what did the supreme court rule about the second bank of the united states
Second Bank of the United States By the time of Jackson's inauguration in 1829, the national bank appeared to be on solid footing. The U.S. Supreme Court had affirmed the constitutionality of the bank under McCulloch v. Maryland, the 1819 case which Daniel Webster had argued successfully on its behalf a decade earlier,[62] the U.S. Treasury recognized the useful services it provided, and the American currency was healthy and stable.[63] Public perceptions of the central bank were generally positive.[64][65] The bank first came under attack by the Jackson administration in December 1829, on the grounds that it had failed to produce a stable national currency, and that it lacked constitutional legitimacy.[66][67][68] Both houses of Congress responded with committee investigations and reports affirming the historical precedents for the bank's constitutionality and its pivotal role in furnishing a uniform currency.[69] Jackson rejected these findings, and privately characterized the bank as a corrupt institution, dangerous to American liberties.[70]
Necessary and Proper Clause This clause, as justification for the creation of a national bank, was put to the test in 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland,[6] wherein the state of Maryland had attempted to impede the operations of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on out-of-state banks, of which the Second Bank of the United States was the only one. The court ruled against Maryland, and Chief Justice John Marshall, Hamilton's longtime Federalist ally, wrote the opinion, which stated that while the Constitution did not explicitly give permission to create a federal bank, it conferred upon Congress an implied power to do so under the Necessary and Proper Clause so that Congress could realize or fulfill its express taxing and spending powers. The case reaffirmed Hamilton's view that legislation reasonably related to express powers was constitutional. Marshall wrote: