Question

How might the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland make future Supreme Court decisions more complicated?
Responses

The principle of federal supremacy meant the Court would have to determine new limits on the federal government’s power.
The principle of federal supremacy meant the Court would have to determine new limits on the federal government’s power.

The Court could rule based on what it felt was right rather than basing its decisions on the Constitution.
The Court could rule based on what it felt was right rather than basing its decisions on the Constitution.

The Court could spend more time interpreting the intent of the Constitution rather than simply following it to the letter.
The Court could spend more time interpreting the intent of the Constitution rather than simply following it to the letter.

The principle of federal supremacy meant the Court would more often rule in favor of federal powers over those of individual states.
The principle of federal supremacy meant the Court would more often rule in favor of federal powers over those of individual states.

Answer 1

Correct answers: 1, 3, and 4. Option 2 is not correct.

Why:
- McCulloch established federal supremacy and broad implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, so the Court would have to define new limits on federal power (1).
- That doctrine meant the Court would often have to decide disputes in favor of federal authority over state authority (4).
- It also required more interpretation of the Constitution’s purpose and intent (broad, flexible readings) rather than a strict literal approach, making cases more interpretive and complex (3).
- Option 2 is a normative criticism (judges deciding by personal views), not a direct legal consequence of McCulloch; the case expanded interpretive latitude but didn’t mean the Court would abandon constitutional reasoning.