John marshall supreme court decisions?

Question

how the supreme court decisions made for the cases contribute to a greater sense of independence and nationhood. (nationalism)
McCulloch v. Marylan
Darmouth College v. Woodward
Gibbons v. Ogden

thank you

Answer 1

McCulloch v. Marylan [1819]
In short, this was an attempt of several States to control within their individual State borders, the Second Bank of the United States by preventing operation of its branches. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the unanimous judgment of the court stating that the Congress had the constitutional power to charter the bank and to have exclusive control over it. Further, this opinion denied the right of the State of Maryland to interfere with federal agencies and declared the State law unconstitutional and continued that, while admittedly sovereignty was divided between the States and national authority, the federal government is supreme within its sphere of authority. In this case he made the significant reference to Article I, Section 8, clause 18 by stating that, the words ‘proper’ and ‘necessary’ had the same meaning, thereby providing a foundation for Congress to do nearly whatever it wished.

Dartmouth College v. Woodward [1819]
Marshall’s opinion in this case made the point that a chartered corporation was a contract protected by the Constitution from legislative infringement. This addressed the effort of the New Hampshire Legislature to alter the charter of Dartmouth College (originally granted by George III) to bring it under public control. This effort was upheld by the State Supreme Court. The board of trustees then appealed to the US Supreme Court. By a vote of 5 to 1 the USSC that the New Hampshire law (under question) were unconstitutional.

Gibbons v. Ogden [1824]
This case provided the Court the opportunity to give an interpretation of the nature and scope of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce with another unanimous decision defining the questions of, what does commerce comprehend; to what extent may Congress exercise its commercial regulatory power within the separate States; does Congress have the power to regulate interstate commerce exclusive or does a State have concurrent power; should the commerce power (and inferentially other powers too) be construed broadly for the national welfare or be construed strictly in order to protect the reserved police powers of the States. By and large the court sided with the national government.

These three cases provided the foundation to expand the powers of the federal government at the expense of the States and their people, thereby expanding independence of the federal government and solidifying the concept of nationhood.