" However, McCulloch v. Maryland settled the question of national supremacy for a time. Justice Marshall wrote that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. If the Bank, an entity of the federal government, could be taxed out of existence by the states it would be a breach of Article VI, one of the fundamental principles of the Constitution --the supremacy of the national government. " (American Government , Page number 56).
In 1828, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina revived the doctrine of nullification. Calhoun contended that the national government was but a servant of the states and that the Constitution was a compact that directed the national government as an agent of the states in its actions. Calhoun's theory of nullification would have allowed a state to declare a federal law null and void. This issue was settled by a civil war. The victory in the civil war determined that the federal union is indissoluble and that states cannot declare acts of congress unconstitutional. After the Civil War, federalism focused more on the commerce clause of the constitution and the doctrine of dual federalism emerged which held that the national government and the state were equally supreme in their respective spheres. The concept of dual federalism implied that Congress could regulate interstate commerce and states could regulate intrastate commerce. However, as the era of dual federalism continued, federal authority into areas such as the power to regulate business and the economy, as well as civil rights increased. In time, the effort that distinguished interstate from intrastate commerce was pretty much abandoned. The Court began to permit the Federal Government to regulate almost any kind of commerce. However, the doctrine of dual federalism is not entirely dead. For example, in United States v Lopez (1995), the court held that Congress had exceeded its commerce clause power by prohibiting guns in a school zone.
