The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were actually on their guard with respect to policing against unwanted means when they drafted Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
For example, delegate Benjamin Franklin had suggested adding canals for supporting commerce to Congress's Section 8, Clause 7 power to establish postal roads.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads [and Canals;]"
H O W E V E R …
Delegate Alexander Hamilton later scandalously ignored (imo) the following convention discussion concerning his unconstitutional national bank. He ignored that his fellow delegates had dropped Franklin’s suggestion for canals because some delegates felt that having such power would give Congress an excuse to establish a national bank as a means to supporting canals, delegates evidently objecting to predictable federal interference with INTRAstate banks.
“A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution [emphasis added].” —Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
Consider that the early Supreme Court wrongly decided McCulloch v. Maryland McCulloch) in Congress's favor imo, that case testing so-called banking powers in Commerce Clause.
But such a mistake would not be surprising. This is because, about two years earlier, the rookie 14th Congress had misunderstood the Founding States intentions for the General Welfare Clause, (GWC; 1.8.1), Pres. Madison clarifying in his explanation for Bonus Bill veto that GWC was intended only as an introductory clause for most of the clauses in Section 8 which were delegations of specific powers.
Veto of federal public works bill
In other words, while Congress had problems interpreting GWC as Constitutional Convention delegates had intended for it to be understood, the Court likewise had problems interpreting Section 8's "necessary and proper" clause (1.8.18) in McCulloch, inadvertently turning that clause into the "convenience" clause imo.
Hamilton gave us a national bank through entirely constitutional grounds and explained what is constitutional and what is not in his Essay on the National Bank one of the greatest state papers ever issued from one of our greatest statesmen.
Hamilton has as much right (or More) to be called “the father of the constitution” as Madison.
The first source of examining a case before the USSC is to consult the Federalist where relevant. Hamilton wrote two/thirds of these magnificent writings the greatest to come from the Western Hemisphere.
Without Hamilton the nation would likely have not survived and the National Bank was one of the principle means of ensuring that survival. His obsessive concern was that the Union be preserved and had no loyalty to a state which overrode that concern.
Jefferson was way out of his league tangling with Hamilton (the nation’s greatest lawyer) in judicial matters and Washington’s quick acceptance of his argument rather than the sophistic nonsense Jefferson wrote shows this. Of course, Washington loved Hamilton like no other man and considered him the son he never had. After Jefferson attempted to undermine the Administration while serving in it, he did not even want to hear his name.
The National Bank had nothing to do with canals and did not result in federal funding for them. The Bank was established to place the federal government on a sound financial standing and it succeeded even more brilliantly than ever imagined.