Editing McCulloch v. Maryland (section)

==Criticism==
Though Marshall rejected the Tenth Amendment's provision of [[states' rights]] arguing that it did not include the word "expressly," unlike the [[Articles of Confederation]], which the Constitution replaced,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-elessons/mcculloch-v-maryland-1819/ |title=Bill of Rights Institute: Landmark Supreme Court Cases – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)|work=Bill of Rights Institute}}</ref> controversy over the decision's impact on [[Federalism in the United States|federalism]] has persisted. Legal scholar [[Raoul Berger]] argued that Marshall's interpretation marked an "audacious departure" from the original design of the Constitution, undermining the original federal government structure intended by the [[List of national founders|Founders]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Berger |first=Raoul |url=https://archive.org/details/federalismfounde00berg/mode/2up?q=audacious |title=Federalism : the Founders' design |date=1987 |publisher=Norman : University of Oklahoma Press |others=Internet Archive |isbn=978-0-8061-2059-1}}</ref> [[Compact theory]] also argues that the federal government is a creation of the states and that the states maintain superiority. 

Unlike Marshall, his successor, [[Roger B. Taney]], established [[dual federalism]] by which separate-but-equal branches of government are believed to be a better option.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/24/10th-amendment-history-and-purpose/|title=10th Amendment: History and Purpose|work=Tenth Amendment Center|date=February 24, 2009|author=Justin D. Lowry}}</ref> Legal scholars such as [[Gary S. Lawson|Gary Lawson]] have contended that Marshall misinterpreted the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] of the Constitution. Lawson argues that Marshal equated "necessary" with "convenient" or "useful," which permitted an [[overly broad]] expansion of congressional power.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lawson |first=Gary S. |date=December 1, 2023 |title=What Mcculloch V. Maryland Got Wrong: The Original Meaning of 'Necessary' is Not 'Useful', 'Convenient', or 'Rational' |url=https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/faculty_scholarship/article/4259/&path_info=McCulloch_v._Maryland_published.pdf |journal=[[Boston University School of Law]] |volume=75 Baylor Law Review 1}}</ref> 

Legal scholar [[Nelson Lund]] has argued that Marshall's ruling, "invited congressional overreach and gave inadequate weight to the powers of the states."<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Destructive Legacy of McCulloch v. Maryland - Nelson Lund |url=https://lawliberty.org/forum/the-destructive-legacy-of-mcculloch-v-maryland/ |access-date=2025-05-06 |website=Law & Liberty |language=en-US}}</ref> Lund and others have argued that the decision set a precedent that gave too much discretion to Congress, expanding its constitutional powers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schwartz |first=David S. |title=McCulloch v. Maryland and the Incoherence of Enumerationism |journal=The Georgetown Journal of Law and Policy |volume=19:25}}</ref>