What were the two key principles established in *McCulloch v. Maryland* (1819)?
1. The doctrine of implied powers (upholding the creation of a national bank).
2. The supremacy of the national government over the states (denying Maryland the right to tax the bank).
In *McCulloch v. Maryland*, what was the famous quote from Chief Justice John Marshall regarding federal power?
'the power to tax involves the power to destroy'. This meant that if states could tax federal institutions, they could destroy them, violating federal supremacy.
What was the central issue in *Gibbons v. Ogden* (1824)?
The case centered on whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly on steamboat navigation on its waters, or if this power belonged to the federal government under the Commerce Clause.
How did *Gibbons v. Ogden* (1824) interpret the Commerce Clause?
The Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause very broadly, ruling that 'commerce' included navigation and transportation, not just the buying and selling of goods. It affirmed the federal government's power over interstate commerce.
What was the significance of *United States v. Lopez* (1995)?
It was the first case since the New Deal to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. It marked a shift towards a more state-centered view of federalism.
What federal law was struck down in *United States v. Lopez* (1995)?
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Court ruled that possessing a gun in a school zone was not an economic activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
What was the ruling in *NFIB v. Sebelius* (2012) regarding the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) individual mandate?
The Court upheld the individual mandate, but not under the Commerce Clause. It ruled that Congress could not compel individuals to engage in commerce, but it could enact the mandate under its power to tax.
How did *NFIB v. Sebelius* (2012) limit federal power over states regarding the Medicaid expansion?
The Court ruled that the federal government could not threaten to withhold all existing Medicaid funding from states that refused to expand their programs. This was seen as an unconstitutional coercion of the states.
