In December of 1970 Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary
of the Treasury of the United Sates, submitted a bill to the Congress for
the creation of a National Bank. His main goal was to help invigorate
an already weak national economy. The bill having passed through
the Legislative Branch of the government was then presented to President
George Washington for approval. President Washington being unconvinced
of the bill's constitutionality sought the opinions of Secretary of State
Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Jennings Randolph.
The positions of Jefferson and Hamilton differ greatly
as to whether the incorporation of a National Bank was constitutional.
Jefferson, a Republican and a believer in state sovereignty, made the point
- in reference to Article 1/Section 8 of thee Constitution - that the initiation
of a National Bank would be unconstitutional; based on the unnecessary
power that the federal government would attain through the implementation
of such an institution. Hamilton on the other hand believed that
the need for a National Bank was a just need and therefore a necessary
power. Both Jefferson and Hamilton seem to be at odds with the actual
meaning of the word "necessary" as taken from Article 1/Section 8/paragraph
18 of the Constitution. Hamilton, a Federalist and a believer in
federal sovereignty, argued the semantics of the word "necessary."
Hamilton believed "necessary," as it was used in the Constitution, did
not mean "absolutely 'necessary'." But rather a better interpretation
of the word would've been "needful" or "conducive to." Either way
at the core of both of Jefferson's and Hamilton's positions on the National
Bank were their own political beliefs: Hamilton wanted to put more control
in the hands of the federal legislatures and Jefferson wanted to place
the power in the hands of state legislatures.
Thomas Jefferson's arguments on the constitutionality
of a National Bank make more common sense than Hamilton's. The Constitution
states in Article 1/Section 8/paragraph 18 "The Congress shall have
power...18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this
constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department
or officer thereof." Another word for "necessary" is essential or
required. Jefferson was accurate in his interpretation of the word in the
context that it was used. One of the purposes of the Constitution
was to provide checks and balances on power across the branches of government.
To incorrectly interpret the Constitution in this matter would allow the
infiltration of abusive powers and unwelcomed outcomes. Excessive
government power would result in federal monopolies, which in turn would
take power away from normal citizens. The United States of America
was founded on the rights of individuals and not on a monopolistic bureaucracy.
Jefferson was right when he said about a Congress with unlimited powers,
"…they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a
power to do whatever evil they please."
The method of choosing the next president is under
fierce scrutiny by many of the country's concerned citizens. The
original intent of the Electoral College by the founders of the Constitution
may have lost its original purpose. The College is comprised of elected
members from each state that total the number of the state's U.S. senators
and representatives. A state's Electoral members reflects that state's
population. When the voter goes to the polls to vote for his/her
choice of presidential candidate they are not really voting for the actual
candidate, but rather the chosen Electoral member who supports the presidential
candidate's name on the ballot. The College then casts the deciding
vote for who should be the next U.S. President. The Electoral College
is not a true representation of the people's choice for president, because
a candidate can receive the majority of popular votes but lose the
Electoral vote. The fundamental argument against the Electoral College
is the same as the argument of the National Bank's constitutionality; the
country's strength lies not in the power of it's government, but in the
will of it's people.
by Philip N. Geissler