![\"1791\"](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/02\/1791.jpg?w=620\")
<\/p>\nThey agreed, however, on something more fundamental. What united them was the importance of constitutional fidelity, or the need to make sure that government policy is guided by the true meaning of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
At first sight, Jefferson emerges as the Constitution\u2019s champion in this dispute. Hamilton\u2019s initial report calling for a national bank did not even bother to bring forward any constitutional basis for such a measure.<\/p>\n
It was Jefferson, following James Madison\u2019s lead, who contended that the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be pushed so far as to justify the creation of such an institution. Nevertheless, in the clash of argument over the question Hamilton, too, established his constitutional seriousness.<\/p>\n
He replied to Jefferson at impressive length, trying to show that Jefferson had misunderstood the Necessary and Proper Clause, that it could reasonably be read to authorize laws that were, if not indispensable to, at least reasonably related to the exercise of the government\u2019s enumerated powers.<\/p>\n
Hamilton prevailed, and George Washington signed the bill into law. This reminds us of Washington\u2019s often overlooked role in our first great constitutional debate: He caused it by calling for Hamilton and Jefferson\u2019s written opinions of the question of the bank\u2019s constitutionality. In doing so, Washington set a high example of constitutional statesmanship and earned, once again, his unique position of honor among our nation\u2019s presidents.<\/p>\n
Washington, who usually followed Hamilton\u2019s advice on matters of domestic policy, surely favored the bank bill. And since it had been passed easily in both houses of Congress, after Madison had raised his constitutional objections in the House, Washington had plenty of political cover, had he wanted to exploit it, to simply sign the bill and move on. That he instead called for further argument within his own cabinet shows that he was utterly serious about keeping his administration\u2019s policy square with the Constitution.<\/p>\n
We live in a time of widespread constitutional unseriousness. It is a time in which a speaker of the House, asked about the constitutional basis of a bill pending before the Congress, can answer, \u201cAre you serious?\u201d In such times, we sorely need the example of such statesmen as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington.<\/p>\n