Besides, existing banks will compete to handle the government's business and offer better terms because of that competition. The national bank would face no competition and could set whatever terms it wanted, leaving the public with no other choice. The Bank of Philadelphia already handles this work just fine. Since the job can be done without a national bank, there is no true necessity that would justify creating one using an unnamed constitutional power.
Some might argue that a bank operating across all the states would be more convenient than smaller state banks. But greater convenience does not mean the power to create such a bank actually exists. It would also be more convenient to have a bank accepted across the whole world, but that does not mean anyone has the power to create one.
Does anyone really believe the Constitution meant for Congress to tear down fundamental state laws about property and inheritance just for a little more convenience? Nothing but an absolute necessity, one that no other means can fix, can justify undermining the laws that hold our entire system of justice together.
The President's veto is the shield the Constitution provides to protect against overreach by the legislature, including the rights of the executive, the judiciary, and the states. This is a case where a right belongs entirely to the states, and is therefore one the Constitution intended to protect.
It must also be said, however, that unless the President is reasonably certain the bill is unconstitutional, respect for the wisdom of the legislature should tip the balance in their favor. The veto is mainly meant for cases where the legislature has clearly been led astray by error, ambition, or self-interest.