The following quote is pretty much why people were terrified of Alexander Hamilton. To give you the proper context: he was answering criticism from his former Federalist Paper collaborator James Madison that this proposed Bank of America was un-constitutional. Hamilton had asked for a federal charter for the bank, Madison said there was nothing in the Constitution saying that the government should fund corporations. Hamilton pointed out that the last article of the Constitution – the one about Congress being able to make “all laws which shall be necessary and proper” – He said that that article was sufficient evidence that a charter would be constitutional.<\/p>\n
BUT – the way Hamilton summed it all up was not calculated to assuage his enemies who feared his lust for power. He wrote:<\/i><\/p>\n
Wherever the end is required, the means are authorized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Okay, Machiavelli – whatever you say. Hamilton went on:<\/p>\n
If the end<\/i> be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end<\/i>, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One interpretation here, and it’s my own: Hamilton ended up being right about a lot of things (although his autocratic STYLE didn’t make him many friends) – and one of the things I think he was right about was that he was really the first one to challenge <\/i>the Constitution that he helped create and defend. He was the first one to refuse to look at it as a rigid set-in-stone document, to be obeyed<\/i>. No. It was to be USED, challenged. It was not dead. It was to be a LIVING document.<\/p>\n
I suppose there are those out there who think I have just committed heresy myself. Strict constructionists, and all that. Whatever. Room for all of us in this big country here.<\/p>\n
\n