Case Studies � Political Science 2301

Case Studies � Political Science 2301 - Case Studies...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Studies – Political Science 2301     1. McCulloch v. Maryland – Pg. 184 2 nd  U.S. Bank = Unpopular with many  Maryland opposes U.S. Bank, levies state taxes on ALL banks NOT  chartered by them Maryland court upholds tax o U.S. appeals to Supreme Court Maryland argues that the U.S. Bank is unconstitutional  Supreme court rules in FAVOR of U.S. stating that Congress must  have “implied powers” in order to execute the enumerated ones o Intergovernmental tax immunity – REASON why Maryland  could NOT tax the Federal Bank 2. Texas v. White – Pg. 189 TX wanted to recover bonds issued by the Confederacy during the  Civil War
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Supreme court ruled that the Union is indestructible, therefore TX  continued to be a state of the Union during the Civil War SINCE the Confederacy was ILLEGAL…the bonds had NO VALUE 1. Gibbons v. Ogden – Pgs. 185, 198, 204 1 st  examination of commerce clause Supreme court RULED that the constitution PROHIBITED states  from interfering with the regulation of STEAMBOATS involved in  interstate commerce in New York waters o o Gibbons STARTED to navigate THIS route Ogden sued Gibbons
Background image of page 2
Marshall decided that the COASTING ACT overpowered the state  monopoly given to Ogden hence Gibbons. o Marshall sided with FEDERAL SUPREMACY 2. Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia – Pg. 208 Pennsylvania law required that ships entering or leaving MUST  employ a pilot o Cooley was CITED for NOT abiding this law He APPEALED stating the law was unconstitutional Supreme court UPHELD the citation upon “Selective Exclusiveness” o States could regulate ASPECTS of commerce in the ABSENCE  of federal laws THIS case is EXEMPLARY of Taney’s “Dual-Federalism” idea 3.  U.S. v. EC Knight – Pg 208 USA sued American Sugar Refining Companies (Including Knight) Court OVERTURNED suit.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
o Stated that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act did NOT apply to  monopolies like Knight’s because Congress could NOT  regulate manufacturing or production because it is indirectly  related to COMMERCE. Direct-Indirect Effects Doctrine – IF an activity affected commerce 
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/14/2008 for the course PSC 2320 taught by Professor Mansfield during the Fall '08 term at Baylor.

Page1 / 20

Case Studies � Political Science 2301 - Case Studies...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online