Analysis Questions: 1) Sourcing: Are sources #1 and 2 secondary sources or primary sources? How do you know? 2) Sourcing: Do you trust source #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 delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition...The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, 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 regulate commerce, are very different acts…. The second general phrase quoted in support of the Constitutionality of this bank is the necessary and proper clause that, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated (listed) powers." But they can all be carried into 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 the good 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 constitutional basis when closely examining the commerce powers as outlined in the Constitution...The proposed bank is to consist of an association of persons, for purpose of creating a join capital, to be employed, chiefly, and essentially, in loans....the bank as it proposed will be the receiver of all taxes collected...accordingly it is affirmed that the bank has a relation, more or less direct, to the power of collecting taxes; to that of borrowing and lending money; to that of regulating trade between the states, all of which are outlined as powers of Congress in article one of the US Constitution. And in the last place, it will be argued that it is clearly within the provision which authorizes the making of all needed rules and regulations concerning the property of the United States…. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the means to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may 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 is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage. . . .