Letter: McCulloch v. Maryland allowed abuse of federal power
I take issue with Dr. Pfister's treatment of the "Great case of McCulloch v. Maryland" (Sept. 25, 2022) in which he waxes eloquently of the Supreme Court's magnificence. Chief Justice Marshall's loose tongue in declaring the definition of "necessary" (from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution) to mean "convenient" is a maneuver that a fifth grader could see through and is but one of many usurpations the Supreme Court has justified in similar fashion. A great number of things can be categorized as "convenient" that would never be characterized as "necessary." This is obvious for those that possess common sense. For Marshall to argue otherwise illustrates ulterior motives or ignorance. Based on information in the article, I'll grant him his ulterior motive: an attempt to provide a foundation for expanding federal power. Marshall belongs to a segment of society who believe in the supremacy of the federal government in erring on expanding federal powers instead of limiting them as a written constitution is meant to do.
Dr. Pfister relishes the role Marshall played in expanding the powers of the federal government, stating that "From time to time, we need a McCulloch-type activist case to set the course for the future." Would Dr. Pfister be so inclined to agree with a Clarence Thomas-type or Antonin Scalia-type activist to set the course for the future, albeit in a polar opposite direction? I think not.
Convoluted logic and sloppy redefinition of common-sense words allow for the continued growth and abuse of federal power. Chief Justice Marshall sought to expand blossoming federal powers through a slight of hand argument where the ends justify the means. The Constitution was not saved that day … it was sacrificed for the sake of a power grab that continues to this day.
Chris Hall
Adrian
This article originally appeared on The Daily Telegram: Letter: McCulloch v. Maryland allowed abuse of federal power
