{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025500910746812388, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01092896174863388, 'mean_word_length': 5.620481927710843, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“As Far as Human Prudence Could Insure”

Despite ample opportunity, Chief Justice Marshall did not build on McCulloch v. Maryland to engage in nation-building through his constitutional decisions. In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Marshall construed the term “commerce” to include navigation, and struck down a state monopoly over steamboat travel. Gibbons is widely understood as an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause that joins McCulloch in establishing the constitutional foundations of broad federal legislative powers. Yet Gibbons made no mention of McCulloch and marked a significant retreat from McCulloch’s conception of implied powers. Indeed, from McCulloch’s issuance in 1819 to the end of Marshall’s life in 1835, the Marshall Court never cited McCulloch’s discussions of constitutional interpretation, nationalist constitutional theory, or implied powers. Marshall’s studied refusal to endorse implied commerce powers is best explained as resulting from his desire to keep the Court out of the two incendiary issues of constitutional politics: internal improvements and slavery.