FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Most Americans cannot fathom a U.S. political system in which states have as much or more power than the federal government. Today, the supreme authority of the federal government is a given. But it wasn’t always so, and the fact that today’s conservative Supreme Court has declared several federal statutes unconstitutional demonstrates that the court is still wrestling over a balance of power between federal and state governments.

In his new book, M’Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation, the author, Mark Killenbeck, a University of Arkansas School of Law professor, explains why the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the landmark 1819 case defined the nature and scope of federal authority and its relationship to the states.

In M’Culloch v. Maryland, justices of the nation’s highest court decided that Congress had the authority to create the Second Bank of the United States, and states could not interfere with the bank’s activities by taxing notes issued by the bank. The decision authorized the federal government to exercise powers not expressly articulated in the Constitution -- an alarming precedent for states-rights advocates -- and laid the foundation for a debate that continues today, more than 150 years after the bank ceased to exist.

As Killenbeck states, the case is important for several reasons. It established parameters for judicial review by the Supreme Court and thus confirmed that the court would play an important role in the political process. Equally important, the court’s ruling in M’Culloch v. Maryland made it clear that the powers of the federal government, expressed or implied, are limited but supreme. As such, the decision laid an essential foundation for what would eventually become an extraordinary expansion of federal authority. For example, without M’Culloch, Killenbeck writes, Franklin Roosevelt probably would not have been as successful in pursuing his New Deal initiatives as a way to pull the United States out of the Great Depression.

By explaining the case within the context of the protracted debate about federal-state relations, the Panic of 1819, and the ever-expanding and increasingly contentious debate over slavery, Killenbeck gives breadth and depth to the constitutional history of the first 50 years of the United States. His book recounts the evolution of the Constitution as a viable, governing document and presents M’Culloch, with its broad reading of federal power, as a turning point for the Constitution, the court and the nation.

Issues at the heart of M’Culloch resonate today: the nature and scope of federal constitutional authority, the division of authority between federal and state governments and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting and applying the Constitution. As both the states and the federal government struggle with difficult questions such as abortion, medical marijuana and assisted suicide, the legal precedent of M’Culloch looms large.

“The consensus is that the principles for which M’Culloch stands lie at the heart of the American constitutional order,” Killenbeck said. “This is one case that no one interested in the Constitution or the history of this nation can afford to ignore.”

Published by the University Press of Kansas, M’Culloch v. Maryland: Securing a Nation will be available Aug. 16 in major bookstores and on Amazon.com.

Killenbeck is the Wylie H. Davis Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas. He has a special interest in federalism and American constitutional history. He is the author of numerous books and chapters, and his articles have appeared in journals such as Supreme Court Review, California Law Review and Michigan Law Review.