The National Bank:
Strict Interpretation

Democrat-Republicans

In Jefferson We Trust

Broken Rubber Band

The Issue On Thy National Bank

Where in thy Constitution does there specify authorization for such a financial octopus? Hamilton believes for art thous "loose interpretation" on thee Constitution, that the national bank was not only "necessary and proper." What next will become necessary? Restricting the citizens rights...when will thee elastic band snap? Not only does thy interpretation of thee National Bank, though thy interpretation of thee entire Constitution. (As soon to follow the "lockjaw" Sedition Acts directing against the freedom of speech and freedom of press guaranteed in thee Constitution by the Bill of Rights).

How will we protect thy citizens from such loose interpretations of thee Constitution? By following thee Constitution and what twas stated, for the Declaration of Independence set our country's bar of greatness, thy Constitution as a by product (since the Articles of Confederation was too weak) and amendments art thou only way to alter and add to the document. We will and shall not let an ignorant man and his beliefs turn this country into what we came from. Will will never be subjected to a strong central government again to ever face such cruelty and ridicule of our citizens. Thomas Jefferson is the future, for he thinks of the farmers who work this great land. For in Jefferson we trust.

Primary Source #1

Excerpts from Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 1791:

I. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill,nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.

2. “To borrow money.” But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it…

3. To “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes.” To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts…

II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:

1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad Librium for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.

2. The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank.A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes,Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are “necessary,”not those which are merely “convenient” for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other…Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power…


Source:[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj090161))

Primary Source #2

“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the goodof the United States: and, they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please." -Jefferson

Source: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inlinepdfs/Jefferson%20and%20Hamilton%20Quotes.pdf

The two primary sources as significant to my issue because they show how the Hamilton belief of a "loose interpretation can go from something like the national bank to restricting citizens rights very quickly. There most be a government set in place to make sure this situation won't arise in the near future. (As it does with the Sedition Acts). Those with power might misuse this power into using the "loose interpretation as an invitation to evil.

By: Tara Keller

Comment Stream