No. There were no established precedents for McCulloch v. Maryland, the first US Supreme Court case dealing with the implied constitutional powers of Congress. McCullough was an early challenge to the division of power between the state and federal governments, prompted by the vague wording of the Tenth Amendment.
The decision in this case set a precedent for future cases, such as Gibbons v. Ogden, (1824).
Additional Note:
Chief Justice Marshall referenced a Connecticut case, Montague v. Richardson, 24 Conn. 348, to explain his interpretation of the Tenth Amendment as being similar to a judge's construction of a particular state statute: "A pension is a bounty for past services rendered to the public. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants. Statutes protecting his interest in it, until so used, are of a remedial nature and entitled to a liberal construction"
Marshall's corollary:
"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
Case Citation:
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
Gibbons v Ogden
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
What is the problem of McCulloch v. Maryland?
What were the long-term consequences of the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland?
McCulloch v. Maryland prevented states from taxing the federal government. The state of Maryland was trying to impose a tax on all bank notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. At the time, the only bank of this sort in Maryland was the Second Bank of the United States.
Maryland wins
Marbury v. McCulloch is a confused mixture of two different cases heard by the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall.One case is Marbury v. Madison, (1803), and the other is McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819).
This case allowed for a broad interpretation of the powers of the federal government.
Marbury V. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Scott VS. Sandford (1857)
What Constitutional power did McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819 test?
James McCulloch was cashier and head of the Baltimore, Maryland, branch of The Second Bank of the United States who refused to pay a new tax the State of Maryland attempted to impose on the bank. McCulloch was the nominal defendant in Maryland's case against the federal government in the state courts, and the petitioner in the US Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819).Case Citation:McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)For more information about McCulloch v. Maryland, see Related Links, below.
McCulloch v. Maryland settled that the National Bank was constitutional. Also it settled that Maryland does not have the power to tax a institution created by congress.