Munch wrote:Aside from the fact that that doesn't matter(edit: that being the fact that they interpreted it differently than the general concensus does today), I would have to disagree with you. The issue of necessary and proper was a big one. In one of the first things Washington signed into law (the creation of a central Bank) there was a big outcry to if it would be constitutional to do so. Washington set a precident by arguing that that clause allowed for the creation of things necessary and things proper, even though the constitution did not specifically say so.
On your first point (that it doesn't matter what the framers thought because we interpret it differently today) you need to look up the concept of original intent. To ascertain the intent of a law it is necessary to consider what a reasonable person
living at the time the law was written would have understood it to mean. Of course, we need not fall back on that when we have the authors' writings to tell us what they meant.
Regarding setting up a central bank. The Constitution explicitly empowers the government to print money, levy taxes and regulate commerce between the states. The creation of a central bank could be argued to be "necessary and proper" to those ends. (This is the purpose of the "necessary and proper" clause--to authorize the government to do those things deemed necessary and proper to carry out those specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.)
Have you read the Federalist Papers? Are you unaware of Hamilton's and Madison's writings on the "necessary and proper" clause, or do you disagree with their assertions as to what they meant?
