1. Close Reading: In source #2, Alexander Hamilton makes two claims regarding why he believes the National Bank of the United States would be Constitutional. What are these two claims? 2. Sourcing: Do you trust sources #1 and #2? Do you think they are reliable? Why or why not? Source #1: Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank (1791)...I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground in the tenth amendment: That "all powers not delegatedto the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To takea single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundlessfield of power, no longer susceptible of any definition...The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, havenot, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.... In article one section eight of the US Constitution, it reads that the legislative body (congress) shall have the power to"regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulatecommerce, are very different acts....The second general phrase quoted in support of the Constitutionality of this bank is the necessary and proper clause that, "tomake all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated (listed) powers." But they can all be carriedinto execution without a bank. A bank, therefore, is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase....Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of thegood or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Source #2: Hamilton's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank (1791).... The bank does have a constitutional basis when closely examining the commerce powers as outlined in theConstitution... The proposed bank is to consist of an association of persons, for purpose of creating a join capital, to beemployed, chiefly, and essentially, in loans..... the bank as it proposed will be the receiver of all taxes collected...accordingly, itis affirmed that the bank has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes; to that of borrowing and lendingmoney; to that of regulating trade between the states, all of which are outlined as powers of Congress in article one of the USConstitution.And in the last place, it will be argued, that it is clearly within the provision which authorizes the making of all needed rulesand regulations concerning the property of the United States.... The only question must be in this, as in every other case,whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of theacknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress forsuperintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But onemay be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States,or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it isincident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to

Question

1. Close Reading: In source #2, Alexander Hamilton makes two claims regarding why he believes the National Bank of the United States would be Constitutional.  What are these two claims?  2. Sourcing: Do you trust sources #1 and #2? Do you think they are reliable? Why or why not? Source #1: Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank (1791)...I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground in the tenth amendment: That &#34;all powers not delegatedto the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.&#34; To takea single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundlessfield of power, no longer susceptible of any definition...The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, havenot, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.... In article one section eight of the US Constitution, it reads that the legislative body (congress) shall have the power to&#34;regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes.&#34; To erect a bank, and to regulatecommerce, are very different acts....The second general phrase quoted in support of the Constitutionality of this bank is the necessary and proper clause that, &#34;tomake all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated (listed) powers.&#34; But they can all be carriedinto execution without a bank. A bank, therefore, is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase....Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of thegood or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Source #2: Hamilton's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank (1791).... The bank does have a constitutional basis when closely examining the commerce powers as outlined in theConstitution... The proposed bank is to consist of an association of persons, for purpose of creating a join capital, to beemployed, chiefly, and essentially, in loans..... the bank as it proposed will be the receiver of all taxes collected...accordingly, itis affirmed that the bank has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes; to that of borrowing and lendingmoney; to that of regulating trade between the states, all of which are outlined as powers of Congress in article one of the USConstitution.And in the last place, it will be argued, that it is clearly within the provision which authorizes the making of all needed rulesand regulations concerning the property of the United States.... The only question must be in this, as in every other case,whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of theacknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress forsuperintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But onemay be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States,or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it isincident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to

Accepted Answer

The establishment of the National Bank of the United States was a significant event in American…