0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Coach
Steve
BeauAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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.
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 might Abraham Lincolns victory in the election of 1860 lead to future problems?
Many people in the north wanted no part of slavery anywhere in the country. Southerners wanted slavery because they thought it helped production of crops etc. There are contrasting beliefs. Abraham Lincoln was from the North and a proponent of Federal rights and powers to limit slavery. The southern states wanted strong state powers and rights and weaker federal powers and rights. Slavery was a States Right issue and the federal government should not interfere. The northern states wanted the exact opposite, strong federal powers and rights and weaker state powers and rights. The right of the Federal government to abolish Slavery should trump any so-called States Rights. So the southern states voted to secede from or leave the United States also know as the Union. The US Civil War was thus started.
Can anyone other than the Chief Justice of the United States administer the Oath of Office to the President?
Yes. The Constitution states the exact wording to be used in the oath but does not specify that it must be done by the Chief Justice. Anyone authorized by law to administer an oath within the jurisdiction in which the oath is taken may administer the oath to the President. When Lyndon Johnson was sworn in after the Kennedy assasination the oath was administered by a justice of the peace aboard Air Force One.
The exact place of a city boundary ect?
latitude
