plessy v. Ferguson was the "seperate but equal" for education of blacks and whites was okay while Brown v. The Board of Education overturned that decision and said "no, it's not". *crosses fingers*

Would I have known more than Roe v. Wade before these recent classes? No.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Yup - Plessy vs. Ferguson "seperate but equal" and Brown "seperate is inherently unequal"

Would I have known more than Roe v. Wade before these recent classes? No.

Sure, but you're not running for president ;-) The President should be aware of a few more.

Which is why McCullogh is one I wrote down - because it helps define what the Federal Government's role is, and what it isn't. Because if you're asking me to trust the government, I'd like to trust that you know what i can and can't do.

I will say this, finally, about the McCain-Palin ticket. You tell me you'll be a reformer and that you'll bring change to Washington. But you can't explain how you'll pay for anything you propose and you won't name a single thing the Bush Administration has done wrong over the last eight years they've run the government or and the last twelve of fourteen years the Republicans have run the Congress. You can't tell me anything you'll do differently. How can I possibly trust your promise as a reformer?

And this, again, is coming from someone who was on record as preferring McCain over both Bush and Gore in 2000. I would have voted for that McCain, but as far as I can tell he's gone.