We specialize in hard to find items
All Categories
The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. Maryland
Share Tweet
*Price and Stocks may change without prior notice
*Packaging of actual item may differ from photo shown
- Electrical items MAY be 110 volts.
- 7 Day Return Policy
- All products are genuine and original
About The Spirit Of The Constitution: John Marshall And
Product Description 2019 marks the 200th anniversary of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in American history: McCulloch v. Maryland. The state of Maryland tried to impede the establishment of the Bank of the United States, but Chief Justice John Marshall decided that the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution gave the federal government implied powers that allowed it to charter the bank without hindrance. The decision expanded the power of the national government vis-à-vis the states, and it still figures centrally in contemporary debates about the scope of national legislative power. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts' 2012 decision upholding the Affordable Care Act relied on it. In The Spirit of the Constitution, David S. Schwartz tells the story of the decision's long-term impact and the evolution of Justice Marshall's reputation. By tracing the rich history of McCulloch's influence from 1819 to the present, he shows that its meaning-and significance-for judges, political leaders, and the public varied greatly over time. The case was alternately celebrated, denounced, ignored, and reinterpreted to suit the needs of the moment. While Marshall was never reviled, he was not seen as especially influential until the late nineteenth century. Competing parties utilized McCulloch in constitutional debates over national power in the early republic; over the question of slavery in the late antebellum period; and over Congress's role in regulating the economy and civil rights in the twentieth century. Even after McCulloch's meaning seemed fixed by the mid-twentieth century, new debates about its implications have emerged in recent times. Schwartz's analysis of McCulloch's remarkable impact reaffirms the case's importance and unveils the circuitous process through which American constitutional law and ideology are made. Review "David Schwartz has written an indispensable study of the single most important Supreme Court case in the canon. As such, he delineates not only the meaning and importance of the case in 1819, but also the use made of it over the next two centuries as it became a central myth and symbol of the very meaning of American constitutionalism."--Sanford Levinson, author of Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance "With compelling clarity, David Schwartz uses the many re-interpretations of McCulloch v. Maryland to illuminate the whole arc of American constitutional development, and draws a surprising but vital conclusion: it is wiser to look to the precedents set by elected legislative and executive officials, as well as our current needs, to decide what our constitutional system requires to fulfill its great goals-rather than asking 'what would John Marshall do?'"--Rogers M. Smith, Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania and President, American Political Science Association, 2018-2019 "Professor Schwartz brilliantly shows that courts and scholars have gotten Chief Justice Marshall's famous opinion in McCulloch v Maryland wrong and misunderstood its role in the Court's history. This remarkable work of history is a must-read for anyone interested in constitutional law because Schwartz's findings should have profound consequences for Supreme Court decisionmaking in areas ranging from health care to federalism to civil rights. This is a major contribution."--William M. Treanor, Paul Dean Professor and Dean and Executive Vice President, Georgetown University Law Center "Professor Schwartz's book challenges the thinking of those who believe that the towering Marshall Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland stands for legal principles that are clear and specific. It carefully explores the ambiguities in the Court's opinion and, in the process, illuminates some of the most fundamental problems-too often slighted or denied-of American constitutionalism. It is particularly valuable in its convincing demonstration of the i
