Open Interpretation to the Constitution Leads to First National Bank

A National Bank is an essential part of this nation's economy. We know that it can further strengthen the ties between Americans and the federal government. The National Bank has allowed America to grow its economy, unit as country, and improve trade between the colonies. But when the first National Bank plan entered into Congress there was much controversy over it. Two men, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, held two very different and opposing views on the Bank plan. This led to much controversy over the plan and how they believed it would impact the nation. At the root of the controversy was wether or not the plan was constitutional. Both men interpreted the clauses in the Constitution differently, so both Hamilton and Jefferson submitted plans to President Washington in hopes their view would prevail. The conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson’s opposing views came to a head in 1791. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury at the time, submitted a report to Congress on a plan for a National Bank. There was great controversy over the creation of a National Bank for many reasons. The main reason being that Hamilton stated that its creation was completely justified by the Constitutions elastic clause. The elastic clause grants Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” (Elastic Clause Law & Legal Definition) and to carry out its duties. In his plan Hamilton wrote that the bank was “necessary and proper”, and that the Constitution allowed all things “necessary and proper”. Hamilton believed that the clause justified the creation of the National bBank. While on the other hand Thomas Jefferson believed the bank to be unconstitutional and that is striped the power from the individual states. The plan submitted to Congress by Hamilton stated that