If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.

This sentence comes from Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 opinion letter to President George Washington defending the constitutionality of creating the First Bank of the United States. The proposal had drawn objections—most notably from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—that Congress lacked an enumerated power to charter a bank. Hamilton responded by articulating a broad reading of the Constitution’s implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause: if Congress pursues a legitimate constitutional end (such as collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating commerce) and selects means plainly adapted to that end and not otherwise prohibited, the measure falls within federal authority. The argument became a foundational statement of nationalist constitutional interpretation.

Hamilton is laying out a test for constitutional legitimacy that separates “ends” from “means.” The “end” must be within Congress’s enumerated powers; the “means” need not be specifically listed so long as they are reasonably related to achieving that end and not barred elsewhere in the Constitution. This frames the federal government as capable of practical governance rather than confined to a narrow checklist of powers. The passage anticipates later judicial formulations of implied powers, most famously in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), where Chief Justice Marshall echoed Hamilton’s logic in upholding the national bank. It remains central to debates over the scope of federal power.