In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, Alexander Hamilton's argument that, "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Hamilton here is arguing in favor of an expansive reading of the

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Alexander Hamilton's argument supports an expansive interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, which allows Congress to pass laws needed to execute its enumerated powers, even if those laws are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This principle was central to the decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, affirming the federal government's implied powers.

In the Case of McCulloch V