Compare And Contrast Madison And Jefferson's Interpretation Of The Constitution

Improved Essays
Jefferson and Madison stayed very strong in their Jeffersonian Republican, or Democratic-Republican, views in most cases, and only slightly veered to Federalist views during times when they were absolutely necessary. Jefferson kept his interpretation of the constitution very firmly when it came to the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, and Madison kept a strong Jeffersonian Republican view when it came to federal government and state government rights. The only time that Jefferson strayed slightly away from his interpretation of the constitution was in times of necessity like the Tripolitan War and the Louisiana Purchase. Overall, Jefferson and Madison stayed with their initial thoughts on the Constitution throughout their …show more content…
If you look at Document B: Alexander Hamilton, Tully No. III, 28 August 1794, he describes the two different kinds of government and his views on both. “Government is frequently and aptly classed under two descriptions-a government of force, and a government of laws. The first is the definition of despotism; the last liberty.” What Madison is saying here is that a strong federal government represents a government of force, because it would use force to keep people from doing what they should not. Also, he is saying that a government of laws, represents state governments and states’ rights because state governments can implement their own laws that are suitable for that particular state to keep people from doing what they should not. When Madison says “The instruments by which it must act are either authority of the laws or force. If the first be destroyed, the last must be substituted, and where this becomes the ordinary instrument of government, there is an end to liberty!”, he shows that if we let the federal government get too strong, they will take away states’ rights, which will take away our liberty. Madison puts this in very understandable and string words so that he will really get his point across because he very much believes in strong state governments and strict interpretation of the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Federalism Vs Federalism

    • 1320 Words
    • 6 Pages

    They both advance the beliefs, desires, and interests of groups within the community. James Madison states that “there are two methods of curing the mischief of faction: that one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects (“The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers No. 10”). He contends that factions are problematic, thus the union should break away from them in order to have an effective government. Although he starts his essay by stating that there are two methods for combating factions, he concludes that “the inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling EFFECTS” (“The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers No.…

    • 1320 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that the Congress or the President should follow the constitution word for word. While the Federalist party held the ideas of general meaning. That said, the Congress or the President has the right to interpret the constitution based on significance. Over all this means that if the constitution doesn’t say it can’t do something then the Federalists believe they have a right to do it. As you can see the two parties show very different ways that they view the constitution as a whole.…

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Unfair, cruel ruling and no freedom, how would you like to have a government that follows these set of rules? This is what it would be like to have tyranny in the United States government. This is what it would be like without the creation of the constitution.The first guard against tyranny was federalism, which is federal, state and local government. Another protection against tyranny was separation of powers which made three main branches of government, judicial ,executive and legislative. One of the last guards against it is checks and balances which makes sure the different branches are using their power correctly and if they’re not then the others can check them for it.…

    • 458 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Yes, they were trying to be different than the British government, but the government needs to have a certain amount of power to be able to enforce the laws it puts out. With these laws in place it would’ve been chaos, and the United States wouldn’t have been united anymore. The Declaration was different. It was thoroughly thought through and was designed with an end goal in mind, while the Articles seemed to be a stand-in. The Declaration supported things like exercising sovereignty between the states and government, a separate federal court system to settle matters between the states, congress has power to lay and collect taxes, and both the central government and state government can act on the people (Comparison of Constitution and Articles of Confederation).…

    • 1565 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The elimination of states would abolish such a relationship between citizens and all levels of government. Included within a states ability to connect citizens to level of government perceived as distant, they also protect their citizens from an overpowering federal government. In Enduring Features of Federalism, Derthick suggests that the removal of states would dissolve the level of government most responsible for initiating contact with federal institutions through “talking back.” She writes, “This appeal to the states to talk back is not a call to defiance, but a call to engage federal officials in a policy dialogue…” However, the function of states as protectors of citizens rights through talking back has continually faced challenges. Ultimately, Supreme Court decisions have reshaped the extent to which states may talk back on certain issues. In cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges, federal law required all states to acknowledge same-sex marriage.…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In disagreement with those that opposed a strong central government, contended that it was necessary. In Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton explains the necessity for ratification. It states “it will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution.” Alexander Hamilton is stating to allow the passage of the new constitution to keep that nation stable, and promote a non-hostile environment. This is a departure from the events that lead up to the Articles of Confederation. In order to do this, Alexander Hamilton along with the other authors of the Federalist Papers, required a strong central government.…

    • 1295 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Anti-federalist correctly pointed out that the Constitution granted the federal courts an abundance of power, at the expense of the state and local courts. They wanted equal representation and supported implementing the Bill of Rights into the constitution for guaranteed protection of individual and natural rights. So when deciding to support Federalism or Anti-Federalism I choose Anti-federalism. Not only do I concur with the inclusion of the Bill of Rights and its necessity but I would have also side with them on senators and presidents being directly elected by the people. Federalist Papers “It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of…

    • 1181 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalism prevents tyranny because it separates the power so it's not all in one place. This shows separation of power because the government and the states have their own laws/rules which they can enforce as they please. One federal power is the power to declare war. (Document A). This is a federal law…

    • 883 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Federalism is the political system in which ultimate authority is shared between a central government and state or regional governments. The balance and boundaries between the national and state government have changed greatly. For the framers of the constitution federalism was a way to minimize conformity costs. they knew they couldn’t come up with an exact list of everything the government could and could not being that there will be time where it might has to be some add on to the list. So they add the elastic language to the Article I. where congress will have the power to make any laws which will be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Additionally, it imposes taxes on those who knowingly disregard the act. We the court also find that the defense has created a new law entirely. Congress must point to a specific grant of power in the Constitution to grant them the ability to create laws. Like in NFIB v. Sebelius, Justice Scalia and the joint dissenters all agreed that when Congress’ defense created a new justification for the Individual Mandate as a proposed taxation instead of Commerce as stated in the Affordable Care Act ultimately created a new act than the one that passed both Houses of Congress and the President’s desk. Same for the newly created justification in the PLAY for that passed both Houses…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays