Federalism

(a) Declare war — DELEGATED (Article I, Section 8 — Congress only).

(b) Regulate marriage — RESERVED (states; under the Tenth Amendment, family law has historically been a state matter).

(c) Levy taxes — CONCURRENT (both federal and state governments tax).

(d) Coin money — DELEGATED (Article I, Section 8 — federal only; states are explicitly forbidden from coining money in Article I, Section 10).

(e) Establish public schools — RESERVED (states run public education, though federal funding and civil-rights laws condition that authority).

Categorical grant: federal money for a NARROW, specific purpose with detailed strings attached (e.g., funds for highway construction conditional on a state setting drinking age at 21). Congress prefers this when it wants tight control over how money is spent or to push uniform national standards.

Block grant: federal money for a BROAD policy area with relatively few conditions (e.g., TANF welfare block grants). Congress prefers this when it wants to give states flexibility to design programs, often reflecting a "devolution" or "new federalism" preference.

(a) The Court held that creating a national bank was "necessary and proper" to executing Congress's enumerated powers (taxing, borrowing, regulating commerce), even though "establish a bank" appears nowhere in Article I. Marshall famously wrote, "Let the end be legitimate ... and all means which are appropriate ... and not prohibited ... are constitutional." This established the doctrine of implied powers and gave the federal government broad latitude to act beyond its enumerated list.

(b) The Court further held that Maryland could NOT tax the bank because the Supremacy Clause makes federal institutions and laws supreme. "The power to tax involves the power to destroy" — if states could tax federal entities, they could effectively nullify federal action.

Net effect: Together, these holdings expanded federal power and constrained state power, setting the long-term constitutional foundation for an active national government.

(a) Congress justified the Act under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) — the power to regulate interstate commerce — arguing that gun violence in schools harms the educational system and ultimately the national economy.

(b) The Court held that mere possession of a gun in a school zone is NOT economic activity and has only attenuated connections to interstate commerce. Allowing this rationale would let Congress regulate virtually anything (since almost any local activity could be argued to affect the national economy), erasing the constitutional limit on federal power.

(c) Doctrinal point: Lopez was the first case in roughly 60 years to strike down a federal statute as exceeding Congress's commerce power. It reaffirmed that the Commerce Clause has outer limits and signaled a partial revival of dual-federalism reasoning, restraining (not reversing) the post-New Deal expansion of federal authority.

Examples (any two of these):

• Marijuana: Many states have legalized recreational or medical marijuana, but federal law (Controlled Substances Act) classifies it as a Schedule I drug. Federal prosecutors retain authority to enforce, even in legal-state jurisdictions.
• Immigration: "Sanctuary" cities and states limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement (ICE detainers); federal government argues this undermines uniform immigration policy.
• Voting rules: States set election procedures (registration, IDs, mail voting); federal law (Voting Rights Act, Help America Vote Act) imposes minimum standards; tension over federal preclearance after Shelby County v. Holder (2013).
• Environmental regulation: California sets stricter vehicle-emission standards; federal government has at times tried to revoke this waiver under the Clean Air Act.

Sample analysis (marijuana):

• Relevant clauses: Commerce Clause (federal power to regulate drug markets that affect interstate commerce) + Supremacy Clause (federal law overrides conflicting state law).
• Under the Supremacy Clause, federal drug law is the "supreme Law of the Land," so state legalization does NOT immunize users from federal prosecution. In practice, the federal government has chosen NOT to fully enforce against state-legal marijuana — a political accommodation, not a constitutional one. If a future administration reversed course, conflict between state and federal authority would intensify and likely be resolved in favor of federal law.