The Democratic-Republican Interpretation Of The Constitution

Decent Essays
During the period of 1801 through 1817, the conflict of the Democratic-Republican views on the constitution were arguing against the ideas of the Federalists. The two parties believed in completely different ideas of how to interpret the constitution. Although the parties knew they must come to some agreement in how the constitution should be interpreted they both had some very good reasons there party was correct. The Democratic-Republicans believed in interpreting the constitution exactly. 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. …show more content…
(Broad constitution is a theory of interpretation of the Constitution that holds that the spirit of the times, the values of the justices, and the needs of the nation may legitimately influence the decisions of a court, particularly the Supreme Court.) During the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, this characterization is only true to a certain extent because despite their opposition against broad construction, they both found the need to follow the Democratic-Republican path when stepping up to power as

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Federalists vs Anti-Federalists After the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the weak Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. It was turned over to the states for approval and for some it brought back fears and memories of King George, while for others it fixed the problems of the Articles of Confederation. Upon completion of it’s writing, a debate was started concerning ratification. Some people believed that the Constitution gave too much power to a central government while others thought it was a great step forward and necessary for the future of the U.S.A. The Federalists were those who were for the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists were those against it.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While judicial review is not noted in the Constitution, Madison had intended the U.S. Constitution to be evaluated by independent judges instead of through conflicting political bargaining. [3] Of course, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review was not implemented until 1803 in connection with the case Marbury v. Madison. In Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall, the Chief Justice, pointed out that it was necessary for the Supreme Court to have the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. [4] Ever since, the Supreme Court has used this power to review the laws to make sure they are constitutional. The judicial review process gives the Court the responsibility to ensure individual rights and maintain the Constitution as new issues arise in a complicated and changing society.…

    • 868 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Government Vs Constitution

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Jefferson’s first approach to constitutional interpretation is that each branch must decide for themselves the constitutionality of a law, “equally without appeal or control” from the other two branches. A branch is deemed the “rightful” expositor of the validity of the law, disregarding the opinions of the other branches. A strength of this is that each branch can interpret the Constitution for themselves and focus on how the Constitution relates to the interest they are focusing on. They are able to form stronger opinions, since they will not be second-guessing their opinions based on the input of the other branches. A disadvantage, as Jefferson points out, is that contradictory decisions may arise, which results in confusion and produces inconvenience.…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great 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
  • Superior Essays

    He believed in the people’s rights to voice one’s opinion, or rights to Liberty. As opposed to Alexander Hamilton who desired constitutional power. Conflict and debate over the constitution began when Jefferson so openly shared his thoughts on the constitution to his friend James Madison. “Prima facie I do not like it. It fails in an essential character, that the hole and patch should be commensurate.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The reason why is because I believe that federalists didn't have an open mind to any improvements that could be made to the constitution. I would have to say that I agree with the constitution, however, I agree more with the extent of the Bill of Rights that was added later on. I strongly believe that the bill of rights is a cosmic aspect in our everyday lives. I don't know what our country would be like without these definite rights in place. Where would we be if the Anti-federalist did not object and oppose the beliefs of Federalist?…

    • 1181 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists were for the constitution and a strong national government, whereas Anti-Federalists were opposed to both. With the success of the Federalists, these factions only grew into political parties as our country began implementing the Constitution. Differences in policies, leadership, and beliefs can certainly be held responsible…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Within the time frame situated around the birth of the Constitution, one particular contention repeatedly came to public notice between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, that is, the greatest question separating the two parties. Is the Constitution in adequate as a result of it not including a bill of rights? Although both parties believed strongly that a preservation of liberties was essential, they still carried very diverse views regarding how strong the central government ought to be. The Constitution is the product of James Madison after many states claimed their wishes for greater constitutional protection over individual rights and liberties. Anti-federalists believed that, unlike the Constitution, a bill of rights would set certain restrictions on the federal government's power.…

    • 584 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Without their philosophical ideas America’s government would be completely different and our rights would not be the same as it is today. The objective of creating a constitution with a Bill of Rights was to try to avoid the abuse of power, as well as a controlling government- and especially away from a tyrannical one. Our founding fathers wanted the protection of the citizens to last so that they may keep their liberty and their natural rights to equality and property. Each and one of these philosophers had a great influence on the esteemed and distinguished United States…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The judicial role of determining constitutionality looks like a seemingly simple process: the judge, an important part of the separation of powers, determines whether a law is in accordance with the constitution or not. In reality, the responsibility of the judicial system is far from that generalized perspective, and this is where the great debate begins. When interpreting the constitution, there are two distantly polar ways of reading it. There are originalists (Scalia and Bork) who contend that it is important to uncover the framers’ intent when applying the constitution to today’s issues, while the living constitutionalists (Tribe, Dworkin, and Brennan) read the constitution in a modern context, providing for the evolution of society. While the living constitutionalists make a convincing case, their arguments do not stand up to the originalist arguments when applied to historical accounts of constitutional interpretation.…

    • 1449 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays