In 1819, Congress charters a national bank; Maryland taxes it, claiming states may restrain federal intrusions. Supporters argue implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause let Congress choose convenient means to execute enumerated powers, and state taxes could destroy federal supremacy. Opponents insist strict construction limits Congress to listed powers and reserves banking regulation to states. Which case and constitutional interpretation best fit?
- Gibbons v. Ogden; strict construction of the Commerce Clause, treating intrastate navigation as reserved to states despite interstate spillover effects.
- McCulloch v. Maryland; broad (loose) construction using the Necessary and Proper Clause and Supremacy Clause to uphold the bank and bar state taxation. (correct answer)
- United States v. Lopez; broad reading of the Spending Clause to justify conditions on state education funding unrelated to commerce.
- NFIB v. Sebelius; strict construction of the Taxing Power to invalidate all federal taxes that influence private behavior.
- Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine; requiring states to administer federal bank regulations because federal law is supreme.
Explanation: This question tests understanding of constitutional interpretations of federalism through the landmark case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The scenario describes Congress chartering a national bank and Maryland attempting to tax it, which directly parallels the historical case. The correct answer demonstrates broad (loose) construction of federal powers, where the Court interpreted the Necessary and Proper Clause to give Congress implied powers beyond those explicitly enumerated, and used the Supremacy Clause to prevent states from interfering with federal operations. The other options incorrectly describe the holdings or apply the wrong cases - Gibbons dealt with commerce, not banking; Lopez involved strict construction limiting federal power; NFIB addressed taxing power differently; and anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal commands to states, not state taxation of federal entities. The key strategy is recognizing that both nationalist (broad construction) and states' rights (strict construction) interpretations are legitimate constitutional frameworks, but McCulloch established precedent for implied powers.