|
|
The
views expressed
on this page are soley those of the author and do not
necessarily
represent the views of County News Online
|
The Daily Signal
What We Can
Learn From Jefferson-Hamilton Debate on National Bank
Carson Holloway
February 11, 2016
This February is the 225th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton’s and
Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1791 debate—carried on in President George
Washington’s cabinet—over the constitutionality of Hamilton’s proposed
Bank of the United States.
It might seem strange to call such an anniversary to mind. After all,
we usually celebrate our great moments of national agreement (like the
Declaration of Independence), not of controversy. It might even be a
little painful, since the bank bill argument was only the opening shot
in a bitter political and constitutional battle between Washington’s
two chief ministers.
Nevertheless, it is proper to celebrate and reflect on this first major
constitutional dispute in our history. Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed
about the correct interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause and
therefore about the legitimate scope of the powers of the federal
government.
They agreed, however, on something more fundamental. What united them
was the importance of constitutional fidelity, or the need to make sure
that government policy is guided by the true meaning of the
Constitution.
At first sight, Jefferson emerges as the Constitution’s champion in
this dispute. Hamilton’s initial report calling for a national bank did
not even bother to bring forward any constitutional basis for such a
measure.
It was Jefferson, following James Madison’s lead, who contended that
the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be pushed so far as to
justify the creation of such an institution. Nevertheless, in the clash
of argument over the question Hamilton, too, established his
constitutional seriousness.
He replied to Jefferson at impressive length, trying to show that
Jefferson had misunderstood the Necessary and Proper Clause, that it
could reasonably be read to authorize laws that were, if not
indispensable to, at least reasonably related to the exercise of the
government’s enumerated powers.
Hamilton prevailed, and George Washington signed the bill into law.
This reminds us of Washington’s often overlooked role in our first
great constitutional debate: He caused it by calling for Hamilton and
Jefferson’s written opinions of the question of the bank’s
constitutionality. In doing so, Washington set a high example of
constitutional statesmanship and earned, once again, his unique
position of honor among our nation’s presidents.
Washington, who usually followed Hamilton’s advice on matters of
domestic policy, surely favored the bank bill. And since it had been
passed easily in both houses of Congress, after Madison had raised his
constitutional objections in the House, Washington had plenty of
political cover, had he wanted to exploit it, to simply sign the bill
and move on. That he instead called for further argument within his own
cabinet shows that he was utterly serious about keeping his
administration’s policy square with the Constitution.
We live in a time of widespread constitutional unseriousness. It is a
time in which a speaker of the House, asked about the constitutional
basis of a bill pending before the Congress, can answer, “Are you
serious?” In such times, we sorely need the example of such statesmen
as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington.
Read this article and more at The Daily Signal
|
|
|
|
