According to the supreme court, why could maryland not tax the national bank? o a tax on a federal bank would be a tax on all citizens. o states must pay the federal government, the federal government does not pay the states. o the federal government cannot afford to pay state taxes. o banks cannot be subject to any tax laws.

Best answer (of the choices given):

Honestly, none of those answers seem to capture the main essence of the McCullough v. Maryland decision.  Chief Justice John Marshall argued that it was ultimately the people of the country who had ratified the Constitution of the United States.  Thus, he contended, the people, not the states, are sovereign.  So a state could not assert its authority over a power the people had granted to the federal government.  The core issues in McCullough v. Maryland were whether or not a state had the right to tax a federal institution and whether or not the federal government had the right to create a national bank.

Explanation:

The ruling in the case of McCullough v. Maryland (1819) was based on the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.   After enumerating a number of the powers of Congress, including borrowing money, coining money, regulating commerce, etc, Section 8 of Article I closes with by saying Congress shall have power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."   The establishment of a National Bank was, according to this constitutional principle, something the federal government had a right to do.

Chief Justice Marshall, in writing the Court's opinion, said this:

die.

explanation:

5xxgm4a77dg128164 look this up plz