Look at the 1819 supreme court case mcculloch v. maryland. this will give us a look at an example of how the constitution can be interpreted.

in 1816, congress chartered the second bank of the united states - a national bank.. in 1818, the state of maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the national bank. james w. mcculloch, the cashier of the baltimore branch of the national bank, refused to pay the tax.

1.did congress have the authority to establish the bank?

2.did the maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

watch the below video to review more details about this court case and its setup.

chief justice john marshall, in the supreme court’s opinion from mcculloch v. maryland (1819), in which the court had to decide whether the constitution gave congress the power to create a national bank:

“[the] constitution [is] intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. to have prescribed the means by which government should, in all future time, execute its powers would have been to change entirely the character of the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code. it would have been an unwise attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur.”

what does chief justice marshall say about the constitution's adaptability? based on this quote, would marshall be considered to be a loose constructionist or an originalist? explain why you think this. write in complete sentences and in your own words.