In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, why did some states oppose the idea of a national bank?

Question

anonymous · Answer

It seems like you want to copy and paste an answer, considering you are unwilling to simply paraphrase from Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I will give you a one sentence answer to help you out. McCulloch v. Maryland was a Supreme Court case decided in 1819 permitting the Second Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Maryland and supported by Alexander Hamilton and Federalists, on the basis that a National Bank is "necessary and proper" (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) to carry out the Government's power to tax, and thus permitted the Federal Government to exercise "implied powers" which were derived from "express powers" written in the Constitution. Here is a relevant quote: "If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect." - Chief Justice John Marshall I hope you read up on the Supreme Court and learn for yourself how this third branch of government interacts with the other two, how the relationship has evolved over time, and thus how the rights you and I enjoy are secured and sometimes denied. Source(s): http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=21 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0017_0316_ZS.html