Should a strict or a broad interpretation
be used? Was Jefferson or Hamilton right?
 |
| Alexander Hamilton |
Monday, October 8, 2012
1st 2 Political Parties--Ad. US History #4
Should a strict or a broad interpretation
be used? Was Jefferson or Hamilton right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A broad interpretation, Hamilton's view, is the one that should be used. If a strict interpretation is used, the Federal Government will be handcuffed and very limited, resulting in the States having the vast majority of the powers, because all power would fall to the States that aren't explicitly listed in the Constitution. For example, the fact that Pennsylvania requested help from the National government to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and their wish was granted, due to the broad interpretation of the elastic clause, proves the necessity for broad interpretation. This gives the government both power over the states, as well as preventing another incident like Shay's Rebellion due to the broad interpretation. The broad interpretation is necessary for the Federal government to hold power over the States, which is necessary after the failure of the Articles of Confederation.
ReplyDeleteHamilton's view of the president having a broad interpretation of the Constitution is needed for the United States of America to be successful. If the president rules the nation by following the constitution, but at the same time utilizes a broad interpretation of the Constitution to make a decision that is best for the nation, then the nation itself will be more successful. For instance, when Hamilton presented the idea of a national bank to president Washington, though this specific idea was not written in the Constitution, Washington still carried through with the idea because it was best for the nation. However, if the president utilizes a strict interpretation of the constitution the federal government gets stuck because they are limited to specific orders and they do not have as much control over each state. This was the case under the Articles of Confederation and was one of the main causes to its failure. A broad interpretation of the Constitution is needed in order for our nation to be successful and for its citizens to have natural rights while the federal government can still hold power over the state governments.
ReplyDeleteJefferson, a Republican, and Hamilton, a Federalist, both had valid arguments for their interpretations of the Constitution, but ultimately, Hamilton was correct. A broad interpretation was necessary because a single document of laws and regulations can only get a government so far. Open interpretation was crucial in order to set in motion the development and growth of the young nation. Hamilton had a vision of advancement and revolution for the American society and economy. He was looking forward to the future, wanting to improve on his country. For example, part of his proposed plan was to create a national bank in order to control the currency, therefor strengthening the economy as a whole. The controversial aspect to this plan was that the Constitution did not explicitly state that Congress had the power to pass this bill. Hamilton argued that this was justified since the national bank would do nothing but improve the nation. Without a broad interpretation, the United States would not be nearly as powerful and advanced as it is today.
ReplyDeleteThe freshly created United States of America should work with "broad construction of the Constitution". Hamilton and Madison, the federalists leader believed in a "broad construction of the Constitution" because it would help create a strong central government, which was the goal of the second constitution. A "broad construction of the Constitution" allowed Hamilton (a federalist himself) to begin fixing the Debt the United Staes had after the War of Independence. Hamilton created in his financial plan the Public Credit, which provided a capital for the National government and allowed the government to gain strength and reduce the Debt. Moreover, Hamilton's financial plan also allowed the government to improve the road and the postal service. This Improvement lead to a better connection between states, and so more welded country.
ReplyDeleteWithout a "broad construction of the Constitution", none of the improvements would have been possible, and the United States would not have solved any problem because of the weakness of their national government. Jefferson, the first leader of the republican was for a "strict Construction of the Government ". Proof is, Jefferson was against Hamilton's financial plan. Moreover, the main reason why the republican are for a "strict Construction of the Government " is because they fear that the government will have too much power. Although the government sometimes transgress the constitution, like Adams during the Alien and Sedition Acts. A "broad construction of the Constitution" would stop big transgression of the constitution like these to happen, but at the same time allow the government to have enough freewill to make many improvements to the country.
The federalists were right regarding their interpretation of the Constitution. Hamilton was on the Federalist side where they believe in a broader and loose interpretation of the Constitution. So, Hamilton was right. With the broader interpretation, there was an elastic clause that helped give Congress more power or flexibility when it came to financial, governmental, economic and military matters. It allowed Congress to raise money for the army, navy and marines along with allowing money to be printed coined and borrowed to help pay the fees they need to survive in this world. With a loose interpretation, more choice, power and liberty were allowed. How can some of the Bill of Rights exist if the people won't be allowed to comply to those rights if the Constitution prevents them? There would be no liberty and the Congress would not be able to do what needs to be done if the interpretation of the Constitution is not expanded. A lot would be limited and the government would barely have any power to do what needs to be done. If so much is limited on the Constitution, how can anything be done to resolve the problems in our country and make our country better?
ReplyDeleteHamilton, proposing there to be a a loose interpretation of the constitution, and Jefferson, proposing there to be a strict interpretation of the constitution, both had valid points as to why their proposals were essential. However, Hamilton's proposal was necessary for creating a strong central government. This idea created the "elastic clause" which allowed the congress flexibility to pass laws that were needed while still carrying out heir constitutional duty's. If there was a strict interpretation of the constitution, the National government would be weak because the states would then carry too much power. An example of why a strict interpretation of the constitution is a flaw is Shay's Rebellion. The rebellion showed how weak the national government was because they did not have enough control/power to stop it. With a loose interoperation the national government carries the majority of the power and can take control. For example, during the Whiskey Rebllion in 1794, Pennsylavania was able to seize the rebellion because the National government now how the power to do control these situations. Stopping the rebellion showed how strong the new National government was under having a loose interoperation of the government. For these two reasons are why Hamilton's proposal is essential for creating a strong a strong central government, something that the Articles of Confederation failed to accomplish.
ReplyDelete-Isiah Nunez
Amelia PFox
ReplyDeleteAlexander Hamilton and the Federalists were correct in regards to the construction of the Constitution. They believed in a “broad” interpretation of the Constitution where as Jefferson, Madison, and the Republicans believed in a strict interpretation. Strict interpretation was the argument that the Congress or President did not have the power to do anything that the Constitution did not give them specified power to do. I agree with Blake Polizzi that this leaves no room for growth and improvement in the American government. When the Constitution was written, they had no sense of the problems that the government may face. This makes it important for the government to practice broad interpretation so that they may use the constitution as guideline to properly interpret unique situations they were faced with and act on them appropriately. Broad interpretation, the Federalist view, was based on the view that the Congress and President 'had the right to make any law necessary and proper.' This was called the Elastic clause and was written in the constitution. The argument between broad and strict interpretation can be traced back to the argument of giving power to states versus power to the central government. Broad interpretation was used in Hamilton's successful efforts to create a National Bank for the Unites States. A National Bank was both a necessary and proper method in borrowing money and regulating the currency. The bank would create a stronger national government, which was crucial for our success. For example, under the Articles of Confederation, the states were given more power, resulting in situations such as Shay's rebellion, where our government proved weak and unprepared. In contrast, The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, put down immediately, proved the Central Government in the US extremely strong. Though there are valid arguments to strict construction, broad construction would ultimately give the government the power to develop industrially and economically. In addition, Jefferson, the main representative of strict interpretation, would find that when he was elected, he needed to employ broad construction.
The Federalist, who believed in a broad interpretation of the Constitution, was right. A broad interpretation, Hamilton's view, of the Constitution was correct because it was the only way for the United States to become successful. If they followed Jefferson and the Republican's view of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which believed that the government only had the powers specifically listed in the Constitution, then Constitution of The United States would eventually fail, just like the Articles of Confederation. It would fail because it gave too much power to the states and not enough power to the central government. The central government needed to be strong in order to successfully fulfill its duties and begin the establishment of a new nation. An example of why the central government needed to be strong and have a broad interpretation of the Constitution was Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. During Shay's Rebellion, the government was too weak and therefore unable to help. However, during the Whiskey Rebellion, the strong central government was able stepped in to help and end the rebellion because of the powers granted by a broad interpretation of the Constitution. This proves that a strong central government under a broad interpretation of the Constitution is needed. In addition, in order for the central government to be strong, they needed choice and liberty so that they could interpret what was necessary and proper for the United States to fully function and be successful. This idea of choice and liberty that was used by those who believed in a broad interpretation of the Constitution was known as the "elastic clause", which gave the Congress the right to create any law necessary to carry out their responsibilities. The "elastic clause" is one of the main reasons why the Constitution of the United States is still used. This is because it left room for growth for the future of the nation. An example when the United States needed a broad interpretation and used the "elastic clause" is when Hamilton proposed the creation of a national bank. Jefferson, a republican and believer in the strict interpretation of the Constitution, strongly disagreed with this proposal and argued that the Constitution did not give the Congress the power to create a national bank. On the other hand, Hamilton, a federalist and believer in the broad interpretation of the Constitution, argued that the government had the right to do anything necessary to carry out its duties listed in the Constitution (elastic clause). Therefore his argument stated that a national bank was essential for the the United States to borrow money and control the currency. Eventually, Washington decided that a National Bank was necessary and therefore proves that a broad interpretation of the Constitution is needed. Lastly, another reason that a broad interpretation of the Constitution proved to be correct is when Jefferson decided to switch views and follow a broad interpretation when he became president. He decided to do this because he realized that it was necessary for the Unites States to become successful and that a strict interpretation would severely limit the government's powers.
ReplyDelete- Nicky Friedman
Within the definition of a “broad construction” of the constitution it says the broad interpretation “expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.”(Gerald and Kathleen Hill) This segment of the definition articulates my main point of reasoning in my support of Hamilton’s broad interpretation. In our ever-changing complex society, central ideas might need restorations and this can only be done if we adopt the concept of broad interpretation. If we do not adopt broad interpretation and choose the strict construction instead, then we only follow what is written directly between the lines of the constitution and are never able to free ourselves from its confines. Evidence of a well-needed change is when Hamilton wanted to introduce the bank proposal, which Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson argued. Though Washington signed the bill to become a law, if Republicans were able to convince him otherwise it would have hurt the nation as a whole. Thus, the broad interpretation is a healthier mind-set because it helps keep our minds open to decipher whether a decision will better the nation even if it’s not directly written in the constitution. Even Thomas Jefferson realized that a broad interpretation was more utile once he entered into a position of power.
ReplyDelete-Sam Sabin
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2028
DeleteThis the URL for my Quote.
-Sam Sabin
Federalist's, and Hamilton's broad interpretation of the Constitution was successful for America because this would allow government to have power over the states and led to confidence in the United States. This was seen in the three reports Hamilton wrote as a recovery plan during national debt, which were report on credit, report on banking, and report on manufacturing. A loose interpretation of Constitution was seen in Hamilton's report on banking particularly when stating the "Elastic Clause." The "Elastic Clause" allowed flexibility in government and stated that congress had the authority to carry out functions. This would allow for a strong central government, unlike Jefferson's strict interpretation of the Constitution, where there were state advocates. Hamilton's interpretations proved to be right in 1794 when the Whiskey Rebellion took place because Pennsylvania rebelled against the tax on whiskey. The government had a strong response to this because the new constitution was powerful, unlike the one during Shay's Rebellion when the government didn't respond at all. The government could do what they thought was best for the nation instead of only having limited power over each state, which was seen under The Articles of Confederation, and failed because each state was separated and governed themselves.
ReplyDelete- Pape
Hamilton's view on having a broad interpretation of the Constitution was what was right for America. Hamilton wanted to create a strong central government, which still left states with some power, just not as much as before. Thomas Jefferson completely disagreed. He was a strong believer in abiding by the Constitution exactly as it was written, giving the states themselves more power than the central government. That could of never worked since that our type of government might as well of been the equivalent of having many different sub-countries. Through Hamilton's idea of a strong central government America was able to create a national bank. Without a national bank America wouldn't of had a common currency, which would of continued the segregation between states, and America would not have been able to pay back their debt to foreign countries. George Washington was able to create the "Elastic Clause", allowing more flexibility for our Nation. Our congress could now pass laws that would help America grow and prosper. Another example of how the new strength found in our government was beneficial was during the Whiskey Rebellion. Unlike Shay's Rebellion when Massachusetts was not able to acquire any help from the government to put this uprising down, the Whiskey Rebellion was stopped immediately by our new national army. If we had not created a strong national government we would of still been weak as a country; unable to defend, pay, or unite ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Federalists were right regarding their interpretation of the Constitution. Federalists were a political party that believed in a strong federal government and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton and most Federalists were in favor of the way the Constitution was written. They distrusted the system of government that gave the power too much to the people and thought that it would only lead to conflict. Federalists believe that the wealthy and educated should be in the government in order to make smart decisions for the nation. Hamilton had to argue against Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans that a loose interpretation of the Constitution was needed. Republicans believed in a strict interpretation. As said in the text book, "Hamilton defended his bank by arguing that the government had the right to do everything necessary and proper to carry out any of the powers granted in the Constitution" (157). Hamilton was correct in his loose interpretation of the Constitution because it is the only way the government can successfully succeed with smart people to run the country wisely. Hamilton had a vision for the economy and had a bank proposal. Hamilton found ways to pay off the national and state debts. Based off of the Federalist ideas, a national bank was created, which created a common currency and made a correction of the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton had visions for the nation and created a recovery plan for the national debt, issuing 3 reports: report on credit, report on banking, and report on manufacturing. These reports led the way out of debt. Even Thomas Jefferson had to eventually found that he "needed follow the path of broad constitution" (157). Federalists wanted to have a strong national government to keep order among the people. A broad interpretation was needed for the young nation in order to set forth the development of the government and the economy. If not, the government would not have enough authority to make the decisions for the country that is needed, it would not be nearly as powerful.
