AP U.S. GOVERNMENT & POLITICS · UNIT 1 · 2026–2027
Where Does National Power End?
Work in pairs or trios. Rotate reader, evidence finder, and challenger; in a pair, share the third role. Each student writes responses in a notebook. Write before opening a hint or model explanation.
1. McCulloch v. Maryland · 1819 · 4 points
Facts: Congress chartered a national bank. Maryland taxed bank notes issued by banks not chartered by the state, affecting the national bank's Baltimore branch. James McCulloch refused to pay.
Questions: Could Congress create a bank even though the Constitution did not expressly list that power? Could Maryland tax the national institution?
Holding and reasoning: The Court upheld Congress's authority to create the bank as an appropriate means of carrying out enumerated powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It rejected Maryland's tax because states may not use taxation to undermine a valid instrument of the national government. This connected implied powers to constitutional supremacy.
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution”
Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion, excerpt · Official U.S. Reports opinion. The opinion links legitimate constitutional ends to appropriate means; it does not grant unlimited national power.
Your brief: Without copying, write one sentence for each: facts, constitutional issue, holding, and constitutional reasoning. Award one point for each accurate element.
Hint
Keep two parts: the authority to create the bank, and the state's attempted taxation. “The federal government won” is not a constitutional explanation.
2. United States v. Lopez · 1995 · 4 points
Facts: A student brought a handgun to school and faced a federal charge under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Congress relied on its commerce power to prohibit possessing a gun in a school zone.
Question: Did the Commerce Clause authorize this federal prohibition?
Holding and reasoning: The Court invalidated the challenged provision as beyond Congress's commerce power. Gun possession in a local school zone was not itself economic activity. The provision did not require a case-specific connection to interstate commerce; the government's proposed chain from guns to education to the national economy would greatly expand national authority over local matters.
Official U.S. Reports opinion · Article I, Section 8: Commerce Clause.
Your brief: Write the same four elements. Award one point per accurate element. Distinguish the specific federal law from the general ability of governments to regulate firearms.
Hint
The constitutional issue was the scope of Congress's commerce power. The decision did not declare that states could not regulate guns near schools, and it was not a Second Amendment holding.
3. Compare the reasoning · 4 points
- Explain why McCulloch supported national action while Lopez limited it. Identify the constitutional provision and reasoning in each. 2 points
- Explain one principle both decisions share. Do not say only that both involved federalism. 2 points
Check your comparison
McCulloch accepted a bank as an appropriate means of carrying out enumerated powers and protected it against state interference. Lopez found the school-zone gun prohibition too remote from the commerce power. Both treated national power as constitutionally grounded and subject to judicial interpretation: the question was whether the national action stayed within delegated authority. For each response, award one point for accurate evidence and one for the explanation.
4. Four-minute moot court · 4 points
Assign a national-government advocate, a challenger, and a judge; in pairs, take turns judging. Use the original 1990 provision at issue in Lopez. Advocates each get one minute; the judge gets two minutes to ask questions and explain the decision.
- Government: Argue that gun violence can disrupt education and affect the economy. Explain why Congress should be able to act.
- Challenger: Ask what limiting principle would prevent that reasoning from reaching nearly every local activity.
- Judge: Distinguish the policy's possible benefits from Congress's constitutional authority.
Award one point each for a relevant constitutional clause, use of the case facts, a response to the opposing argument, and a reasoned decision. Then compare your reasoning with the actual holding above.