[Anonymous]

Did Marshel contradict himself in United States v. the Planters’ Bank of Georgia and if so how?

Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic.

http://www.amazon.com/Aggressive-Nationalism-McCulloch-Foundation-Authority/dp/0195323564

“The other case turned out to be The Bank of the United States v. the Planters’ Bank of Georgia (1824). When Marshall finally handed down his decision in the two cases, he made no attempt to link them up. If anything, the decision he handed down in the Georgia case contradicted in an important way his decisions in McCulloch and Osborn.”

Richard E. Ellis. Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic (p. 8).

[Anonymous]

Yes he did.The real question in this (McCulloch v. Maryland) case wasn’t so much whether the federal government could open a bank but wether this bank was really federal. The government only had 20% of stock in the Maryland bank. The question was, is this really a federal bank for it didn’t really operate like one. Should a private bank be allowed to escape state taxes simply because it claimed to be federal? Marshel didn’t even address those arguments in his opinion. he appears to have changed his mind from McCulloch v. Maryland…

http://i47.tinypic.com/3469rgh.png

page 11

Stanford Law Review
Vol. 9, No. 4 (Jul., 1957)
contains: McCulloch v. Maryland Right Principle, Wrong Case
Harold J. Plous and Gordon E. Baker
pp. 710-730 (21 pages)

[Author]

Posts