Hawk wrote:I didn't put any words in any one's mouth. i used your own words against your own arguments. Both of you made it quite easy thank you.
Madison said the bank was unconstitutional. I guarantee Madison knows the Federalist papers and the Constitution better than you.
When Madison was president YOU, Jeff aka lonewolf said Madison did it because he saw a need and because George Washington did it first.
A need arose and the federal government acted. Deal with it.
Like most Southern members of Congress (indeed like most members of Congress in general), neither Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson nor Representative James Madison had any particular interest in two of Hamilton's tripartite recommendations: the establishing of an official government Mint, and the chartering of the Bank of the United States. They believed this centralization of power away from private banks was dangerous to a sound monetary system and was mostly to the benefit of business interests in the commercial north, not southern agricultural interests. They furthermore argued that the creation of such a bank violated the Constitution, which did not list the creation of a Bank of the United States or of a government mint among the expressed powers allowed to the federal government.
Checkmate.
Checkmate? Your posts look more like checkers...or maybe marbles--yeah--marbles--thats the ticket.
The problem is that you don't have a full understanding of either the process nor the terminology of constitutionality. I'll try to explain it to you in the simplest terms that I can:
1. Madison opposed the bank
2. Congress passed a bill that chartered the 1st bank for 20 years
3. Washington signed it into law
4. Since it was unchallenged, the bank was defacto constitutional
5. Madison became president
6. The 1st bank expired 2 years into Madison's first term
7. Congress passed a bill to to charter a 2nd bank
8. Madison vetoed the bill
9. A year later, Congress passed another bill to charter a 2nd bank
10. Madison signed it into law
11. Without legal challenge, the 2nd bank was already defacto constitutional
12. The bank was finally challenged in the Supreme Court with McCulloch v. Maryland
13. The Supreme Court upheld the bank, citing the following clauses in the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
and
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fi x the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
and
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of
Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two
Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
and finally, the clause that ties it all together:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
End of story.
These are my words, the Constitution's words and this is the process that I believe in. You won't find anything in the Federalist Papers that touch this subject, and you cannot credibly discredit them or their authors or even me with your schoolyard logic.
If you want to make your own grade school summary, its fine with me.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Wonderful !