Final answer:
A person arguing for a narrow interpretation of the powers of Congress would focus on the strict confines of constitutionally enumerated powers, much like the Jeffersonian Republicans in contrast to the Federalists' broader interpretation. Debates during the early republic, such as on the establishment of a national bank, exemplify these conflicting views on the scope of Congress's legislative authority.
Step-by-step explanation:
This person would likely argue for a narrow interpretation of the powers of Congress, focusing on the strict confines of constitutionally enumerated powers and resisting the expansion of governmental authority through broad interpretations. During the formation of the United States government, there was much debate over the scope of Congress's powers. The Federalists, including figures like Fisher Ames and Alexander Hamilton, favored a broader interpretation, invoking the 'necessary and proper' clause to justify actions like the creation of a national bank, which they saw as implied powers of Congress. This contrasts with the Jeffersonian Republicans, who would have argued for the narrow interpretation you are referring to, limiting Congress to its explicitly listed powers in the Constitution.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress, and the debates that took place in the early days of the republic centered on how expansively these powers could be interpreted. For example, when the topic of the national bank came up, the differing views on the 'necessary and proper' clause and the doctrine of implied powers became clear. Supporters of a narrow interpretation like James Madison would have been opposed to such a broad usage of Congressional power, highlighting the ongoing tensions between different factions in government about the limits of legislative authority.