In the wake of the 2000 Election, the relationship between the Supreme Court and the American states has become more important. Once derided by the Supreme Court as a 'truism, ' the Tenth Amendment has in recent years been transformed from a neglected provision into a vital 'first principle.' As such, it has provided the foundation for a series of decisions in which the Supreme Court has elevated the status of the states, often at the expense of federal power and in the face of previously settled assumptions. In this important volume, four prominent scholars--two historians and two law professors--examine carefully one of the central tenets in the Supreme Court's recent Tenth Amendment jurisprudence: the assumption that the results fashioned by a narrow majority are compelled by history and consistent with the intentions of the framers. They shed important new light on a series of decisions that mark a major change in our thinking about the nature of a constitutional system within which both the federal government and the states properly regard themselves as sovereign entities

Federalism--including its meanings and limits--remains one of the most contested principles in constitutional law. To fully understand its importance, we must turn to a landmark decision nearly two centuries old. M'Culloch v. Maryland (1819) is widely regarded as the Supreme Court's most important and influential decision-one that essentially defined the nature and scope of federal authority and its relationship to the states. Mark Killenbeck's sharply insightful study helps us understand why.

Killenbeck recounts how the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank of the United States refused to pay Maryland's tax on the bank and how that act precipitated a showdown in the Supreme Court, which addressed two questions: whether the U.S. Congress had the authority to establish a national bank and whether Maryland's tax on the bank was barred by the Constitution. In one of Chief Justice John Marshall's most famous opinions, the Court unanimously answered yes to both, authorizing the federal government to exercise powers not expressly articulated in the Constitution--and setting an alarming precedent for states--rights advocates.

The issues at the heart of M'Culloch are as important today as they were then: the nature and scope of federal constitutional authority, the division of authority between federal and state governments, and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and applying the Constitution. Situating the case within the protracted debate about the bank and about federal-state relations, the Panic of 1819, the fate of the Second Bank following the Court's momentous decision, and the ever-expanding and increasingly contentious debate over slavery, Killenbeck's book provides a virtual constitutional history of the first fifty years of the nation. As such, it shows that the development of the Constitution as a viable governing document took place over time and that M'Culloch, with its very broad reading of federal power, marked a turning point for the Constitution, the Court, and the nation.

As the Court continues to reshape the boundaries of federal power, M'Culloch looms large as a precedent in a debate that has never been fully settled. And as states today grapple with such questions as abortion, gay rights, medical marijuana, or assisted suicide, this book puts that precedent in perspective and offers a firm grasp of its implications for the future.