0
What else can I help you with?
HOW WAS JOHN MARSHALS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION DIFFERENT FROM THOMAS JEFFERSONS?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How did Hamilton's and Jefferson's different experiences relating to the writing of the constitution affect their roles as members of Washington's cabinet?
Hamilton and Jefferson's differing experiences with the Constitution deeply influenced their roles in Washington's cabinet. Hamilton, who supported a strong federal government and had a background in finance, advocated for a loose interpretation of the Constitution to promote economic growth and establish a national bank. In contrast, Jefferson, valuing agrarian interests and states' rights, favored a strict interpretation, believing that the government should only exercise powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. These fundamental differences shaped their conflicting visions for the new nation, leading to the emergence of political factions.
How was John Marshall's interpretation of constitution differ from Thomas Jefferson's?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
What political party read into the Constitution?
In 1789 there were no political parties. In fact Washington warned about the formation of parties and how they would put their interests before the common good of the people. Looks like he was right.
How are George Washington and James Madison different?
George Washington and James Madison differed in their roles and contributions to the early United States. Washington, as the first president and a commanding general during the Revolutionary War, was a unifying figure and symbol of national leadership. In contrast, Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," played a crucial role in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, focusing on the structure of government and individual liberties. While Washington emphasized strong leadership and national unity, Madison concentrated on political theory and the mechanics of governance.
How did hamiltons and jeffersons views toward the interpretation of the constitution different?
Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation, while Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation.
How would the US be different today if Washington had agreed with Madison and Jefferson's interpretations of the constitution?
laws would of been stricter, if Washington had listend to Madison and jeffersons interpitation of the constitution.
HOW WAS JOHN MARSHALS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION DIFFERENT FROM THOMAS JEFFERSONS?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was john marshall's interpretation of the constitution different from thomas jeffersons?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was john Marshall's interpretation of the constitution different different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How was John Marshalls interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
Marshall believed the Constitution implied strong state powers; Jefferson did not.
How was john marshall interpretation of the constitution different from that of thomas Jefferson?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How was John Marshall interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How was john marshalls interpretation of the constitution from thomas jeffersons?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was john marshalls interpretation of the constitution different from thomas jeffersons?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How did Hamilton's and Jefferson's different experiences relating to the writing of the constitution affect their roles as members of Washington's cabinet?
Hamilton and Jefferson's differing experiences with the Constitution deeply influenced their roles in Washington's cabinet. Hamilton, who supported a strong federal government and had a background in finance, advocated for a loose interpretation of the Constitution to promote economic growth and establish a national bank. In contrast, Jefferson, valuing agrarian interests and states' rights, favored a strict interpretation, believing that the government should only exercise powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. These fundamental differences shaped their conflicting visions for the new nation, leading to the emergence of political factions.
How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from Thomas Jefferson's?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "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". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
