How are implied powers related to the creation of the Nation Bank? Who agreed with these?

Implied powers actually came into existence during the first session of Congress. Somone noticed that the president had the right to appoint people (with the advice and consent of the senate) but the constituion neglected to say who had the right to fire these people. Washington was on the edge. John Adams, a noted orator, was on one side. I think (not sure) was Jefferson on the other. Jefferson had a high squeaky voice (so much so that he didn't even give addresses to Congress but sent an orator in his place). Washington (who was not the brightest candle in the chancelier) fell for the oratory and decided that even though the constituion did not give the government that power, it could imply that power.

Three years later, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the notion of implied powers should have been discarded, but it wasn't.

As to the matter about the nation banks, you have to understand that during the constituional convention, the matter of national banks had been discussed and rejected. Why? Because they were deemed to be the road to corruption.

Madison (our 3rd president) and Hamilton (Secy. of Treasury under his administration) were the authors of the Federalist Papers. They were written to encourage VA, NY, MA, CT, RI, and NH to ratify the Federalist's dream of a government. But it was to no avail. The Anti-Federalists won the day and there would be no ratification of the constitution.

Madison asked the states to ratify it under the condition that he present a Bill of Rights in the first session of congress that would allay their fears and take the all-powerful central government down a few notches. With the Bill of Rights, the States, and then the people had more power than the federal government.

It was done and 3 years later, the Bill of Rights was Ratified. (1791) Implied powers should have died, but Madison and Hamilton had another idea.

Here is where the national banks come in. Madison and Hamilton established a national bank (not constituional) and put it in Maryland. Maryland objected and the case went before the Supreme court (Mc Culloch v. Maryland)

A few years before - in an almost exclusively Federalist Congress and an exclusively Federalist Supreme court (and Executive branch), the court gave itself an unconstituional power called "judicial review". This meant that they said that they could decide if something was constituional or not and how to interpret the constitution. When the Federalists had no objection to that grossly illegal decision (because the court had no constitutional authority to do that) it took the matter a step further.

The 10th Amendment says that congress shall have no power unless granted it by the Constitution. Teh court said that it should be interpreted to mean that congress shall have EVERY power unless specifically denied it by the constituion - and even those powers expressly denied could be assumped under the necessary powers clause and through implied powers. (tthe court went further to say that the Bill of Rights were not law - but were suggestions. It also established the right to legislate from the bench. It threw out the Constituion as the "law of the land", as the constituion says, and established government as a system of checks and balances. In this way law no longer had to be consistent with the constituion so our justice system is not based upon constitutional provisions, but upon British Common Law.) It was a formal coup d'etat by the president and the Federalists.

So now, when you see something in the newspaper that makes no sense compared to the constitution, you will know that unconstitutional implied powers that came into being during a bloodless coup d'etat are to blame. Now, because the law can change depending on who is paying your legislator the most money (in campaign contributions), no one is safe from goernment or certain about their futures.