. . . . . "McCulloch contro Maryland"@it . . . . . . . . . . "McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the \"Necessary and Proper\" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has th"@en . . . . "James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James"@en . . "Im Fall McCulloch v. Maryland verk\u00FCndete der Oberste Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten 1819 eine Grundsatzentscheidung zum F\u00F6deralismus in den Vereinigten Staaten. Der Bundesstaat Maryland hatte versucht, die T\u00E4tigkeit einer Niederlassung der bundeseigenen Second Bank of the United States zu beeintr\u00E4chtigen, indem er eine Steuer auf alle Banknoten erhob, die von nicht in Maryland gegr\u00FCndeten Banken ausgegeben wurden. Der Oberste Gerichtshof erkl\u00E4rte das Gesetz zur Erhebung der Steuer als verfassungswidrig, weil es mit den impliziten Gesetzgebungskompetenzen des Kongresses im Konflikt stand, die auf der \u201Cnecessary and proper\u201D-Klausel des ersten Artikels der Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten beruhen. Die Klausel gibt dem Kongress die Befugnis, Gesetze \u00FCber den explizit genannten Katalog a"@de . . . . . . . "1122259332"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Judgment for John James, Baltimore County Court; affirmed, Maryland Court of Appeals"@en . . . . . . . . . . "unanimous"@en . . . . . "gov.ntis.AVA02154VNB1"@en . . . . "--02-21"^^ . . "McCulloch v. Maryland, foi uma decis\u00E3o da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos. O estado de Maryland tentou impedir o funcionamento de uma filial do Segundo Banco dos Estados Unidos, atrav\u00E9s da imposi\u00E7\u00E3o de um imposto sobre todas as notas dos bancos n\u00E3o fundados em Maryland. O Segundo Banco dos Estados Unidos era o \u00FAnico banco ent\u00E3o presente no estado que n\u00E3o tinha sido fundado neste. Foi reconhecido na decis\u00E3o do tribunal que o estado havia direcionado especificamente o Banco dos Estados Unidos. O Tribunal invocou a Teoria dos Poderes Impl\u00EDcitos da Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o, que permitiu ao governo Federal que aprovasse leis que n\u00E3o sejam expressamente previstos na Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o, de uma lista de poderes expressos, desde que essas leis sejam \u00FAteis em prol de poderes do Congresso, nos termos da Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o. Esse \u00E9 um julgamento dos mais importantes em mat\u00E9ria tribut\u00E1ria no mundo, j\u00E1 que o Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL da Suprema Corte Americana, ao julgar esse caso estabeleceu que 'o poder de tributar n\u00E3o pode chegar \u00E0 desmedida do poder de destruir' e lan\u00E7ou bases para os princ\u00EDpios da imunidade rec\u00EDproca tribut\u00E1ria, limita\u00E7\u00F5es ao poder de tributar e proibi\u00E7\u00E3o do efeito confisco. https://www.conjur.com.br/2013-mar-27/consultor-tributario-tributo-respeitar-valores-constitucionais"@pt . . . . . . . . . . . . . "\uB9E5\uCEEC\uB85D \uB300 \uBA54\uB9B4\uB79C\uB4DC\uC8FC \uC0AC\uAC74(McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)) \uC5F0\uBC29\uC815\uBD80\uAC00 \uC124\uB9BD\uD55C \uC740\uD589\uC5D0 \uB300\uD558\uC5EC \uC8FC\uC815\uBD80\uB294 \uC138\uAE08\uC744 \uB9E4\uACBC\uB294\uB370 \uC774\uC5D0 \uB300\uD574 \uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC740 \uC5F0\uBC29\uC815\uBD80\uC758 \uC740\uD589 \uC124\uB9BD\uAD8C\uD55C\uC740 \uD5CC\uBC95\uC5D0 \uBA85\uC2DC\uB418\uC5B4 \uC788\uC9C0 \uC54A\uC73C\uB098 \uD5CC\uBC95\uC758 \uD544\uC694\uC801\uC808\uC870\uD56D\uC5D0 \uB530\uB77C \uC740\uD589 \uC124\uB9BD\uAD8C\uD55C\uC744 \uAC00\uC9C4\uB2E4\uACE0 \uD310\uACB0\uC744 \uB0B4\uB838\uB2E4. \uB530\uB77C\uC11C \uC758\uD68C\uC758 \uC740\uD589\uC124\uB9BD\uC5D0 \uAD00\uD55C \uBC95\uB960\uC740 \uC8FC\uBC95\uC5D0 \uC6B0\uC120\uD558\uBBC0\uB85C \uC8FC\uC815\uBD80\uC758 \uC5F0\uBC29\uC740\uD589\uC5D0 \uB300\uD55C \uC870\uC138\uBD80\uACFC\uB294 \uC704\uD5CC\uC774\uB77C\uACE0 \uD310\uACB0\uD558\uC600\uB2E4."@ko . . "McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the \"Necessary and Proper\" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has the authority to tax and spend, the court held that it therefore has authority to establish a national bank, as being \"necessary and proper\" to that end. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede an operation by the Second Bank of the United States through a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was thus recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of enumerated powers of Congress if such laws are necessary and proper to further the powers expressly authorized. McCulloch has been described as \"the most important Supreme Court decision in American history defining the scope of Congress's powers and delineating the relationship between the federal government and the states.\" The case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers to implement the Constitution's express powers to create a functional national government. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch, the scope of the U.S. government's authority was unclear. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government."@en . . . . . . "McCulloch v. Maryland,"@en . . . . . . . . . "McCulloch v. Maryland"@en . . ""@en . . . . . . . . . . "\u9EA6\u5361\u6D1B\u514B\u8BC9\u9A6C\u91CC\u5170\u5DDE\u6848\uFF08 U.S. 316 (1819)\uFF09\u662F\u7F8E\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u7684\u4E00\u4E2A\u8457\u540D\u6848\u4F8B\u3002\u9A6C\u91CC\u5170\u5DDE\u5411\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u5728\u8BE5\u5DDE\u7684\u5206\u884C\u5F81\u6536\u7A0E\u6B3E\u6765\u8BD5\u56FE\u963B\u6B62\u5176\u8FD0\u8F6C\u3002\u8BE5\u5DDE\u6CD5\u6848\u867D\u7136\u5199\u660E\u9002\u7528\u4E8E\u4E00\u5207\u672A\u7ECF\u8BE5\u5DDE\u8BB8\u53EF\u7684\u94F6\u884C\uFF0C\u4F46\u5B9E\u9645\u4E0A\u4EC5\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u7684\u5206\u884C\u7B26\u5408\u6761\u6B3E\u6240\u8FF0\uFF0C\u6545\u8BE5\u6CD5\u6848\u5728\u6CD5\u5EAD\u4E0A\u88AB\u8BA4\u4E3A\u662F\u4E13\u95E8\u9488\u5BF9\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u3002\u6CD5\u5EAD\u63F4\u5F15\u5BAA\u6CD5\u4E2D\u8BF4\u660E\u56FD\u4F1A\u6709\u6743\u901A\u8FC7\u6709\u5173\u672A\u5217\u5165\u5BAA\u6CD5\u5374\u5408\u5BAA\u7684\u6CD5\u6848\u3002 \u8FD9\u4E00\u57FA\u672C\u4E8B\u4F8B\u4F9D\u5982\u4E0B\u4E24\u9879\u539F\u5219\uFF1A 1. \n* \u5BAA\u6CD5\u6388\u4E88\u56FD\u4F1A\u4F7F\u5176\u80FD\u591F\u5C65\u884C\u5BAA\u6CD5\u8D4B\u4E88\u7684\u6743\u5229\uFF0C\u7EC4\u5EFA\u529F\u80FD\u5B8C\u5907\u7684\u653F\u5E9C\u3002 2. \n* \u5DDE\u653F\u5E9C\u65E0\u6743\u7ACB\u6CD5\u963B\u6B62\u8054\u90A6\u653F\u5E9C\u884C\u4F7F\u5408\u5BAA\u6743\u5229\u7684\u884C\u4E3A\u3002 \u672C\u6848\u7684\u6700\u7EC8\u88C1\u51B3\u7531\u9996\u5E2D\u5927\u6CD5\u5B98\u7EA6\u7FF0\u00B7\u9A6C\u6B47\u5C14\u64B0\u5199\u3002"@zh . . . . . . "4"^^ . . "McCulloch contro Maryland \u00E8 un caso giudiziario affrontato dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti nel 1819. Il caso, nato dal tentativo dello stato del Maryland di ostacolare l'attivit\u00E0 della Seconda banca degli Stati Uniti d'America, ha portato la Corte Suprema a stabilire che il governo federale ha alcuni poteri impliciti, non enumerati espliticamente nella Costituzione, e che il potere dei singoli stati di interferire con le decisioni del governo federale \u00E8 limitato. Poich\u00E9 defin\u00EC la portata dei poteri federali e del Congresso in relazione a quello dei singoli stati, la sentenza McCulloch contro Maryland \u00E8 considerata la decisione pi\u00F9 importante presa dalla Corte Suprema."@it . . . "1819"^^ . . . . "McCulloch v. Maryland"@en . . . . "Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it delegates the ability to tax and spend. Since a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue, and federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed."@en . . . "17"^^ . . "\uB9E5\uCEEC\uB85D \uB300 \uBA54\uB9B4\uB79C\uB4DC \uC8FC \uC0AC\uAC74"@ko . . . . . "McCulloch contro Maryland \u00E8 un caso giudiziario affrontato dalla Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti nel 1819. Il caso, nato dal tentativo dello stato del Maryland di ostacolare l'attivit\u00E0 della Seconda banca degli Stati Uniti d'America, ha portato la Corte Suprema a stabilire che il governo federale ha alcuni poteri impliciti, non enumerati espliticamente nella Costituzione, e che il potere dei singoli stati di interferire con le decisioni del governo federale \u00E8 limitato."@it . . "--03-06"^^ . . . . "McCulloch v. Maryland, foi uma decis\u00E3o da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos. O estado de Maryland tentou impedir o funcionamento de uma filial do Segundo Banco dos Estados Unidos, atrav\u00E9s da imposi\u00E7\u00E3o de um imposto sobre todas as notas dos bancos n\u00E3o fundados em Maryland. O Segundo Banco dos Estados Unidos era o \u00FAnico banco ent\u00E3o presente no estado que n\u00E3o tinha sido fundado neste. Foi reconhecido na decis\u00E3o do tribunal que o estado havia direcionado especificamente o Banco dos Estados Unidos. O Tribunal invocou a Teoria dos Poderes Impl\u00EDcitos da Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o, que permitiu ao governo Federal que aprovasse leis que n\u00E3o sejam expressamente previstos na Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o, de uma lista de poderes expressos, desde que essas leis sejam \u00FAteis em prol de poderes do Congresso, nos termos da Constitui\u00E7\u00E3o."@pt . "McCulloch v. Maryland"@de . . . "Marshall"@en . . "--03-03"^^ . "James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James"@en . . "\uB9E5\uCEEC\uB85D \uB300 \uBA54\uB9B4\uB79C\uB4DC\uC8FC \uC0AC\uAC74(McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819)) \uC5F0\uBC29\uC815\uBD80\uAC00 \uC124\uB9BD\uD55C \uC740\uD589\uC5D0 \uB300\uD558\uC5EC \uC8FC\uC815\uBD80\uB294 \uC138\uAE08\uC744 \uB9E4\uACBC\uB294\uB370 \uC774\uC5D0 \uB300\uD574 \uB300\uBC95\uC6D0\uC740 \uC5F0\uBC29\uC815\uBD80\uC758 \uC740\uD589 \uC124\uB9BD\uAD8C\uD55C\uC740 \uD5CC\uBC95\uC5D0 \uBA85\uC2DC\uB418\uC5B4 \uC788\uC9C0 \uC54A\uC73C\uB098 \uD5CC\uBC95\uC758 \uD544\uC694\uC801\uC808\uC870\uD56D\uC5D0 \uB530\uB77C \uC740\uD589 \uC124\uB9BD\uAD8C\uD55C\uC744 \uAC00\uC9C4\uB2E4\uACE0 \uD310\uACB0\uC744 \uB0B4\uB838\uB2E4. \uB530\uB77C\uC11C \uC758\uD68C\uC758 \uC740\uD589\uC124\uB9BD\uC5D0 \uAD00\uD55C \uBC95\uB960\uC740 \uC8FC\uBC95\uC5D0 \uC6B0\uC120\uD558\uBBC0\uB85C \uC8FC\uC815\uBD80\uC758 \uC5F0\uBC29\uC740\uD589\uC5D0 \uB300\uD55C \uC870\uC138\uBD80\uACFC\uB294 \uC704\uD5CC\uC774\uB77C\uACE0 \uD310\uACB0\uD558\uC600\uB2E4."