For most Americans, the Louisiana Purchase is regarded as one of the most influential treaties of our nation in expanding its borders and securing its status as a world powerhouse in political dominance. However, a significant yet otherwise subdued dilemma the Louisiana Purchase treaty caused was an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers, specifically with regards to the president. Robert Knowles argues that the assumed expansion of federal powers to include additions of states and integration into the union significantly hindered the balance between federal powers and state powers, granting the former much more importance in the “empire of liberty” model. Specifically, though, the Louisiana Purchase treaty was conducted with no regards
…show more content…
More narrowly, Knowles contends that the President now had precedence and comfort to bypass amendment creation for constitutional change he sought for, Congress followed suit with Jefferson’s neglect by they themselves neglecting to authorize amendments for ambiguous constitutional change, and the Supreme Court simply expanded Federal powers to also delegitimize the Amendment process. Knowles contends that the citizenry and populace support began to trump states’ support for future constitutional change.
Because Thomas Jefferson “failed to affirm the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase with an amendment” (Knowles 408), Knowles argues that this event set future precedent for Presidents of the United States to not pursue amendments for constitutional change they desired, rather they often pressured other institutions of government to get what they and the people wanted. To add some context, while treaty powers were granted to the President in Article II and Section II of the Constitution with the caveat two-thirds of Senators supported the treaty, nowhere in the power or anywhere else in the Constitution was there a statement that …show more content…
Knowles points out that not a single amendment was ratified from 1804 to 1865, “the longest period in the Constitution’s history in which it was not amended” (Knowles 413). The “amendment process [following the Louisiana Purchase] was not seriously considered as a means of resolving the most important issues of the day” (Knowles 413). Due to Jefferson’s actions, Congress devalued the use of the amendment when they knew that a President could and would simply bypass legitimate Constitutional Change. Thus, Congress failed to even propose amendments for expansions of federal power even though these amendments could have “resolved disturbing ambiguities concerning the relative power of the state and federal governments” (Knowles 413). Knowles argument can be depicted as such: if the President was denouncing the Article Five amendment process as a mode of constitutional change, why should Congress try to pursue that exact same process to resolve power balancing? Essentially, Knowles contends that Jefferson set precedent for all three branches of government to expand federal power without use of amendments and/or ignore amendments as a legitimate political
More narrowly, Knowles contends that the President now had precedence and comfort to bypass amendment creation for constitutional change he sought for, Congress followed suit with Jefferson’s neglect by they themselves neglecting to authorize amendments for ambiguous constitutional change, and the Supreme Court simply expanded Federal powers to also delegitimize the Amendment process. Knowles contends that the citizenry and populace support began to trump states’ support for future constitutional change.
Because Thomas Jefferson “failed to affirm the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase with an amendment” (Knowles 408), Knowles argues that this event set future precedent for Presidents of the United States to not pursue amendments for constitutional change they desired, rather they often pressured other institutions of government to get what they and the people wanted. To add some context, while treaty powers were granted to the President in Article II and Section II of the Constitution with the caveat two-thirds of Senators supported the treaty, nowhere in the power or anywhere else in the Constitution was there a statement that …show more content…
Knowles points out that not a single amendment was ratified from 1804 to 1865, “the longest period in the Constitution’s history in which it was not amended” (Knowles 413). The “amendment process [following the Louisiana Purchase] was not seriously considered as a means of resolving the most important issues of the day” (Knowles 413). Due to Jefferson’s actions, Congress devalued the use of the amendment when they knew that a President could and would simply bypass legitimate Constitutional Change. Thus, Congress failed to even propose amendments for expansions of federal power even though these amendments could have “resolved disturbing ambiguities concerning the relative power of the state and federal governments” (Knowles 413). Knowles argument can be depicted as such: if the President was denouncing the Article Five amendment process as a mode of constitutional change, why should Congress try to pursue that exact same process to resolve power balancing? Essentially, Knowles contends that Jefferson set precedent for all three branches of government to expand federal power without use of amendments and/or ignore amendments as a legitimate political