The Constitution. Hamilton’s duplicity

As a member of the Constitutional Convention and the author of a number of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton’s disagreement with the government being formed raises the question of his true desires.

Alexander Hamilton achieved an almost legendary position with many supporters and followers and some notable enemies.

In fairness, throughout the debates occurring during the Convention, Hamilton expressed his belief in a “different form of government” from that which was drafted. While never using the word, “dictator”, Hamilton is known to have believed that the United States should be headed by a king or president elected for life. Further, he stated that the government should have far more arbitrary powers than the few enumerated in the document.

In fact, he believed that the government should be empowered to do anything they (whoever was in control) wanted or believed should be done. While he repeatedly expressed the idea that such actions would always be in the “public’s interest”, the results would disprove this beyond question.

Hamilton was an admirer of the British mercantilist system (government-business cooperation) which he hoped to impose on the infant United States. This would have limited the “participants” in governing to those of substantial business interests and/or long political history and power. Working together, the two groups would “control” (or regulate if you wish) anything and everything within the country.

In the Federalist Papers, he expounded on the benefits of the proposed Constitution, the very document he intended to subvert through various means, once given the opportunity. A strong, early supporter of a strong central government was John Marshall who became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Another adherent was Aaron Burr who ended Hamilton’s career by a duel.

Instead of a limited government defined by the Constitution, Hamilton wanted a government with unlimited powers, a large tax collecting agency and an aggressive foreign policy. He was not reticent about expressing his desires for an American Empire with worldwide influence and involvement..

In Federalist Papers #84, Hamilton asserted that a bill of rights would “contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted” and “this would afford a coulorable pretext to claim more than were granted.” Madison responded, stating, “this is one of the most plausible arguments against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against.” He guarded against this possibility with the 9th and 10th Amendments and the well understood rule of inclusion unius est exclusion alterius (including one excludes all others).

Despite those Amendments, Hamilton went on to claim that if it wasn’t expressly prohibited, then it was permissible. We have seen the results of this interpretation many times during the past century. For example, presidents have declared war without a vote of Congress, given subsidies to private interests and “confiscated” private property for government gain (Kelso decision). He was the first to speak of “implied powers”, none of which would be allowed under the Constitution. Further, he used the “necessary and proper” words from Art. I, Sec. 8 to claim that Congress could therefore do anything it wanted by way of fulfilling the other powers granted. By his use of the “general welfare” clause, modern politicians and jurists have interpreted it to mean that Congress can pass any law which in its “judgment” is for the general welfare. It is not possible to cover all of Hamilton’s duplicity in a single writing. Subsequent articles will cover more of his ideas that have abrogated the limited powers of the Constitution of the United States.

That’s my view. What’s yours?
©Copyright 2011 Hillard W.Welch