Final Answer:
The fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. argued that taxing the Bank of America is unconstitutional based on the premise that the Constitution states, "The POWER TO TAX INVOLVES THE POWER TO DESTROY."
Step-by-step explanation:
Chief Justice John Marshall, who served as the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, made a critical observation that the power to tax carries within it the potential to destroy. This statement underscores the idea that excessive taxation can cripple or eliminate the entities subject to taxation. Marshall then applied this principle to assert that taxing the Bank of America was unconstitutional.
Marshall's argument can be unpacked by examining the constitutional implications. According to him, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, establishes the limits and boundaries of governmental authority. In the case of taxation, Marshall believed that imposing undue financial burdens on institutions like the Bank of America would go beyond the intended scope of federal power outlined in the Constitution.
Moreover, Marshall likely considered the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) in his reasoning. While granting Congress the authority to make laws necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers, Marshall may have contended that taxing the Bank of America, in this context, exceeded the bounds of what was deemed necessary and proper for the functioning of the federal government.
In essence, Chief Justice Marshall's stance highlighted the delicate balance between governmental powers and individual rights as defined by the Constitution, and his assertion regarding the potential destruction through taxation serves as a foundational principle in constitutional law.