Changes

In ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal government and the state of [[Maryland]].  Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose?  The federal government, of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is.  It held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers.  The states cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]].  (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state.  The Court voided the tax.)

In ''McCulloch v. Maryland'' (1819), the [[Supreme Court]] decided a contest between the federal government and the state of [[Maryland]].  Guess which side the [[Supreme Court]] chose?  The federal government, of course, because that is what the [[Supreme Court]] itself is.  It held that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the [[Constitution]] gives [[Congress]] broad powers.  The states cannot interfere with a law passed by [[Congress]].  (In this case, [[Maryland]] tried to tax the national bank operating within its state.  The Court voided the tax.)

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years.  Not until Justice William Rehnquist arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] (see handout) did the tone start to change.  Here are some more examples:

The expansion of federal power continued in the courts for another 150 years.  Not until Justice William Rehnquist arrived to the [[Supreme Court]] did the tone start to change.  Here are some more examples:

In ''Gibbons v. Ogden'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the Commerce Clause to include virtually any business activity between two or more states.  This greatly reduced the power of states to regulate commerce.

In ''Gibbons v. Ogden'' (1824), the [[Supreme Court]] interpreted the Commerce Clause to include virtually any business activity between two or more states.  This greatly reduced the power of states to regulate commerce.