Asked by Imtherizzler_
Why did Alexander Hamilton feel like establishing a federal bank was constitutional?
even if it wasn't written in the Constitution, it was still required and appropriate
it didn't matter what the Constitution said, Congress can do whatever it wants to do
that power was given to government in Article 2
that
even if it wasn't written in the Constitution, it was still required and appropriate
it didn't matter what the Constitution said, Congress can do whatever it wants to do
that power was given to government in Article 2
that
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
Alexander Hamilton believed that establishing a federal bank was constitutional because he subscribed to a broad interpretation of the Constitution, specifically the Necessary and Proper Clause (also known as the Elastic Clause) found in Article I, Section 8. This clause allows Congress to make laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers.
Hamilton argued that while the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to create a bank, doing so was necessary to effectively manage the nation's finances, regulate currency, and facilitate economic growth. He believed that a federal bank would help stabilize the economy, provide a uniform currency, and manage government funds.
Therefore, the correct reasoning for Hamilton's viewpoint would be:
**Even if it wasn't written in the Constitution, it was still required and appropriate.**
This reflects Hamilton's perspective that implied powers derived from the Constitution could justify the establishment of a federal bank for the greater good of the nation’s financial system. Hamilton's interpretation contrasted with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which would argue that only explicitly stated powers could be exercised by the federal government.
Hamilton argued that while the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to create a bank, doing so was necessary to effectively manage the nation's finances, regulate currency, and facilitate economic growth. He believed that a federal bank would help stabilize the economy, provide a uniform currency, and manage government funds.
Therefore, the correct reasoning for Hamilton's viewpoint would be:
**Even if it wasn't written in the Constitution, it was still required and appropriate.**
This reflects Hamilton's perspective that implied powers derived from the Constitution could justify the establishment of a federal bank for the greater good of the nation’s financial system. Hamilton's interpretation contrasted with a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which would argue that only explicitly stated powers could be exercised by the federal government.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!