Maryland's main arguments were as follows: 1) they had the right to regulate businesses and taxes within their state 2) the federal government regulated the state banks, so why couldn't he? t a state regulates a federal bank 3) the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to charter a bank, and therefore it is unconstitutional. On the other hand, McCullough's arguments were: 1) Congress had found the creation of a national bank necessary and appropriate as a way to conduct financial operations 2) the Constitution is only a framework and not all national operations that might arise could were heard 3) the federal government is supreme over the state government, and therefore Maryland has no right to question the Second Bank of the United States. Ultimately, John Marshall rendered his verdict in favor of McCulloch and the federal government. In his explanation, he stated that because of Article I, Section 8 Congress could actually do whatever it deemed necessary under the "Elastic Clause." Additionally, Marshall referenced the Supremacy Clause when he stated, “As long as the national government conducted itself in accordance with the Constitution, its policies took precedence over state policies.” Finally, Marshall laid the groundwork for “implied powers,” or government powers that were not explicitly granted by the Constitution.