Question

The Constitution never explicitly lists the power to charter banks and corporations. Why did Alexander Hamilton argue the United States could still charter a bank?

Responses

He argued there are both implied and expressly enumerated powers and that both types of powers are delegated to the national government.

He argued there are both implied and expressly enumerated powers and that both types of powers are delegated to the national government.

He argued that the Seventh Amendment gave Congress the necessary power to regulate the national economy.

He argued that the Seventh Amendment gave Congress the necessary power to regulate the national economy.

He argued that although the Constitution did not list the power to charter a bank directly, any law passed by a concurrent majority of the House and Senate must be constitutional.

He argued that although the Constitution did not list the power to charter a bank directly, any law passed by a concurrent majority of the House and Senate must be constitutional.

He argued the national government subsumed the powers of previous governments and could do anything that the Articles of Confederation could have done.

He argued the national government subsumed the powers of previous governments and could do anything that the Articles of Confederation could have done.

Answer 1

He argued that Congress has both expressly enumerated and implied powers, and that the Constitution’s grants of power (especially the Necessary and Proper Clause) let Congress charter a bank to carry out its enumerated duties (taxing, borrowing, regulating currency). This is the theory Hamilton set out in his Report on a National Bank and which the Supreme Court later affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland.