Constitutional scholars have pointed out there is an inconsistency in Justice Marshall's opinion with respect to what the constitution specifically provides. What is that inconsistency?
Folk who point out inconsistencies are folks who don't like the opinion. Here in Texas, lots of political folks are happy to point out my inconsistencies.
The "inconsistency" here is that the decision of the court was that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, but they went ahead an issued an opinion on the merits of the case. Some folks don't like that, they claim the court should have just dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Justice Marshall felt otherwise.
Here in Texas, Justice Marshall is a constant target of the right wing and Liberians, but then again, most educated persons are likewise targeted, unless they were "educated" at Texas A&M, which in case, they are good ole boys.
The inconsistency in Justice Marshall's opinion from a constitutional standpoint involves the interpretation and application of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. The Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the power to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.
In his landmark decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Justice Marshall asserted that the power of Congress is not limited to its enumerated powers, but also includes implied powers necessary for the proper functioning and execution of its enumerated powers. He argued that the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress a broad range of implied powers to fulfill its responsibilities.
However, critics argue that this interpretation is inconsistent with a strict reading of the Constitution, which emphasizes limited government and enumerated powers. According to these scholars, Justice Marshall's opinion expands the power of Congress beyond what is specifically provided in the Constitution, undermining the concept of limited government and potentially encroaching upon reserved rights of the states.
Therefore, the inconsistency lies in reconciling Justice Marshall's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause with a more narrow and strict reading of the Constitution's enumerated powers.