“the greatest political thinker since Aristotle”
LOL
“The convention rejected the addition of anything which would prevent the discernment of implied powers or rule out their existence”
No they didn’t. You yourself go on to talk about the necessary an pepper clause. That does it, right there. And if that weren’t enough the 10th amendment spelled it out for us.
“The Constitution does NOT contain the word ‘absolutely’ in reference to ‘necessary’”
If you were paying attention you’d know that the “absolutely” point wad supposed to br in your tabor. The Constitution does indeed contain the phrase “absolutely necessary,” in Article 1, section 10 regarding a prohibition on states laying imposts and duties. Marshall used this to argue that “necessary” in “necessary and proper” meant “convenient” rather than “indispensable.”
“Hamilton destroys Jefferson’s misuse...”
Well, hoe about Madison’s? Or Edmund Randolph’s? Or anyone else who didn’t already have their mind made up that they wanted a bank.
“created a money supply where there was none”
What? Of course there was a money supply. Not a national currency, but good thing since the saying “not worth a continental” admirably summed up the efficacy of the recent misadventure in central direction of monetary policy.
“allowed the US economy to take off for the stratosphere”
Wow. I can’t really argue with that, except to say there was quite a lag between then and our historically unrivaled economic miracle. Also that by the time we competed to be the world’s foremost economic power we had no central bank. And after we got one again recessions and depressions grew worse and closer together.
Whence this notion that copious debt is a good way to build credit, or that finance must be centrally controlled to spur growth. I will admit the assumption of state debt, legal or not, was a brilliant move on Hamilton’s part. But more in a Machiavellian way than you’re thinking. Whoever held debt would be behind the new government, which helped us avoid being a banana republic. Economically and constitutionally it’s another matter.
“this is where judgement and honesty come into play”
Is it honest to say “necessary” means “convenient,” “incidental,” “useful,” or conducive to”? Is it good judgement to think the Convention either left it to common sense that there should be a central bank, or left it up to the discretion of whoever was in charge? This in a scheme of the pellet and the states sacrifing only discreet and expressed portions of their sovereignty? Is it honest to pretend a bank was necessary to handle public debt or any other power of the federal government.
By the way, if you haven’t I suggest you read Madison contra Hamilton. His Federalist essays are better, too.
The Necessary and Proper clause (or the necessary and “pepper” clause was you term it) in NO way excludes implied powers. Quite the contrary. Nor does the 10th amendment. Both refer to ends not means.
It stand corrected about “absolutely” since it does indeed refer to revenues collected by the states for costs of inspections.
Madison merely echoed Jefferson and Randolph said nothing worthwhile about the Bank. Jefferson was the point man of the opposition.
No, there was no real money supply at the beginning of the constitutional Union. Most of our specie had been drained away by the War and was only replaced when H assumed, consolidated and sold the national debt. THAT brought gold and silver back into the economy because of the way the debt was structured.
Nor was there much of a lag between consolidation and the creation of the Bank and the economy recovering.
After the Bank’s charter expired because of Republican (Democrat) fanaticism and short-sightedness the economy went into the pits so badly that it was re-chartered later under the Democrats. However, fanaticism re-emerged under Jackson and the 2d Bank was again not re-chartered plunging the economy into the worst depression it had experienced up till that time. It took the Mexican War and the discovery of gold in California inflating the money supply to end that depression.
We had plenty of recessions, and booms when there was no central bank. It cannot prevent either only ameliorate their severity with the proper actions.
Hamilton’s writings are copious and rarely did any of his opponents dare to go up against him one on one. When they did they inevitably came up with the short side of the stick. Madison included. He never dared to do so again after the Pacificus-Helvidius essays. Jefferson begged him to write them to aid his beloved French Revolution which was busy cutting of the heads or imprisoning those who had assisted the American Revolution. Like Hamilton’s great friend, Lafayette.
Some of your statements are marred by misspellings which make them incomprehensible. If they are important resubmit the corrected versions for my response.