ReplyDeleteWhen interpreting the United States constitution a broad interpretation must be used. A strict interpretation would only allow the government to have the powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. A broad interpretation would allow the government to hold all powers that are not specifically denied to it by the Constitution. I agree with Alexander Hamilton, a federalist, who supported a broad interpretation of the constitution. A broad interpretation is important for maintaining a strong central government. This allows more powers to be delegated to both the national and federal government. The government must be able to exercise a wide variety of implied powers, all justified by the loose interpretation in order to become a successful, powerful nation. Hamilton wanted to industrialize the country by using government money and taxes to aid infrastructure to help power businesses and help make The United States into a world power, while Jefferson wanted to focus on the common man and farmer. One could argue that Thomas Jefferson was a socialist. Large corporations and businesses are what make an economy flourish. The government needs to be able to decide what is "necessary and proper" in terms of government involvement in society, and when interpreting the United States constitution a broad interpretation would most likely turn out to be more successful.
ReplyDeleteDuring Washington’s Presidency, the views of the Federalists and republicans concerning the interpretation of the constitution were very different. As a fellow Federalist, Hamilton’s view was that a broad interpretation should be used when consulting the Constitution that governs our governments. He was correct with this idea, which contradicted the strict interpretation the Republicans wanted for the Constitution. He realized that in the youth of their soon to be great country, they needed to have a broad interpretation of the Constitution so they could fix the many problems that existed. One of those problems was the economy, and without a loose interpretation of the constitution he could of never created the elastic clause. Another way Hamilton helped our country with a loose interpretation of the government was when he created the National Bank. This was a very important part of the success of our country. As the government continued to strengthen, our country began to be able to better protect itself against rebellions such as the Whiskey rebellion. Though the Federalists political party ended up vanishing, today we still have a two political party system, and they continue to disagree on many controversial problems, as they did during Washington’s presidency.
ReplyDelete-Austin Brandt
The Federalists party, lead by the former Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton, believed that government should have a lose interpretation of the Constitution. I believe this was the correct and smartest way to run the new and improved US Government. If the government followed the Republican views, which were to follow the Constitution very strictly, the government would be giving away too much power to the states. The national government needed to establish a strong powerful central government. Without a strong central government, the US could have more instances similar to Shay's Rebellion were the national government was called on to send military help to Massachusetts, and nobody showed up. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that a strong central government was necessary and proved that a broad interpretation of the Constitution would only help. The Elastic Clause gave Congress the right to create any law necessary to carry out their own responsibilities. The Elastic Clause basically gave Congress permission to loosely interpret the Constitution. The Elastic Clause was put to use when Alexander Hamilton suggested a national bank. This was strongly opposed by Republican Thomas Jefferson, but it allowed the US to control currency and debt. Jefferson eventually switched over to the Federalist side when elected President of the United States, and chose to loosely interpret the Constitution.
ReplyDelete-Sam Hahn
Hamilton with the Federalists and Jefferson with the Republicans both had respected views regarding the Constitution. However, Hamilton's view is most suitable for the American government. His idea of a broad interpretation keeps the national government from to limited power and states with to much. Allowing states with to much power is asking for failure as we saw with the Articles of Confederation. Each state governed themselves and the national government was limited to only so much power. We see the need for a broad national government through the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The government had a strong response to the rebellion as Pennsylvania rebelled against the tea tax. In 1786, when the Constitution was viewed strictly, the national government had no response to Shay's rebellion in Boston, which proved the states were more powerful than the national government. Along with responses, a new national bank was established. An established national bank brought the new U.S. nation under one common currency. The strict interpretation of the Constitution allowed different currencies in each state. The U.S. could not pay back their debt to foreign countries with the different currencies. The creation of a powerful national government brought to us by Hamilton's view of the Constitution unified the U.S. as a whole and began the succes to one of the most powerful countries in today's world.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion Hamilton and the Federalists were right in pushing for a broad interpretation of the constitution for many reasons, mostly for the fact that without making use of the "elastic clause", the government would be too restricted in how it can develop the country.
ReplyDeleteBy using the elastic clause, it allows the government to do anything proper to "carry out any of the powers granted in the constitution" (Boorstin 157), without using this interpretation of the constitution, the country today would be without numerous things we take for granted. Many things such as a large army and navy would be impossible to build without the ability to spend money buying new machinery for the army which is only allowed under Hamilton's loose interpretation of the constitution, under Jefferson's and the Republican's strict interpretation, funding would be almost non-existent.
