McCulloch v. Maryland, and why the federal reserve is constitutional.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Ah yes another boring supreme court case that only a few people here probably care about. I remember last time how I created a thread proving the constitutionality of the income tax, and of course no one responded. Which is really odd because the concept of "direct" vs "Indirect taxation" is one of the more relevant issues surrounding this recent health care bill.

In any event the power of the central bank to regulate monetary policy comes from article 1 section 8 which states:

The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


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.

So does anyone notice the General Welfare Clause being mentioned? Good because the General Welfare Clause states "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

all of the above is important to understand if one wants to examine why the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the Second National Bank in McCulloch V. Maryland. The ruling in this case was not only unanimous, but also easy to understand if one examines John Marshals opinion. This is because his examination of article one section 8 lead him to conclude that the power to coin money is not self-executing, and thus it is entirely reasonable for congress to create an administration to handle this.

[Beet]

Ah yes another boring supreme court case that only a few people here probably care about. I remember last time how I created a thread proving the constitutionality of the income tax, and of course no one responded. Which is really odd because the concept of "direct" vs "Indirect taxation" is one of the more relevant issues surrounding this recent health care bill.

You obviously are unfamiliar with Phillip.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Ah yes another boring supreme court case that only a few people here probably care about. I remember last time how I created a thread proving the constitutionality of the income tax, and of course no one responded. Which is really odd because the concept of "direct" vs "Indirect taxation" is one of the more relevant issues surrounding this recent health care bill.

You obviously are unfamiliar with Phillip.

care to explain while i eat this mac and cheese.