Discuss loos and strict construction of the United States Constituion. How did Hamilton's arguments regarding

Question

Discuss loos and strict construction of the United States Constituion. How did Hamilton's arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Bank of United States highlight these divergent interpretation????

Answer 1

I'm not sure I understand the entire question, but as far as the Bank Of The United States is concerned, it was the first of many rifts between the North and the South that would eventually lead to the Civil War (War for Southern Independence). As of 1789, when the Constitutiom was finished, the newly created United States had no common currency. States coined their own money. There was no uniform method of exchange as of yet. Many States were close to bankruptcy due to the war, especially in the South, where some of the most vicious (and overlooked) fighting occured.

In 1790 Alexander Hamilton proposed to the new congress that a National Bank be established and common currency issued. The concept was created by Northen merchants and speculators. The Southern States were very mistrustful of this concept, since their main product, agriculture, did not require a centralized financial institution.

It was to be funded by selling shares, 20% of which would belong to the U.S., and by an excise tax, which the Southern States feared (rightly so, it turned out) would be disproportionally placed upon them (ie; the Whiskey Rebellion).

Many argued that it was unconstitutional because it violated traditional property laws, and it's relevance to Constitutitonally authorized powers was weak. It also would create a money-monopoly, forcing up interest rates. Hamilitons rebuttal stated among other things that, 1. What the government could do for a person (incorporate), it could not refuse to do for an artificial person (corporate). And the Bank of the United States was a privately held business, not a part of the government, so the Sovreign Restrictions did not apply. 2. A govenment had a right to attainment of the ends which were not prohibited to it by the Constitution.

Pres. Washington signed the bill into law on 25 April, 1791.

I hope this was close to what you were looking for.

Answer 2

Well loose interpretation is taking the essence of what the document says based on the original intent of the framers of the constitution and the beliefs and attitudes of the people: reading that the second amendment means that individuals have the right to have guns and that people have a constitutional right to privacy. Strict interpretation is saying that one what is explicitly said in the text of the constitution is in the constitution. There is no ifs, ands, buts, or interpretations. Strict interpretationists believe that there is a right to a militia, but not to own hand guns, and that there is no right to privacy.

As far as Hamilton goes, this article explains it: http://www.constitution.org/mon/ah-bank.htm
(The Secretary of the Treasury is a loose interpretationist and Hamilton is a strict interpretationist,

Answer 3

"They in no way worked out what to do approximately slavery and purely form of shuttled that aside and desperate we are actually not likely to communicate approximately that. And that taint interior the form, took a Civil war to eliminate."~ chief Justice Roberts "you recognize I wouldn’t perceive something as a definite weak point and to the quantity weaknesses did emerge the framers predicted that, too. I recommend the modification technique, it’s extremely complicated and we tend to not concentration on it, inspite of the undeniable fact that it did enable some standard flaws to be addressed like slavery - abolished interior the thirteenth modification."~chief Justice Roberts