With regards to the specific question of the national bank versus the state bank. I also feel Hamilton was right due to the limitations that only having state banks would cause, the main problem being the problem of where tax goes?, the national government, charging everyone in the nation taxes, has no where to put the tax as they have no central bank. Only having state banks also leads to the eventual, almost guaranteed problem of misuse by certain states, for example, let us assume a state is experience economic difficulties, having only state banks allows them to simply print more money for their state with no regulation, as that would be impossible under strict interpretation of the constitution, thusly the value of the American dollar would be constantly under threat. Providing, in my opinion, clear indication that Hamilton and the Federalists were right in their interpretation of the constitution
Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution (everything the document did not forbid, was allowed). Because of the Federalists, the nation’s debt was lifted, and Jays Treaty was established. The Elastic Clause states: “The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Power, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”(Source 1) This gives congress the right, and ability to ensure the 17 enumerated powers of congress are carried out. Examples of these powers: to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money on the credit of the United states, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to coin money, establish post offices, to raise and support an army, navy and militia, and to declare war. (Source 2) Congress still has those powers today, so clearly Hamilton was right and a looser interpretation of the Constitution should be used. The Articles of Confederation failed, and, after Shay’s Rebellion it was decided we needed a stronger national government in order to have the United States of America succeed. So the Constitution was written to make the national government stronger. Then after the Whiskey Rebellion, it was proven that we had a strong national government, why would a political party come along that wanted a weaker national government? Why would they want digress and give the states more power?
ReplyDeleteSource 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause
Source 2: Discussed in Class (F Period Saturday 10/13/12)
-Krissy Govertsen
Jefferson and Hamilton had two very different views on how the new Constitution should be interpreted. The Federalists, represented by Hamilton, thought that the government should have the power to use what they called the elastic clause by loosely interpreting the constitution. This would allow congress to pass laws easier and have more control over the people. However, this could have been disliked since it left so much power to the president and the central government. Citizens could have ended up with the same government that they had fought against just year’s prior. They wanted to keep their rights that were established in the Bill Of Rights and have a government that would fight to keep that. On the side of the Republicans, represented by Thomas Jefferson, they believed that a strict interpretation should be used. This method would reduce the amount of power the government has because they would not have the same freedom when passing laws. With a looser interpretation, the power would remain within the states. This would not be as effective because the states did not have the power to solve any problems such as Shay’s rebellion. During Shay’s rebellion, the state of Massachusetts was unable to stop it because they did not have any power. The states were not powerful enough at the time to be able to enforce laws against the people. Later on in Pennsylvania, the Whiskey Rebellion showed that the national government could enforce laws and would use force to do so. This showed how the strong central government was more effective than leaving it to the states.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Federalist Party would have been more effective in the early going because it would keep the country protected and under good control. They were able to create things like the national bank that would greatly help the country that the Republican Party might have been fearful of doing. However, after a steady country was created and the states had enough power to fend for themselves, Jefferson and the Republican Party would be the better choice.
-Jeff Thompson
The Federalist's policy of "Loose interpretation of the Constitution" was much more suitable than the Republican's policy of strict interpretation. As quoted by Sam Sabin above, society is truly far too complex to judge right and wrong through strict statements of law. In no way is it possible to have a constitution that can fully apply, in strict terms, to every situation in our evermore intricate society. If government had not used the elastic clause to temporarily override the constitution, the Whiskey Rebellion could have easily become a much larger and more dangerous event. According to the constitution, state courts should have handled the matter. Hamilton, however, helped Washington to realize that the rebellion was a "direct attack on the authority of the government," (Boorstin 163). This was a time when it was necessary for the constitution to be bent in order to properly silence a federal threat in a timely and effective manner. Hamilton's Federalist viewpoint of loose interpretation was ultimately the correct one, over Jefferson's Republican viewpoint of strict interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Hamilton's view of having a loose interpretation of the Constitution was the ideal way for the United States to be successful. If the states followed Jefferson's view of following a strict interpretation of the constitution a confederate government would have been bestowed upon the country. If this would have happened, differences between the states would have begun to sprout, which could have been detrimental to the country. The federalist creation of the "Elastic Clause" gave the congress the right to pass laws that were needed for the success of the newly created United States. In turn, this would lead to a much more successful government. An example of how a weaker central government was unfavorable was Shay's Rebellion. Massachusetts was forced to put down Daniel Shay and his group of enraged farmers because the national government could not defend itself.This led to the that realization that a stronger central government was needed. When the Whiskey Rebellion occurred, the new government and the newly created army were able to put the uprising down immediately. If Jefferson's ideas were put into act, the government again would have trouble defending itself and separation between the states would occur. If it wasn't for a strong central government, the United States may have not been in existence today.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Hamilton, a federalist, was right when he stated that the constitution should be interpreted broadly. This is because a broad interpretation of the constitution allowed congress to pass the laws necessary to successfully exhibit the enumerated powers granted to them in the constitution. The way Hamilton used the elastic clause, which “[granted] congress the power to create laws necessary and proper for carrying out their enumerated list of powers” (1), exhibits the federalist opinion for loose interpretation of the constitution. This clause allows for loose interpretation because with it, congress can branch off from their set enumerated powers to create laws that relate to these powers. Jefferson did not agree with this clause because he believed it granted congress too much power. However, it is clear that this clause was necessary because it gives congress the power to make laws in areas that didn’t exactly fall into their enumerated list of powers but needed to be immediately addressed. An example of the elastic clause giving the government the necessary power to act was in the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 in Pennsylvania. The government was able to immediately send troops to Pennsylvania to put a stop to the riots of people angered by the tax on whiskey, which resulted in a termination of the rebellion. The elastic clause allowed for congress to take the action necessary to properly display their enumerated powers, which created a strong central government. This is why the federalist view of a loose interpretation of the constitution was right.
ReplyDelete(1)
"Elastic Clause." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. .
-Dylan O'Connor
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe constitution of the united states was written as guidelines for the making of this country. The authors of this document explicitly stated (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) that the federal government was "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" which meant that the constitution was subject to alterations as the country changed, this was also called "The Elastic Clause". The federalists were right about interpreting the Constitution loosely because it meant that there was more room for the country to grow and develop. This loose interpretation gave the Federal government powers that were not written in the constitution, as years passed and people's needs changed, the constitution needed to adapt. When it came to the decision of whether or not to create a National Bank, the Federalists were right to interpret the constitution loosely; because in America we live in a capitalistic society, this is because money is needed to get most things in our modern society. Back then, this social structure was beginning to form; people were starting to move to cities, work in factories and buy everything they needed to survive with the money they made; instead of producing these essential things. The Federalists argued that the National Bank would help by providing people with loans, therefore producing more opportunities for people to move into the cities and promote modernization; and being a safe and practical place to keep tax money.
