In December of 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed the incorporation of a national bank that would be funded by 25 million dollars, would issue shares to shareholders, and would effect commercial transactions on behalf of the United States. This national bank proposal was fought against in congress by a group led by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson whose position was that the incorporation of the national bank was unconstitutional based on the powers granted to the United States government in the Constitution. .
I believe that the national bank proposed by Hamilton was constitutional. I will explore some of his arguments about the constitutionality of the bank, such as sovereign, implied, and expressed powers. I will also touch on some of Jefferson's points about the unconstitutionality of the bank.
When you are looking at the question of whether the bank is constitutional or not, you must look at the constitution and decide whether or not the power to create a corporation was granted upon its ratification. The answer to that is a definite "yes". My position from the very beginning has always been that the federal government was granted too much power in the constitution. Actually, this is an irrelevant argument with regard to the constitutionality of the bank because the power had already been granted and was now there to be wielded, albeit indiscriminately at times.
The crux of Hamilton's argument is laid out in a very simple but convincing premise. Expressed versus implied powers of the federal government. The constitution enumerated several powers that the federal government could carry out. But in the fulfillment of certain duties, there are obviously implied actions that must be undertaken in pursuit of completion of those duties. For instance, the constitution grants the power to collect taxes. That is an expressed power. It does not grant the power to create an agency of accountants to manage and disperse the funds once they are collected.
