Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and the newspaper debate between Chief John Marshall and Judge Spencer Roane of the Virginia Court of Appeals.

Write a 10-12 page, double-spaced, paper about the Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and the newspaper debate between Chief John Marshall and Judge Spencer Roane of the Virginia Court of Appeals. Readings: 1. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). 2. “John Marshall, ‘A Friend of the Constitution’: In Defense and Elaboration of McCulloch v. Maryland; Introduction: Unearthing John Marshall’s Major Out-of-Court Constitutional Commentary.” This may be found in the Stanford Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Feb., 1969), pp. 449-455 3. “Essays from the Alexandria Gazette, John Marshall, ‘A Friend of the Constitution.’” This may be found in the Stanford Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Feb., 1969), pp. 456-499 4. Essays of “Amphictyon” and “Hampden” (I will send this to you as a PDF file). As you read the above documents and write your paper, consider the questions found below and keep in mind that this landmark case addressed the most fundamental issues of the American legal, constitutional, and political system—federal relations, separation of powers, resolution of constitutional disputes, and the meaning of popular sovereignty. It is important to appreciate that these contested topics divided Americans at the time of the founding and continue to divide Americans at the present. 1. Briefly describe and analyze Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland. 2. Discuss and analyze Marshall’s and Roane’s view of the union and the Constitution. 3. Discuss and analyze Marshall’s and Roane’s understanding of the meaning of the necessary and proper clause. Why was their disagreement so important? 4. Discuss and analyze the two judges’s positions concerning who or what should act as an umpire to resolve constitutional disputes. 5. Examine the disagreement about which people were sovereign. Were the sovereign people one national body or were they the people of the states who acted as distinct and independent political communities? Were the people an active or a passive sovereign? Why were some people considered free persons but not sovereign citizens? Were slaves included in the idea of the people? 6. Who had the stronger arguments? Why?