Analyzing Two Major US Constitutional Documents - Essay Example

? The two documents; the constitutionality of the Bank of the United s, 1791 by Thomas Jefferson to Washington and document 5; Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank was written in the same period, but with different authors. Thomas Jefferson happened to be the author of the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States which was written in 1791, and Alexander Hamilton was the author of opinions on the constitutionality of the Bank written in the same year. All the two documents were letters written to answer the request of Washington. In the two documents, Hamilton is seen to have drawn his arguments to Washington’s request much more deliberately than Thomas Jefferson (Hofstedter, pg. 164). Hamilton was capable of giving best answer because he had papers written from Virginians Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Randolph against the creation of the Bank of the United States. According to the American history regarding the Bank of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were the most studied and beloved figures. And today, standard bearers of conservatism, radicalism as well as liberalism are utilizing their complex views to legitimize their arguments. The study also shows that various laws, values and customs have shaped the development of banking institutions in the United States in a distinctive way; however, it is evident that none has done so more than the vicious debate between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the development of the bank in 1791. Jefferson argues that, the issue on the constitutionality of the bank may be a question does not extend the power of the government beyond the prescribed limits given that it only affirms a power to incorporate specified powers (Hofstedter, pg. 168). Thomas Jefferson on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States According to Thomas Jefferson, he believes that banking institutions are more dangerous to liberties than standing armies. As a result, the issue of issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people. Jefferson argues that, he consider the foundation of the constitution as laid on this ground: he argues that “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the People (Heffnerer, pg. 52)”. From this quote, it can be evident that Jefferson condemns the system of banking as being corrupt, and that the long-term government debt was going to swindle the future generations. He goes on and says that the incorporation of a bank, and powers assumed by the bill have not been and his opinions are that it has been delegated to the United States by the constitution (Heffnerer, pg. 54). He further argues that the circumstances that powers of sovereignty in America, the country will still remain divided between the national as well as the state government since they does not afford the distinction which is required (Heffnerer, pg. 55). Jefferson opinions were that, the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States were not among the powers specially enumerated since these were only a power to lay taxes for the purposes of paying the debts of the United States, but no debt was to be paid from the bill nor any tax levied and so, this was a bill to raise money hence its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the constitution (Heffnerer, pg. 52). Thomas Jefferson continues to argue that the situation that the powers of the sovereignty are in the United States and are divided between the national as well as, the state governments does not necessarily afford the distinction which is required. For instance, this does not follow from each of portion o powers delegated to one or to the other is not sovereign in regard to its proper objects. Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank Hamilton’s opinion on the bank laid classical arguments of the people who favored an effective central government as well as, a national power. He argues that the constitutionality of the Bank would only be necessary to bring to a proposition or a suggestion so clear if it affirms that the powers of the federal government has a clause of its constitution which is decisive (Hofstedter, pg. 164). Conversely, as the United States look toward banking reforms as a result of the economic collapse which took place many years ago, it may be critical to understand how the opinion of Hamilton on the constitutionality of the bank is institutionalized into the America politic. For instance the Federalist and the anti-Federalist debate concerning the creation of the central bank as well as, the regulation of financial institutions created a yes or a no framework which up-to-date still dominates the American national political debate. The two documents were written for different reasons. It is true that, each author wanted to accomplish something important by writing them down in a document format. Thomas Jefferson on the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States and Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank were both controversial. This is because, according to Jefferson, he believes that the central banking debate was mainly rooted in anti-Federalist and Federalist tensions (Hofstedter, pg. 167). However Hamilton’s’ opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank was that, the debate would only be necessary to bring to a proposition so clear if it manages to affirm that powers of federal government to its objects as being sovereign as well as, to have a clause of its constitution which would be decisive. In addition, he argues that the position that the government of the United States exercises tends to have no power; however, it is delegated to it by its constitution (Hofstedter, pg. 168). The two documents actually revealed what was happening in America society in regards to the central banking debate. There were various events that took place to which the two documents referred to directly, first, the social contract did not give the Parliament a complete political authority over its colonists and thus all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, were all resulting into a legislative body. Conclusion To move the debate towards a more and good constructive framework as well as, to better manage these creative tensions; I therefore, propose that the bankers, the public, along with the politicians to do the following; First, they should develop a deliberate effort of identifying and understanding the complexities which may exist in guiding the fiscal policy. Second, the public along with their elected officials should ensure that they take ownership of the issue as well as, understand that central banks are limited in their capacity so as to prevent on the economic calamities. Lastly, the government should achieve an unprecedented level of transparency in the process in order to gain the trust and understanding of the American people. Conversely, reframing the debate in approach that is transparent will give politicians understand and feel comfortable with the Federal and thus utilize the Federal in the best way possible. Works Cited Heffnerer, R. D. A documentary History of the United States great issue in American History. New York: American Book Co., Vintage Book 1976. Print. Hofstedter, R. A great issue in American History. New York: American Book Co., Vintage Book 1958. Print. Read More