Ron Chernow, who has written about Alexander Hamilton among others, disagrees with the Tea Party's claim that they speak for the founder's vision of the Constitution. He tells us that disputes over proper interpretation stem from the question about whether the Constitution authorized the creation of a national bank, even though that power is not specifically delegated in the document. Hamilton and Washington believed that the bank was authorized through the necessary and proper clause, while Madison and Jefferson said it didn't.
John Marshall would claim that this episode led to the development of the two party system:
John Marshall, the famed chief justice, traced the rise of the two-party system to that blistering episode, and American politics soon took on a nastily partisan tone. That the outstanding figures of the two main factions, Hamilton and Jefferson, both belonged to Washington’s cabinet attests to the fundamental disagreements within the country. Hamilton and his Federalist Party espoused a strong federal government, led by a powerful executive branch, and endorsed a liberal reading of the Constitution; although he resisted the label at first, Washington clearly belonged to this camp.
Jefferson and his Republicans (not related to today’s Republicans) advocated states’ rights, a weak federal government and strict construction of the Constitution. The Tea Party can claim legitimate descent from Jefferson and Madison, even though they founded what became the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Washington and Hamilton — founders of no mean stature — embraced an expansive view of the Constitution. That would scarcely sit well with Tea Party advocates, many of whom adhere to the judicial doctrine of originalism — i.e., that any interpretation of the Constitution must abide by the intent of those founders who crafted it.
And that helps explain political controversies ever since.
