[csb6]

> But that leads you to the conclusion that the central bank isn’t permissible.

The court could have just as easily have cited Framers that opposed the creation of the Bank as evidence the Constitution did not permit it. Or cited Jackson's strong opposition to the Bank as an example of there being a tradition of the executive taking control of monetary policy. My point is that the historical argument is arbitrary; you can pick and choose which examples get to be considered part of the canonical tradition to support preconceived conclusions (e.g. "the President shouldn't be allowed to interfere with an independent agency (the Fed)" or "the President should be allowed to interfere with an independent agency (the FTC)").