418
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
§ 433. XI. And this leads us to remark, in the next place, that in the interpretation of the constitution there is no solid objection to implied powers.
[1] Had the faculties of man been competent to the framing of a system of government, which would leave nothing to implication, it cannot be doubted, that the effort would have been made by the framers of our constitution. The fact, however, is otherwise. There is not in the whole of that admirable instrument a grant of powers, which does not draw after it others, not expressed, but vital to their exercise; not substantive and independent, indeed, but auxiliary and subordinate.
[2] There is no phrase in it, which, like the articles of confederation,
[3] excludes incidental and implied powers, and which requires, that every thing granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the tenth amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies, which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," (which was contained in the articles of confederation,) and declares only, that "the powers, not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;" thus leaving the question, whether the particular power, which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair
construc-
- ↑ In the discussions, as to the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, in the cabinet of President Washington, upon the original establishment of the Bank, there was a large range of argument, pro et contra, in respect to implied powers. The reader will find a summary of the leading views on each side in the fifth volume of Marshall's Life of Washington, App. p. 3, note 3, &c.; 4 Jefferson's Corresp. 523 to 526; and in Hamilton's Argument on Constitutionality of Bank, 1 Hamilton's Works, 111 to 155.
- ↑ Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 220.
- ↑ Article 2.