ReplyDeleteCited:
http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/consticlauses.html
A broad interpretation of the Constitution, which Hamilton believed in, is the strongest idea for America. By abiding by a broad interpretation of the Constitution, a stronger central government would be created, hence equalizing and controlling the state governments. On the contrary, Jefferson believed in a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, out of fear that the national government would become despotic. Jefferson preferred to give the states more power and build an agricultural-based society as opposed to cities and factories, since he believed that farm people were “the chosen people of God” [1] (157). Jefferson and the Republican had hesitantly agreed with Hamilton’s national and state debt improvement plans, but agreeing with Hamilton on his new national bank proposal was pushing it. Jefferson believed that the Constitution did not explicitly give Congress the power to establish a national bank; therefore, it was unconstitutional and should not be done. The Republican belief was that the President or Congress did not have any power unless lawful under the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteHamilton, however, believed in the “elastic clause" [2] of the Constitution, stating that the government had the right to do anything required to carry out any of the powers mentioned in the Constitution. Hamilton argued that that the bank was required in order to properly allow Americans to borrow and regulate their currency. Hamilton argued that the bank would be key in creating an efficient way for the American citizens to borrow money from the government and regulate American currency, both of which are powers for which the Congress is specifically responsible for, as described in the Constitution. Ergo, Hamilton's idea would not be unconstitutional. In the end, Washington agreed with Hamilton and the Untied States National Bank was created in 1791. This supported Hamilton’s Federalist perspective and belief in a broad interpretation in the Constitution, and that a government that revolved around a strong central government will be successful.
____________
1. Boorstin, Daniel J., and Brooks Mather Kelley. A History of the United States. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.
2. Gulotta, Bill. "Washington To Jefferson (1800)." Advanced United States History. Berkshire School, Sheffield, MA. 09 Oct. 2012. Lecture.
Hamilton's view, the broad interpretation of the constitution, was correct for the United States. This interpretation was right for America because if we followed the outline of Jefferson, the country would be widely disconnected. Each state would run by their own rules, and if states didn't agree it would cause large issues. But, with a stronger national government rather than state government, this gave the opportunity for decisions to be made that would make the whole country happy while still letting America thrive as individual states. This broad interpretation still allowed for the country to make new decisions and display elasticity, as written in the Elastic Clause, which gave Congress the authority to make laws and run the country by their terms in alliance with the strongly opinionated citizens from each state. This view of the constitution would provide better protection for the country as well, rather than if the military for each state was only concerned for their own state. For example, the military was so disconnected by state during Shay's rebellion that the state had no military force to help back it up. But, once the military had been unified, the Whiskey rebellion was largely more successful in terms of military force because all the states were working together. a broadened view of the constitution ultimately provided for a more unified country, which would make it easier for agreements to be made and steps taken in the right direction by America as one.
ReplyDeleteWhen constructing the Constitution, Alexander and the Federalists were correct in thought of utilizing more general and broad ideas to construct it. On the other hand, Jefferson, Madison, and the Republicans believed in more rigorous and detailed ideas, the main one being that the Congress or President cannot perform any acts without the Constitution permitting them to do so. When the constitution was written, no one was able to predict what sort of problems the government had coming forth, hence a more broad presentation of ideas; no matter what sort of thing happened, they could refer to the constitution as a general guide. Federalists believed in the more general ideas because they believed that Congress and the President had the right to make any law necessary or proper, often referred to as the Elastic clause. The differences between those who wanted broader ideas against those who wanted more detailed ideas were the same as those who were for giving power to the states against those who believed in power to the Central Government. The more general ideas aided in Hamilton's creation of the National Bank for the United States, a major success. It allowed for the United States to properly facilitate the borrowing of money and regulation of currency. The National Bank created a stronger national government, a crucial aspect of success.
ReplyDeleteLater, these two different ideas led to the creation of two different political parties in America, the Federalist Party and the Anti-Federalist Party. Each political party argued based on their belief of economic interest, social position, and philosophical belief.
Each political party argued based on their belief of "economic interest, social position, and philosophical belief."(159)
DeleteBoorstin, Daniel J., and Brooks Mather Kelley. A History of the United States. Boston: Prentice Hall, 2007. Print.
A federalist is someone who believes in strong central government. When comparing the republican and federalist interpretation of the constitution I think that the federalist more accurately interpreted this document. Hamiltion who was the most prominent vocalist for the federal party correctly argued that " the government had the right to do everything necessary and proper to carry out any of the powers granted by the constitution"(prentice hall 158). What the Federalists drew from the constitution was that they would use this document as a basis for which to pass laws but not necessarily restrict them to word for word accuracy. For example, no where in the constitution does it state specifically that a national bank should be enforced but Hamilton knew this was a necessary addition to the United States. The national bank created much needed economic stability and rein-stilled confidence in the US citizens. The Federalist party was able to achieve this through the use of the elastic clause which gave congress the flexibility to carry out their responsibilities. This ultimately proves that Hamiltion's broad interpretation of the constitution was the best. The constitution, through broad interpretation, could be used as a guideline for Hamilton and others to write laws or proposals without worrying that they were violating acts of the constitution.
ReplyDelete-Eloise Morrow
When it came to interpreting the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton was right and using the broad interpretation is a step in the right direction for the United States of America. During this early period of independent America, a system involving a weak Central Government and strong states proved to be ineffective, as shown in the "Articles of Confederation" and its "11 weaknesses" (Gulota, class notes). Even though the situation was elevated by "the Constitution", America's expansion was still held down by the Republicans' idea of "strict interpretation" which favored the original government system is the "Articles of Confederation" and Republicans seemed to be support people such as farmers, shopkeepers, etc... more. However, this confines the US to an already weak economy. In contrast,Hamilton made the wealthy portion of US citizens to become the firm supporters of the national government as they would be " willing and able to invest large sums of money in new projects" instead, according to the "Report on public credit":"The new bonds went mainly to bankers, ... owned most of the old bonds." (Boorstin&Kelly, p.156)Furthermore, Hamilton advocated creating a national bank, improving currency regulation and government tax. As a result of Hamilton's aggressive strategy in economic expansion, the Central government's power was extended as well, becoming more flexible in not only solving funds and debt problems, but also serving the people of America . One example was the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington managed to assemble an army to stop the rebels, contrasting the Shay's rebellion, which there were no soldiers from the government to relieve the situation. This fact showed that the new government with the appearance of broad interpretation was more powerful and capable than the old one under the Articles.