@ko . . "U.S. Const. art. I, \u00A7 8, cl. 1, 18"@en . . . "146270"^^ . . . . "\u9EA6\u5361\u6D1B\u514B\u8BC9\u9A6C\u91CC\u5170\u5DDE\u6848"@zh . . "\u9EA6\u5361\u6D1B\u514B\u8BC9\u9A6C\u91CC\u5170\u5DDE\u6848\uFF08 U.S. 316 (1819)\uFF09\u662F\u7F8E\u56FD\u6700\u9AD8\u6CD5\u9662\u7684\u4E00\u4E2A\u8457\u540D\u6848\u4F8B\u3002\u9A6C\u91CC\u5170\u5DDE\u5411\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u5728\u8BE5\u5DDE\u7684\u5206\u884C\u5F81\u6536\u7A0E\u6B3E\u6765\u8BD5\u56FE\u963B\u6B62\u5176\u8FD0\u8F6C\u3002\u8BE5\u5DDE\u6CD5\u6848\u867D\u7136\u5199\u660E\u9002\u7528\u4E8E\u4E00\u5207\u672A\u7ECF\u8BE5\u5DDE\u8BB8\u53EF\u7684\u94F6\u884C\uFF0C\u4F46\u5B9E\u9645\u4E0A\u4EC5\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u7684\u5206\u884C\u7B26\u5408\u6761\u6B3E\u6240\u8FF0\uFF0C\u6545\u8BE5\u6CD5\u6848\u5728\u6CD5\u5EAD\u4E0A\u88AB\u8BA4\u4E3A\u662F\u4E13\u95E8\u9488\u5BF9\u7F8E\u56FD\u7B2C\u4E8C\u94F6\u884C\u3002\u6CD5\u5EAD\u63F4\u5F15\u5BAA\u6CD5\u4E2D\u8BF4\u660E\u56FD\u4F1A\u6709\u6743\u901A\u8FC7\u6709\u5173\u672A\u5217\u5165\u5BAA\u6CD5\u5374\u5408\u5BAA\u7684\u6CD5\u6848\u3002 \u8FD9\u4E00\u57FA\u672C\u4E8B\u4F8B\u4F9D\u5982\u4E0B\u4E24\u9879\u539F\u5219\uFF1A 1. \n* \u5BAA\u6CD5\u6388\u4E88\u56FD\u4F1A\u4F7F\u5176\u80FD\u591F\u5C65\u884C\u5BAA\u6CD5\u8D4B\u4E88\u7684\u6743\u5229\uFF0C\u7EC4\u5EFA\u529F\u80FD\u5B8C\u5907\u7684\u653F\u5E9C\u3002 2. \n* \u5DDE\u653F\u5E9C\u65E0\u6743\u7ACB\u6CD5\u963B\u6B62\u8054\u90A6\u653F\u5E9C\u884C\u4F7F\u5408\u5BAA\u6743\u5229\u7684\u884C\u4E3A\u3002 \u672C\u6848\u7684\u6700\u7EC8\u88C1\u51B3\u7531\u9996\u5E2D\u5927\u6CD5\u5B98\u7EA6\u7FF0\u00B7\u9A6C\u6B47\u5C14\u64B0\u5199\u3002"@zh . "None"@en . . . . . . . "1819"^^ . "McCulloch v. Maryland"@en . "316"^^ . "22708"^^ . . "Im Fall McCulloch v. Maryland verk\u00FCndete der Oberste Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten 1819 eine Grundsatzentscheidung zum F\u00F6deralismus in den Vereinigten Staaten. Der Bundesstaat Maryland hatte versucht, die T\u00E4tigkeit einer Niederlassung der bundeseigenen Second Bank of the United States zu beeintr\u00E4chtigen, indem er eine Steuer auf alle Banknoten erhob, die von nicht in Maryland gegr\u00FCndeten Banken ausgegeben wurden. Der Oberste Gerichtshof erkl\u00E4rte das Gesetz zur Erhebung der Steuer als verfassungswidrig, weil es mit den impliziten Gesetzgebungskompetenzen des Kongresses im Konflikt stand, die auf der \u201Cnecessary and proper\u201D-Klausel des ersten Artikels der Verfassung der Vereinigten Staaten beruhen. Die Klausel gibt dem Kongress die Befugnis, Gesetze \u00FCber den explizit genannten Katalog an Zust\u00E4ndigkeitsbereichen hinaus zu verabschieden, solang diese Gesetze \u201Enotwendig und angebracht\u201C sind, die explizit genannten Gesetzgebungskompetenzen umzusetzen. Die Rechtsprechung zu den impliziten Kompetenzen hat als Implied-Powers-Doktrin Eingang in das V\u00F6lkerrecht und weitere Rechtsordnungen gefunden."@de . "Caso McCulloch v. Maryland"@pt . . . . . . . . . . .