N McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that state law could create a state bank.
could not override federal law.
required the federal bank to pay taxes.
was constitutional.

could not override federal law.

Explanation:

McCulloch v. Maryland was a litigation or court case between the national bank known as The Second Bank of the United States and the state of Maryland with respect to the tax that was imposed on it by the state.

Basically, the state of Maryland passed a legislation to impose taxes on bank notes ($15,000 annually) of any bank that is not chartered in the state of Maryland.

However, James W. McCulloch who was head at the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank objected and refused to pay the tax. Consequently, the appellate court of Maryland ruled that the Second Bank was established unconstitutionally because the federal government is not provided a textual commitment by the constitution to charter a bank.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall ruled that the Federal government of USA has certain implied powers accorded or given to it by the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution but are not explicitly stated therein. Therefore, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can establish a national bank because of its implied powers accorded or given to it by the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Hence, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that state law could not override federal law.

answer; the negotiator was not in full control of his or her actions and hence should not be held responsible;