Top Law Schools

Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

The only thing I can think of is that it is an old case, but it is one of the cases that are usually always covered. Just know about the necessary and proper clause and that the states cannot tax the federal government.

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

Thanks. I triple checked the syllabus-in past years the prof has discussed this case and concept, but this year he skipped over the whole idea. I just thought it was kinda weird...

dreman510 wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional. The other, IIRC is that Maryland's argument speaks to congress as well as the court. It tells congress that you have very limited powers because "necessary" will allow us to invalidate all kinds of means you choose because the federal government is one of enumerated powers. That the court rejects this speaks to the early court's views on federalism.

Thanks. I triple checked the syllabus-in past years the prof has discussed this case and concept, but this year he skipped over the whole idea. I just thought it was kinda weird...

It does seem weird to skip over the most deferential test in con law, if not the law as a whole.

Another question re-Conlaw, since to me it appears to be the hardest class to get a handle on. Is it important to know the old commerce clause cases (pre-new deal)? Or since a new line of cases has been established, basically remove them from my outline?

dreman510 wrote:Another question re-Conlaw, since to me it appears to be the hardest class to get a handle on. Is it important to know the old commerce clause cases (pre-new deal)? Or since a new line of cases has been established, basically remove them from my outline?

It depends on whether you want to show the evolution of the cases. That seems important to me but YMMV.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional.

any means except those that are unconstitutional or not rationally connected. Ex: the end is to support our soldiers in Afghanistan the means we use is to give royalty titles to the best soldiers. that's problematic.

The case is important mostly for use of the necessary and proper clause. Almost every brief/opinion that uses the necessary and proper clause will cite McCulloch at the outset.

legends159 wrote:

mikeytwoshoes wrote:

dreman510 wrote:Is it weird that my Prof skipped McCulloch and doesnt plan on covering it? Isnt that a huge landmark case?

McCulloch v. Maryland is important but one could probably teach the concepts with other cases.

The most important is the test of instrumental rationality. This means that if the end is legitimate, then any means that is plainly adopted to further the end is constitutional.

any means except those that are unconstitutional or not rationally connected. Ex: the end is to support our soldiers in Afghanistan the means we use is to give royalty titles to the best soldiers. that's problematic.

The case is important mostly for use of the necessary and proper clause. Almost every brief/opinion that uses the necessary and proper clause will cite McCulloch.

Right I get that, I just keep scratching my head because we never once mentioned the necessary and proper clause, nor does it appear on the syllabus anywhere. That seems a bit weird

Our professor only mentioned the case in passing. It isn't a huge deal, IMO.

its critically important in constitutional jurisprudence because of its interpretation of the federal relationship, the extent of the powers of the national government, and its influence on later cases

if your professor didn't mention it, it isn't important to you at all