In mcculloch v. maryland, what did the state of maryland argue?
a. banks cannot be created by congress.
b. states can determine which institutions within its borders must pay taxes.
c. a federal bank must pay taxes to the state in which it is located.
d. banks may only be created by congress, not by individuals

In McCulloch c. Maryland, the State of Maryland argued that:

(A) Banks can not be created by Congress.

Since the creation of the United States, many states wanted to keep their independence and not be under the control of the new American Congress. It had been the reason for long debates between supporters of Virginia's plan and New Jersey plan supporters.

This rebellion of states against central power continued after the ratification of the constitution. In that case, Maryland did not want the US National Bank to compete with its local banks and required it to pay an annual fee to work in that state. The bank refused to pay this tax, and the state of Maryland complained that the bank was illegal.

The Maryland judges ruled in favor of the state assembly, but the US national bank appealed to the US Supreme Court, which confirmed its legality. Judge Marshall pointed out that the US Congress had more power than the states, and it had the right to create banking institutions. He explained if the authorization to create a national bank was not written in the constitution, it was because this subject was minor.

Subject: History

Chapter: The 19th Century

Keywords: The US National Bank, Maryland, the constitution of the United States

thqa5hyerhdtyyhrtwthdtjretthj