Greg Sirico
Can congress incorporate a bank? Can a state tax the national government?
These were some of the key issues that brought up in the Supreme Court case of
McCullloch v Maryland. James Madison, the judge in this case, rules in favor of
the National Government. He proclaimed that it was constitutional to have a
national bank, and not appropriate for Maryland to tax the bank.
Now we
turn the tables toward Maryland. In my reasoning I believe that Maryland can
uphold their right to tax the national bank, as well as make claims of the
"necessary and proper clause" being incorrect in it’s meaning. Maryland in my
opinion holds very good references and ideas which lead me to believe that the
national bank should never have been created, and if so created be able to have
been taxed. Both points coming from the Constitution.
Maryland as well as
every other state in the union, has the power to tax. It is a concurrent power,
which enables them (Maryland) to obtain the power to tax. The power to tax is
the power to create. Since the national bank itself is in Baltimore, I believe
the state, in which it is holds ground, which is Maryland, has some type of
property tax upon the national bank. In this point we can see how the state
government has some kind of right to tax the national bank.
Moving
forward, we come across the Necessary and Proper Clause (Elastic Clause). It is
stated in the Constitution that the government is empowered to imply this clause
to issues at hand. The controversy issue is the appropriate definition for this
word, necessary. However, necessary in Maryland’s point of view means
"indispensable" and Madison defines it as "convenient". Now in this point, it is
unjust to provide the national government with such power as this. If it is in
fact convenient for the national government, is it convenient for us the people?
The answer is no, this gives leverage to Maryland’s argument that necessary
should in-fact mean as is.
As we can see through my, and the state of
Maryland’s view, the national bank should have never been created, and even if
such an idea would have been about, it is still reprehensible for taxation.
Maryland in my belief was correct in it’s arguments, and points. Now as I
conclude, I have shown you my reasons why, and have brought me to my final
decision that there really is no equality between the state government and the
national government. In seeing this, it is appropriate to believe that the
congresses can in-fact do as they
PLEASE.