ReplyDeleteSorry Mr. Gulutta, the citation was supposed to be (Gulotta, class notes)
DeleteBelieving in a loose interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was very important to America as an infantile country. This gave more power to the National Government, established and strengthened the national economy, put national power in the hands of some of the country’s most educated men, and helped enforce national unity. The "Elastic" Clause, also known as the "Necessary and Proper" Clause, gave permission to the Federal Government to act upon any impediment of rights in any way that they find necessary and proper in order to make it right according to the Constitution. Established by the Elastic Clause, the National Bank was yet another controversy of a loosely interpreted Constitution. The building of a National Bank helped to ensure the building and sustainability of the American economy. Many farmers and northerners did not like the taxes that Hamilton implemented on foreign good. They did not realize the importance of tax money in establishing a stable foundation for the National Bank, in a broader perspective, their own national economy. In the end, the National Bank helped the welfare of American currency. Having a Federal Government representing many states in a newly-established country was very important as well. Instead of many different men representing many different ideas, one group of men leading the country as a whole cut down the potential for disagreements. Although many believed that Hamilton was favoring the Upper Class, they were the right people to trust. The Upper Class consisted of well-educated men with experience in politics and legal matters. If anyone in the country could be trusted to ensure that the country was being well-run, it was the Upper Class. Having one group of people leading the country was also very important in creating national peace and unity. With tensions and differences forming between the north and south, being able to have a higher power above the two was better for the sake of the country than having representatives spending all of their time feuding with each other.
ReplyDeleteHamilton and the Federalists were right regarding their interpretation of the Constitution. The Federalists said the constitution should be interpreted loosely, thus making a stronger national government and leaving more room for the change that would come in the future. At this point in time America was a young country and the people were still trying to create their government. With the articles of confederation being such a failure, there is no way to expect that the same people could so quickly design a perfect set of laws that could rule for eternity. It was impossible for our founding fathers to foresee the change that would come in America over the following centuries. Having a strict interpretation would limit all aspects of life present and future. Having a loose interpretation of the constitution would make for a stronger national government. This lead to a national bank which strengthened the American currency. This also would unify the states further and bring the country together as a whole. Many people were opposed to this idea because they just finished fighting to be free of this overpowering leadership. The benefits of a strong central government was also seen through the contrast of dealing with Shays rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion. Originally America could not defend itself against a threat, Shays rebellion, because there was no central power to take control but by the time of the Whiskey rebellion the authority was shown and the rebellion was quickly put down. Though both interpretations had flaws, Hamilton and his view of a looser interpretation was ultimately right.
ReplyDeleteHamilton’s broad construction of the Constitution is the one to be used. On the other side, although the strict interpretation of the Constitution by Thomas Jefferson gave some equality to the citizens, it would give out too much power to the states, which resulted in a weak central government. As in Shay’s rebellion the weak central government could not send help to Massachusetts. If we choose the strict construction, Sam says, “then we only follow what is written directly between the lines of the constitution and are never able to free ourselves from its confines” (Sam Sabin, Blog). In contrast Hamilton’s loose interpretation not only created a strong central government but one that was not overpowering and also gave aim to the future. Hamilton won over Jefferson with the bank proposal that would power the Central government. Also in 1794 the Whiskey rebellion, in contrast to the Shay’s rebellion, was able to show that the government could handle a rebellion and demonstrate its power. Furthermore, a loose interpretation would let the later government be able to change according to the society to make what is the best for the country. Eventually, when Jefferson came to power, he learnd that he needed to follow the broad construction.
ReplyDeleteBoth Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton proposed very valid suggestions involving how to run the United States government, but Hamilton's view on how it should be done proved most effective in making the country a success. Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist party, which meant a few things. He believed in having a strong central government with a three-branch division of power. Jefferson, a Republican, thought that the states should have more power and that the national government should be weak. Essentially, what Hamilton desired was for all the faults in the Articles of Confederation to be fixed. In doing so, he could achieve his ultimate goal in creating a strong central government. Hamilton believed in what is called "Elastic Clause" which gave Congress the authority to pass any law they deemed necessary or proper. With Hamilton's view on the government, states would obtain power concerning the states themselves, but the federal government would hold power over the country as a whole. The need of a strong government proved necessary after the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. Farmers were unhappy at the fact that they had to pay a tax on whiskey that Alexander Hamilton had passed. The farmers protested in the hope of getting the tax appealed, and there was an extremely big response from the government. Contrary to what happened at Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion was immediately shut down. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that the new strong government was able to control violence against their new laws. It proved that the United States needed a strong National government in order to be successful. Alexander Hamilton's views on the government truly reflected those of the new Constitution, and they clearly helped the country to become a success.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Hamilton, a federalist, was correct in his argument for a broad interpretation of the Constitution because it would help create a strong central government. Strict interpretation of the Constitution would allow the President and Congress to only act on the specified laws of the Constitution, ultimately inhibiting the advancement of the United States. Amelia is right that the government must practice broad interpretation and use the Constitution as a guideline to properly handle unique situations. Using a more broad interpretation of “necessary and proper” in the Elastic Clause gave congress flexibility, and allowed Hamilton to create a national bank. Although the creation of a national bank was not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the bank was able to control currency and properly compensate soldiers who fought in the American Revolution. A national bank was a huge step in the advancement of the American economy and in strengthening the Federal Government. Under the Articles of Confederation the states had the majority of power, making the central government weak. The central government had no response when called upon to put a stop to the farmers in Shay’s Rebellion. In 1794 when the Whiskey Rebellion occurred our strong central government put a stop to it immediately. Broad interpretation of the Constitution was crucial to the growth of the United States, and without it we would not be as advanced as we are today.
