Posted on 06/16/2013 12:55:46 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
Who cares what I say?
Again, why did Washington sign Hamilton's national bank bill over the objections of Madison and Jefferson?
He must have thought it was a good idea.
Washingon was unsure of the constitutionality of the bill, he had only presided over the Constitutional Convention after all (sarc), and had consulted with Jefferson and Madison about the constitutionality of the bill. Below is a link to Jefferson's official reply to Washington which he inexplicably ignored.
Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
Yeah, when it comes to finance and economics, Jefferson was a “financial bubblehead”.
Waitaminute.....I see what you did there.
We're not talking about anybody's financial management skills. In fact, Hamilton evidently loved the smell of money and would have probably been the best person to oversee banking operations if the states had actually delegated the power to Congress to establish one.
The problem is you are not accepting that Hamilton scandalously ignored the decision (by dropping the issue) of the delegates at the Con-Con to not grant banking powers to Congress. So Congress did not have the Section 8 authority to establish a national bank regardless that Hamilton hid behind the "necessary and proper" clause, Clause 18 of Section 8 of Article I, a national bank necessary and proper only from "King" Hamilton's perspective.
You left out Washington and the other Founders who also voted in favor of the National Bank.
Because they weren't as originalist as you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.