Eventually, the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Marshall decided that Maryland did not have the Constitutional right to impose any taxes on a federal bank, and he upheld that the National Bank was constitutional, invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause found in Article 1 of the Constitution, which states that Congress has the 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," (U
S. Const. art. I, S 8). Marshall explained in his case opinion that the federal government has the implied power to create a national bank because it would be impossible to list each and every power that the government could have in a single document. He says that if this were the case, the Constitution, "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind," (Woll, 76). He also furthers his stance by explaining that the federal government, "is supreme within its sphere of action," (Woll, 76). In the end, the Supreme Court decided that a taxation placed on the National Bank by Maryland was unconstitutional and that this National Bank, despite local displeasure, would remain in affect.
Upon further examination, one could argue that the actions of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland were a dangerous and illegal attempt to advance the power of the federal government. First and foremost, the Constitution was and still is today a document that was ratified by the States. These States did not agree to be governed by any implied powers of the Supreme Court, but rather they bound themselves to the written word of the Constitution. The judges of the Supreme Court were not and still are not elected by the people, so therefore it should not be up to them to voice what they think is right.