ReplyDeleteTipper Higgins
The Federalist belief of "broad" or "loose" interpretation of the constitution is best suited to help America, especially with the problems the country faced in it's earlier years, instead of the Republican belief of a "strict" interpretation of the constitution. Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, favored a strong central Government, a loose interpretation of the Government that allowed them to give the National Government more flexibility, and flexibility is the equivalent to power. The elastic clause of the constitution grants the National Government this flexibility because it allows Congress to pass all laws that are proper and necessary to carry out their vested constitutional duties. The Government proved the reality of the strength they had obtained with a loose interpretation of the constitution during a Whiskey Rebellion in1794. During which, similarly to Shays Rebellion, many States rose up against the Government in protest of a new Whisky tax. However unlike Shays Rebellion this time the Government was able to raise an army to meet the protesters and stop the rebellion quickly and efficiently. Giving the Central Government this adaptability allows them to better serve the citizens of America and to obtain the trust of the citizens and other of countries in the U.S.A as a nation.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the strict interpretation of the Constitution, as urged by the Republican Party, versus the more broad interpretation, as urged by the Federalist Party, it is evident that the Federalists were clearly the ones who were on the right track. In this case, the Federalists, headed by Alexander Hamilton, were more enlightened as to how to run a successful government based on, but not completely dictated by, the written document that shapes the very foundation on which the country was built: the United States Constitution. The Republicans, lead by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, felt that a “strict construction” of the Constitution, which stresses that neither the Congress nor the President retained the power to do anything unless specifically stated within the United States constitution itself, was necessary in order to protect the rights of the people and to prevent the nation from relapsing into the hands of another autocratic leader (Boorstin & Kelley 157). However, one must take into account that the circumstances under which Jefferson had been advocating for a strict construction, may have caused his opinion to reflect a substantial amount of bias. The whole uproar of Federalists against Republicans concerning the topic of constitutional interpretation, stemmed from Hamilton’s proposal of creating a new National Bank. Jefferson immediately strongly disagreed with the bank proposal because, like many Americans at the time, he believed that farmers were “the chosen people of God”, and he did not wish to see them depreciate in “a land of cities, mills, mines, and factories” (Boorstin & Kelley 157). He felt that somehow the institution of a national bank would lead directly to the downfall of this precious agrarian population, and used the fact that the Constitution made no mention of a national bank as an excuse to dispute the establishment of said bank. It leaves one questioning whether Jefferson’s decision on this matter was intended for the good of the nation as a whole, or for the sake of indulging his own partiality towards a certain demographic of people. The use of a broad interpretation is absolutely necessary because a nation, such as the United States, is constantly evolving in a myriad of ways. Therefore it would be irrational to confine all of its complex inner workings to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, as suggested by the Republicans. This fact became obvious to even Jefferson when he came to power and soon realized that it would be impractical of him to stick to the strict interpretation himself. The broad construction of the Constitution allows for its continued brevity throughout the ages, and its continued relevance throughout its transition into modern day. Clearly the Federalists made the better choice.
ReplyDeleteHamilton's view on how to interpret the new constitution of the United States of America was correct. Hamilton and all the federalists believed that the President should view the constitution with broad interpretation. This would allow him to be more flexible on how to rule. This also let the government run under the "elastic clause". Under this statement in the constitution it let congress pass the laws necessary to carry out specific things. Unlike this, Jefferson and Republicans thought that the executive branch should interpret the constitution in a strict manner, following all the rules exactly, giving the national government limited powers. Eventually this would lead the United States government to fail just like the Articles of Confederation, which also limited the delegate powers. Shay's rebellion was caused by the lack of power in the national government, and no one in the new government wanted anything like that to happen again so rightfully so George Washington decided on Hamilton's plan on a broad interpretation. This allowed the President and Congress to pass the necessary laws to run a successful, working government. The constitution is a great guideline for the branches of the government to follow, but they had to expand beyond that to improve as a nation going forward. This helped keep the national government dominant over the states, but still a good balance between the reserved and delegated powers.
ReplyDeleteAlli Toffolon
Hamilton’s idea of loose interpretation of the Constitution is much more suitable for the development of America, as oppose to the strict interpretation Thomas Jefferson believed in. Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution so that the central government could become more powerful. A strong central government would provide more control and order over the nation, which would allow industry to flourish to the fullest extent. An example of strict government failing was Daniel shays rebellion. Massachusetts could not obtain any help from the government to stop the commotion. The wealthy had to contract an army to ward off the rebellion. On the other hand The Whiskey Rebellion was put to an end immediately by our national army because of the quick response from a strong government we built. Having strong national government helped diffuse The Whiskey rebellion from becoming a more widespread crisis. A strong central government is much more efficient as proven with the fast termination of the Whiskey rebellion.
ReplyDeleteHaving power held within the states, which Jefferson supported, is a much different way of ruling the country. It would divide country, rather than uniting it. A strict interpretation would only limit America’s potential to advance and thrive. Hamilton’s view of a loose Constitution accommodates a changing America, which is why Hamilton and Federalists were right with their loose interpretation of the Constitution.
-Jeffrey Meeker
The goal of the constitution was to strengthen the central government because the federal government had been ineffective under the Articles of Confederation. There was such a fear of tyrannical government that a powerless one was created instead. This was proved when Daniel Shay and company was capable of having a successful rebellion in the south. His rebellion could not be controlled or stopped because there was no authority to do so. The inability to protect the United States was a wake up call for a change in government. The two views on interpretation of the constitution were a strict interpretation and a broad interpretation. The strict interpretation, the opinion of the republicans, proposed that the government had no power to do anything outside of what was directly stated in the constitution. Hamilton and the federalists believed that a broad interpretation was necessary because the government had no power to be effective in any way. Hamilton’s interpretation of the constitution is more logical then Jefferson’s. For the United States to surpass their previous limitations they needed a more flexibility in government. The broad interpretation supported the “elastic clause” which allowed the congress to have flexibility as long as laws and actions remained constitutional. This idea is logical because unique problems arise everyday and it’s impossible for the constitution to apply to each of these issues. The elastic clause allowed the government to become more involved affective. As Blake and Amelia stated earlier, under a strict interpretation, the government had no room to grow or resolve any issues such as the severe debt shadowing the nation. The broad interpretation was essential in the development and early success of the United States. Under Hamilton’s broad interpretation the new government was able to execute Hamilton’s financial plan that provided a capital for the nation and allowed the United States to greatly reduce their debt. The new government was also could defend itself when the Whiskey Rebellion happened. The government finally accumulated enough power to become helpful.
