I'm not. I referred to the First Bank of the US as the test case for implied powers, which was supported by Washington, Hamilton, and later Marshall, among others. You said I was bringing up "perverted" views of implied powers. Logically, then, Washington et al, in your view, perverted implied powers. Inescapable.
Washington was notoriously reticent and circumspect in expressing his views, so I can’t say how expansive an interpretation he had of implied powers.
Nonsense. He was a two term president with a record which includes siding with Hamilton on the question of implied powers.
Hamilton seemed to believe that the Preamble to the Constitution (specifically, to “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare”) was sufficient to permit Congress to enact most any legislation they wished.
And history has shown he was correct. Brutus warned as much:
It is absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions "to provide for the common safety, and general welfare," as it would be to say, that it would be limited, had the constitution said they should have power to lay taxes, etc. at will and pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said, that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public good, and happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God and reason, always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people should provide for the common defense and general welfare; every government, therefore, in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it would be found, in practice, a most pitiful restriction.
What the antifederalists wanted was a confederacy. They saw consolidation as the road to tyranny. Obviously, they were correct.
Like the one they were in at the time? Do you think that only a confederacy is safe from the misconstruction of greedy or ambitious men? Or from any of the other misadventures to which every society is subject?
Our Constitution was the best document of fundamental law ever devised by the minds of men. Right up to 1860. Right up even to 1913. Right up even to 1932. And, finally, right up to 1963. Since then it’s been mostly down hill.
None of which (the down hill part) was Madison’s doing. Inconsistent as he occasionally was.
Fine. Cite the instances where Washington came out in opposition to Madison’s 41 and 44; give quotes and state sources.