The supreme court case mcculloch v. maryland ensured that: a. it remained unclear whether a state law could contradict a federal one. b. states did not have the power to tax citizens or businesses within their states. c. states could operate their own banks without interference from the federal government. d. a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the constitution.

The correct answer is D. The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland ensured that a state law could be declared illegal if it contradicted the Constitution.

Explanation:

McCulloch v. Maryland is a famous case of the US Supreme Court. Maryland had imposed taxes on branches of the US Second Bank in the state to try to stop it from operating. Although the state law that imposed it stated that it applied to all banks that were not licensed by the state, in fact only the branches of the second US bank were in compliance with the terms, so the law was considered to be created specifically for it. The court invoked the necessary and appropriate provisions of the Constitution to show that Congress had the power to pass laws regarding themes that were not explicitly named in the Constitutional text.

Thus, the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution granted Congress the implicit right to fulfill its constitutional rights and to form a fully functioning government.

It also said that the state government had no power to legislate to prevent the federal government from exercising constitutional rights.

1.3x - 2 - (3.3x + 5) = 2x + 1

1.3x - 2 - 3.3x - 5 = 2x + 1

-2x - 7 = 2x + 1

-7 = 4x + 1

-8 = 4x

x = -2

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is