Compare the points of view of Wilson, Clemenceau, and Lloyd George at the Paris Peace Conference.

The Paris Peace Conference.. what a disaster. It was intended to resolve post-WWI disputes and settle territories after the war, but only ended in saddling Germany with massive reparations that led to another world war.

Clemenceau was the ambassador from France. Because France and Germany had a long-standing grudge, and because France was so close to Germany and had been invaded during the war, Clemenceau wanted to pin Germany with a very high amount of reparations, remove all their freedoms like raising a large standing army, and occupy the Rhineland, a coal production zone in Germany. This punitive way of going about things was definitely not the best in hindsight.

Lloyd George was the ambassador from Britain. He took a bit more of a lenient approach than France, but nevertheless he exerted considerable pressure to force Germany into many of these crippling reparations, like the vindictive War Guilt Clause that made Germany admit guilt for the entire war.

Wilson was the ambassador from the United States. He didn't want as many reparations as the other two, but he really loved his new idea of the League of Nations, which was a new association of countries that he believed could help prevent another war. Along with his Fourteen Points, which included this LoN idea, he was super excited about self-determination and less concerned about the reparations idea.

both are true, the congress does have the power to create banks, even if this power is not specifically described in the constitution, since there is nothing restricting it and there is power given to the congress to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper". maryland was not allowed to tax a branch of the national bank operating there, and the supreme court decided that no state could. both of these topics were discussed in a decision of the mcculloch v. maryland case in 1819.