Within his plan, he called for a creation of a national bank, modeled after the bank of england. The bank would be in charge of collecting taxes, keeping the government funds secure, make government and business loans, and issue bank notes. The debate again within this situation, is whether or not the establishment of a national bank is constitutional. Hamilton favored a loose interpretation of the constitution, and believed a national bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the federal government. He responded to these accusations, with the initial response that congress had the power to form a bank, because the constitution, gives the authority to them to do anything “necessary and proper” (Elastic Clause).
A majority of the opposi... ... middle of paper ... ...orthern states had not yet paid off their debts. The Republicans thought of the bank as unconstitutional, and did not like that the Federalists supported Northern businesses just as the bank did. A conflict between the economies of the North and South had become a large contribution to the opposition of the national bank. All in all, American politics in the 1790’s were a crucial part of the new nations future. The disagreements between the political parties inspired the formation of several Democratic-Republican societies who were granted involvement in public affairs and the right to debate political issues.
In the McCulloch v. Maryland, it opened up the issue of federal power, and how much should be given to the governments. Chief Justice, John Marshall stated that he wanted to expand the federal governments powers. This created an even bigger problem between the power of state and federal government. In 1816, the second national bank was established by Congress, and was questioned by many states on whether is was constitutional. Maryland then taxed all banks that were not charted by the state.
Because of the elastic clause, Hamilton said it justified Congress establishing the National Bank. Contrary to Hamilton, Jefferson looked upon the Constitution as a document that should be interpreted literally. If a law wasn’t directly written in the Constitution, it was deemed unconstitutional. Jefferson feared that if the government followed a belief of loose interpretation, they would have too much power and could violate individual and states rights. He also believed that powers that were not given to the Federal government are given to the states under the 10th amendment, which supported his claim that that the Construction should be strictly interpreted.
They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. The Anti-Federalist proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. Anti-federalists continued to view a large and powerful central government as leading to autocracy, appealed to the actions of the British king and Parliament to demonstrate their point. Anti-Federalists
In the nullification crisis, Webster took a valid stance against Senator Hayne in which he proved that the constitutionality of the law is determined by the Supreme Court and states have no right to null or void laws nor are they sovereign from the union. While in the nullification crisis Webster did not stand down, the Compromise of 1850 proved to be the breaking point between the North and the South, if a compromise was not achieved the future of a civil war was inevitable. During Webster’s career it is evident that his political beliefs lied in the benefit of the country as a whole, by maintaining a strong centralized front Webster was able to reserve the legality of the constitution, preserve the union, and avert a civil war, even if it ultimately caused him to loose his popularity with the people of the country.
The debates, arguments and compromises between those who supported a strong central government and those who favored more power for the states resulted in the creation of the United States Constitution which granted specific powers to the government and later, the Bill of Rights that protected the rights of the states and individuals. A battle between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists erupted over the establishment of a national bank. Since the recently adapted Constitution gave the government the power to lay and collect taxes and create a national trade policy, Alexander Hamilton’s opinion on the Constitutionality of an Act to Establish a Bank was that the bank would allow the government a means to regulate trade with foreign countries and act as a depository for taxes. Opponents argued that the constitution did not give the government the power to establish a bank and that it was, therefore, unconstitutional. Hamilton contended that since it was not specifically prohibited by the constitution, that the establishment of a ba... ... middle of paper ... ...ection of the Constitution on the grounds that a strong federal government would abuse power and lead to corruption.
The document "The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States" attacked Adam and his presidency. The document caused a split in the Federalist Party that would not be able to be fixed. In return for the damage Burr did to the Federalist Party and his presidency, Hamilton persuaded members of the House of Representative to vote for Jefferson instead of Burr. After losing the Election Burr believes that challenging Hamilton to a duel would be the only thing that could restore his honor. This disputes were definitely nothing new to Hamilton or Burr.
After winning their independence in the American Revolution, America's leaders were hesitant to create a strong centralized government in fear that it would only replace King George III's tyranny. As a result, the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave the national government hardly any power over the states, and created chaos within the nation. Because of the Articles' inefficiency, a new document called the Constitution was drafted. The Constitution created a more centralized government with the separation of powers among executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The ratification of this new constitution created a debate among the federalists and the anti-federalists.
In other words, they thought it was fine to “read between the lines” of the Constitution. While on the other hand people like Jefferson and Madison believed that there is “no read between the lines” the Constitution says what it says and we must follow it by those rules. Federalists also believed in strong/active federal government, faith in government order, pro-tax, and industrial/commercial economy. Conversely, the republicans wanted a weak/inactive federal government, they were fearful of the government, anti-tax, and agrarian economy. Federalists believed the future of our country was in commerce, business, trade, and industry.