ReplyDelete- Hannah Cooke (E period)
The federalists and Hamilton’s loose interpretation of the constitution, creation of the United States Bank, and the formation of the new strong central government successfully led the early periods of United States and successfully set the foundation of the government. However, this does not necessarily mean that the republicans were wrong. The republicans, Jefferson and Madison were right in interpreting the constitution strictly. Hamilton and his followers’ loose interpretation of the constitution gave the congress and the central government too much power with the “Elastic Clause”. Yes, the success of the strong central government’s response to stop the Whiskey Rebellion verified that the strong central government can secure the people, but the excessive loose interpretation of the constitution and the strong central government could have led to the deprivation of American’s rights and privileges once again, just like how the British deprived American’s freedom before America’s independence.
ReplyDeleteThe federalists believed that the central government could do anything necessary to maintain the powers of the government granted in the Constitution. This meant that the congress could pass any kind of laws that would help maintain the powers of government mentioned in the constitution. For instance, the government could unfairly raise the taxes of states and their farmers to pay the costs of government. Such action would have deprived the rights of American citizens.
George Washington decided to agree with Hamilton and form the national bank. However, the banking of early America could have also worked successfully with states banks instead of a national bank. The federal government’s budget could have been proportionally divided to states banks depending on the population of different states.
Furthermore, by giving the central government power, the government disregarded the opinions and ideas of various states that represented the various people in United States. The few influential, rich, and powerful ones in the upper class, who participated in the federal government, decided everything for different states and different people. As mentioned, these powerful few people of the congress could have decided to collect more taxes from people and pass laws that would only benefit themselves. As Mr. Gulotta mentioned, the U.S. congress still has this kind of major flaw. It is true that no successful change could have been made without the push of the strong central government, but this truly deprived the rights and privileges people who were not represented fairly.
The Federalists were right in their belief in the constitution. The reason why is due to the fact that at the time, in 1789, we, as a country, were in a lot of debt. We owed a lot of money as a result of the revolutionary war and because of the difficult economy while the articles of confederation were in place. The constitution did not directly say that a national ban should exist however, with the debt that America was in, it would help the federal government indefinitely throughout their development. As a Federalist, Hamilton believed in having a strong central government. This, again, is something that the constitution does not directly say however was interpreted by the federalist party. A strong central government was and still is important because it promotes balance among the three powers of government, and allows the country to protect themselves in a more efficient manner; compared to the lack of cooperation while the articles of confederation were put in place. A strict interpretation of the constitution wouldn't help America in the state that it was in because it would allow give the States too much power compared to the national government. This, as we learned with the articles of confederation, did not put all of the states and country as a whole on the same page. Allowing individual states to put their own agendas first. This implementation of a weak central government wouldn't help advance America into the superpower that we are today. Another important piece of the Federalists ideology was the elastic clause found in article I, section 8 clause 18, "The Congress shall have power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This was an essential part of the Federalists belief because it allows the Government to change with society! Back in 1789 the writers of the constitution couldn't have possibly conceived how different our world is today. Different laws must be created as problems arise with our culture. Such as civil rights, laws pertaining to oil and gas, etc…
ReplyDelete-Michael Schiffer
Quote From
Deletehttp://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/consticlauses.html
When the founding fathers of our country decided that we needed to become independent from England they wrote a constitution to give the people power over the government, not allowing for America to become a monarchy. A strict interpretation is what gives the people the most power, to be a republican, and to fight for the power of the people. Although you can argue this is what the founding fathers wanted their overall goal was to have a successful nation that could one day be a dominant world power. Arguably one of the most important parts of the constitution is the elastic clause. " The Congress shall have the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." A loose interpretation is essential because giving all the power to the people doesn't allow anything to get done for the betterment of our country. Our Congress right now has 535 voting members and it is almost impossible for laws to get passed that are needed because people always disagree with each other. Many argue that it is not the president, but instead the Congress that is the problem in our country right now. If we had a strict interpretation of the constitution the states would have power rivaling that of the government. All of our country who is of legal age has the chance to voice their opinion on who they believe should hold all the power. That is plenty of power that we take for granted, and many countries citizens do not have this luxury. The government is the body that regulates the disagreements between states and they need the power to do so which a loose interpretation give them.
ReplyDeleteFortenbaugh
The constitution was a set of laws for the States of America. Problems regarding the constitution only arose when something was done that was said to be unconstitutional. Though, the constitution does not specify details about every single aspect of what can or cannot be done in the government. Moreover it does not account for specific situations in which loose interpretation of the constitution may be necessary. Especially during a time in which America was experiencing economic problems, brainstorming solutions based around the idea of the constitution would be best. With strict interpretation, the government is limited to how they are best able to help their country. If the constitution was written to be strictly interpreted, words such as 'proper' and 'necessary' should not have been used in the constitution. Therefore Hamilton was correct in wanting a National Bank in doing what he thinks is best for his country.
ReplyDeleteD
The constitution was a set of laws bestowed upon the States of America. These laws could not possibly specify details about every single aspect of what can or cannot be done in the government. So it would be impossible to abide strictly by them. With strict interpretation, the government would be limited to how they can best help and improve their country. Especially in a new and developing country, strict guidelines could inhibit it's full potential as new ideas have neither been tried nor failed. In a time of economic difficulties, Alexander Hamilton of the Federalists issued a Report on Banking, a Report on Manufacturing and a Report on Credit to improve the country’s financial state. He believed in the use of an "elastic clause" as the way in which the Constitution should be interpreted. He uses the flexible words "necessary" and "proper" to describe what should be done. Jefferson, along with other republicans feared that the National Bank would risk their Central Government becoming a Tyrannical Government. But in fact a strong Central Government was what the country needed. Proof of this was in 1974 when the Government was able to act upon the Whiskey Rebellion and shut it down in Pennsylvania. Contrary to the Shay’s Rebellion of 1786. This proves that Jefferson’s idea of leaving more rights and power to the states is not the best option. Moreover, having a National Bank would make the Central Government stronger and more economically sound which in turn would benefit the states. If the government had decided to abide strictly by the rules of the constitution, America might not even have a common currency today. The National Bank bestowed more security and confidence in the Central Government.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work, students! You all provided great analysis and presented your interpretations well. Nice!
ReplyDelete