The First National Bank - John Marshall, Hidden Motives and The Necessary and Proper Clause

Chief Justice John Marshall is undoubtedly the most influential man to have ever sat upon The Supreme Court's bench. As first Chief Justice, Marshall established many principles of constitutional interpretation which are followed to this very day. His most infamous, or most legendary depending on where one stands, was his first application of the neccesary and proper clause to the always controversial issue of the national bank.

Article One, section 8, clause 18 states, "The 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."

In applying this clause to the issue of whether a national bank was authorized by the Constitution, Marshall argued in McCulloch v. Maryland that since "necessary" does not usually mean necessary as the dictionary defines it, i.e. required, but rather is often used as merely "convenient" or appropriate, the federal Government was in fact authorized to charter a national bank regardless of whether the constitution expressly authorized this power or not.

This is of course common history to any one familiar with the law - but what is not as familiar to most is Chief Justice Marshall's personal ties with the National Bank - Marshall, prior to the case, was a private shareholder in the bank and thus held a vested interest in the case's outcome. But rather than excuse himself from the decision he chose to transfer his shares in the bank to his two sons and proceed with preciding over the matter that would dictate the size and scope of the federal of government for centuries to come.

The question thus arises whether the entire contemporary system of Constitutional law is tainted with the poisons of prejudice. Is it possible that the federal government's perpetual growth and corruption finds its roots in corrupt men seeking profit through government power? Furthermore, could such corruption have been avoided by simply interpreting the word necessary as actually defined, i.e. absolutely essential? Has the Constitution been lost, not to an ideology, but to corrupt men willing to bend the law to their benefit? And if so, how has this corruption managed to secure the degree of legitimacy which men such as Marshall possess? These are the questions which must be addressed if American law is to ever be Constitutional again.