Indeed, it is not. Most would have stopped at the inflation/deflation quote.
Powers might be implied, but only insofar as they are necessary to execute an express, enumerated power.
Tell it to Chief Justice John Marshall. Or is he de-Founder-ed?
...the state governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States”.
That's right. The States, for example, could no longer coin money, or regulate the value thereof...nor could they emit bills of credit. Boy, they must have been ticked when they found out the Federal govt. cold do all of those.
Hamilton also wrote in 1783...
Did he? Considering the track record, I think I'll need to see a real citation.
And the Constitutional restrictions having been abandoned, we now have a corrupt government and an immoral people. And when you ask me about “specifically citing where this is located in the U.S. Constitution,” the clearest instance is Art. I, section 10: “No state shall ...
Clearest? How about only. I guess you were busy hyperbolizing and missed the word "State" (I even bolded it in post #129!)
Any one of the Founders of which I am aware would be appalled to think that somehow the Constitution had been twisted into conferring such a power on the United States government.
I'd be appalled to find out any Founders read section 10 and didn't realize it applied to the States.
Well, I will persist with this because I have had this problem before, and I continue to hope that if more people could understand the Constitution correctly, it might advance the cause of a Free Republic.
You do not dispute that the “necessary and proper” language refers to carrying out the enumerated powers by the plain language of the Constitution. Instead, you say “tell it to Chief Justice John Marshall”. Since you seem to regard the authority of individuals to exceed the authority of the language and structure of the Constitutional text itself (not a helpful attitude for anyone interested in promoting a government of laws, rather than a government of men), I will appeal to Marshall’s own words on the issues set forth in this thread.
“This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
As the historian to whose book I referred you explained,
“The inflexible adversary of paper money, detesting it with a hatred almost amounting to a passion, was the chief justice of the United States, John Marshall. While he was on the bench, no case could come before him, in which power was claimed for the United States to issue bills of credit; because at that day he and everyone else understood and willingly acknowledged that the power to emit bills of credit was withheld from the United States, was forbidden by not being granted.” (p. 94; emphasis added)
That hostility is evident, for example, in Craig v. Missouri, 29 U.S. 410, 432 (1830), in which Chief Justice Marshall wrote:
“At a very early period of our colonial history, the attempt to supply the want of the precious metals by a paper medium was made to a considerable extent; and the bills emitted for this purpose have been frequently denominated bills of credit. During the war of our revolution, we were driven to this expedient; and necessity compelled us to use it to a most fearful extent. The term has acquired an appropriate meaning; and ‘bills of credit’ signify a paper medium, intended to circulate between individuals, and between government and individuals, for the ordinary purposes of society. Such a medium has been always liable to considerable fluctuation. Its value is continually changing; and these changes, often great and sudden, expose individuals to immense loss, are the sources of ruinous speculations, and destroy all confidence between man and man. To cut up this mischief by the roots, a mischief which was felt through the United States, and which deeply affected the interest and prosperity of all; the people declared in their constitution, that no state should emit bills of credit. If the prohibition means any thing, if the words are not empty sounds, it must comprehend the emission of any paper medium, by a state government, for the purpose of common circulation.”
But you seem to think that Chief Justice Marshall would have supported the power of the United States to emit bills of credit. Why on earth do you think so? How then, could he possibly believe that the mischief had been cut up by the roots? Surely you do not think that he would have regarded federal officials by their nature as so much more enlightened than state officials, that they would not abuse such a power?
To appeal to another early giant, albeit not a founder, as Daniel Webster explained in a speech before the Senate on December 21, 1836, on the subject of the Specie Circular (from that magical time before the tender laws):
“Most unquestionably there is no legal tender, and there can be no legal tender, in this country, under the authority of this government or any other, but gold and silver, either the coinage of our own mints, or foreign coins, at rates regulated by Congress. This is a constitutional principle, perfectly plain, and of the highest importance. The states are expressly prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts; and although no such express prohibition is applied to congress, yet as congress has no power granted to it, in this respect, but to coin money and to regulate the value of foreign coins, it clearly has no power to substitute paper, or anything else, for coin, as a tender in payment of debts and discharge of contracts. . . . The legal tender, therefore, the constitutional standard of value, is established and cannot be overthrown. To overthrow it, would shake the whole system. The constitutional tender is the thing to be preserved, and it ought to be preserved sacredly, under all circumstances.”
This quote is from pp. 93-94 of the book I hyperlinked to; the citation to the 1783 Hamilton quote previously provided is also from that book (he cites Hamilton’s Works, II, 271.)
I do not dispute that in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884), the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on making anything other than gold and silver coin legal tender applied only to the States, and not the federal government. So if you are of the school of thought that says that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, then there is no point in further discussion.
But if you wish to understand how that opinion was dead wrong, and a monstrous inversion of the whole fundamental idea and design of the Constitution, then you ought to learn more about what the Founders really thought. Because it is the widespread ignorance of what they really thought, and how the Constitution was really supposed to work, that has fueled the cancerous growth of the federal government.