Honors section discussion question for 11/15: Part 2
Question 2: Check the textbook for background on Alexander Hamilton's financial system and then read Thomas Jefferson's attack on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States and Alexander Hamilton's defense of the constitutionality of the B.U.S. Explaining the two positions in your own words, who do you think had the better of the argument?
posted by Jeff Pasley at 4:37 PM
7 Comments:
Thomas Jefferson believed the formation of a National Bank was unconstitutional because it was not provided for in the Constitution, and pre-existing legislation condemned such a formation. Specifically, Jefferson felt that a formation of a National Bank would be a breach of power on the federal government's part, thus taking power away from the people in which it was vested. Jefferson's firm constructionist stance was most likely in effort to avoid a form of government form which the American people had broken.
On the contrary, Alexander Hamilton's arguments lied in the "implied powers of the federal government" according to the Constitution. Hamilton understood that while the responsibility of forming a national bank was not expressly delegated in the Constitution, it was "necessary and proper" and would be a benefit, not a hindrance, to supporting the power of the people and an assurance of the durability of the national government.
Both arguments are valid in this case, however, I tend to side with Hamilton. I do not believe the founders intended to Constitution to be interpreted literally; rather, they intended for the Constitution to withstand changing times, and be applicable in a different society. In order for the Constitution to maintain the same strength in the years to come, it would be necessary that the founders imply outside powers of the federal government, and how such powers were to be delegated.
It seems that Jefferson and Hamilton are arguing on different levels and there isn’t a whole lot of clash. Hamilton relies entirely on the argument that “the banks seems necessary, the constitution hints that we must do what’s necessary for government to function, therefore it’s constitutional.” Though I certainly don’t believe the Constitution should be interpreted so narrowly today, such as loose interpretation less that 15 years after it was signed seems to set a bad precedent. I think Jefferson is correct when he talks about how such an interpretation of the constitution would open the floodgates for nearly any policy that he legislature could justify as seemingly necessary. There are amendment processes to get around such situations and I think that stretching the constitution to that degree so soon it its existence could have produced negative consequences.
Jefferson believed that the formation of a National Bank was beyond the powers given to Congress in the Constitution. He believed that since it was not listed amongst the other powers granted to congress in Article I of the Constitution, then granting congress this power makes them capable to do practically anything—which is a form of government they were fearful of. He also believed Hamilton was using the Necessary and Proper clause too loosely which would eventually result in making congress the decider of what was right and wrong for the people. Hamilton on the other hand believed that since Congress is a representative branch of the government, their power had been implied from the people who had elected them which gave them the ability to express powers they found necessary. He disagreed with Jefferson’s use of the word “necessary” and believed that he was going beyond its original meaning, and that since creating a national bank was needful and would be useful, its creation was justifiable.
I agree with Hamilton because I believe a national bank was needed and did become useful. I can see why Jefferson was hesitant to grant this power to Congress because he feared a strong central government, but I believe since it is representative, they should be trusted somewhat to help provide for the good of the people.
Since everyone has already talked about their arguments I will just give the side I agree with. I belive that a Nation Bank was a good idea in that during a time of war, funds are much easier to raise with the help of a nation bank. A bank can handle loans and distribute money in right ways. I believe that the Nation Bank was key in helping with the finacial problems of the earily nation.
The thing to focus on is not so much the bank in particular, but what role that Jefferson and Hamilton think the Constitution is going to play in the workings of the government. They agree that the government had the right to do anything "necessary and proper" to the execute the functions it was given in the Constitution. The question was, how did they define "necessary and proper"?
Necessary and Proper -
Hamilton: "which are not precluded... in the Constitution", and, "implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with the express ones".
Jefferson: "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power..."
With that as my preamble,I will expound on my thoughts taken from the readings. Jefferson is for a strict decentralized government. There is to be no hand or force laid against them except having given express permission for such. This cuts the sovereignty of one to the sovereignty of many. Esentially, there may be no choice made that has not been expressly given to the federal government as a prerogative, or choice they have been allowed and/or commanded to make. The necessary and proper clause seems to be, to Jefferson, just a way for the federal government to wiggle within the room they were given in the Constitution. He speaks specifically of the 12th amendment in his Opinion as justification against the National Bank. For him, the necessary and proper cause seems to be a way of telling the federal government that they may make all choices pertaining to issues that they have been given without asking the States. This is merely a "do as you need in order to get the job done while bothering us the least" clause.
Hamilton clearly sees it differently. The Constitution has granted the power to the federal government, specifically Congress, to address all issues that arise that may not have been addressed directly in the Constitution. For Hamilton, "necessary and proper" means just that. I also see Hamilton's view as a way of looking towards the future while addressing the issue at hand. Even though Jefferson quite often looks upon issues with great foresight, he failed to in this instance.
This question relates directly to the question regarding the Constitution. Hamilton was able to see the Constitution as a tempering of Revolutionary ideals, and, therefore, a long term solution. Jefferson was still preaching the ideals of the Revolution while ignoring both the moment at hand and the near/far off future. In case you have yet to gather it from this post, not only did Hamilton prove to express the prevalent position throughout history (think of our current interpretation of the necessary and proper clause), but I believe that Hamilton was expressing the only feasible option. It is interesting to me that such a wide ranging debate turned on this specific issue.
This situation is a misinterpretation of the flexibility Constitution between Jefferson and Hamilton and what defines "necessary and propery." Jefferson possessed a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and because any form of National Bank was not stated in the Constitution, he believed it should not exist. Hamilton on the other hand had a loose interpretation of the Constitution and believed that the terms "necessary and proper" could be stretched to many more instances than others presumed. Jefferson interpreted "necessary and proper" as change only when seriously in need, while Hamilton conceived that the Constitution could be continually shaped with the changes in society.
Post a Comment
<< Home