Claudia Silva Period 2 Loose Construction vs.

Strict Construction During the early 1800's, Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the power of the federal government was strictly limited to what was established by the Constitution, and the Federalists believed in a broad interpretation that granted the government with power that was not prohibited by the Constitution. Although Jeffersonian Republicans were characterized by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and Federalists were characterized by a loose interpretation, these characteristics were mostly false in regard to the partys vision on governmental power during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, during which time the Jeffersonians leaned toward a loose interpretation and the Federalists leaned toward a strict one. However, there were instances when Jeffersonians and Federalists actually adhered to their political ideology. Jeffersonian Republicans leaned toward a loose interpretation of the Constitution during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. John Randolph, a Democratic Republican from Virginia, stated in a speech to the House that the current government of Madison failed to its republican principles when it placed a tariff to protect manufacturing in New England, which burdened economically the other regions of the country (doc. f). It is interesting to note that Randolph, who was a republican himself, was denouncing the way that the president of his own party was using the implied powers that the Constitution granted him to favor New Englands commerce. It is evident that as time passed republicans were becoming more detached from what they once believed. Even Thomas Jeffersons view of the interpretation of the constitutions was changing. Jefferson declared to Samuel Kercheval that some men look at constitutions as if they were too sacred to be touched, when they actually were meant to change as new discoveries were made and new truths disclosed, (doc. g). Although Jefferson had been an advocate for the strict interpretation of the Constitution, he now seemed to have changed his mind and was

Claudia Silva Period 2 affirming that amendments can be made to it when necessary. This was not the first time that Jefferson had set his republican principles aside. When he had served as the third president of the United States he bought the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon without the approval of Congress. The Louisiana Purchase is a clear example of Jefferson leaning toward loose interpretation of the constitution because the constitution did not authorize the president to purchase land from other countries. Federalist of the early 18th century failed to maintain their political views consistent with their actions, and tended to interpret the Constitution strictly. Daniel Webster, a Federalist from New Hampshire, in a speech to the House criticized the Madison administration for conscripting men for war (doc. d). Although Federalist believed that the constitution could be interpreted loosely, in that occasion Webster argued that there was no article that allowed the government to take men for battle. Webster was ironically asking the federal government to adhere to the powers that the constitution granted them, even though he belonged to a party that supported loose interpretation of the constitution. Furthermore, during Jeffersons presidency Federalist condemned the Embargo Act. The Embargo Act was placed to punish Britain for the impressments of American sailors by not allowing American merchants from trading with foreign countries. In the political cartoon OGRABME by Alexander Anderson the Embargo imposed by Jefferson is referred to as cursed because it damaged the New England economy (doc. c). Federalists condemned Jefferson for implementing the act because only Congress had the power to regulate commerce. Federalist were once again mad at republicans for interpreting the constitution loosely, which is hypocritical of them because they promoted implied powers. This shows that Federalist supported a strict view of the constitution when their economic interests were hurt. Furthermore, at the Hartford Convention Federalists asked that Congress

Claudia Silva Period 2 shall not have power, without concurrence of two thirds of both houses to prohibit trade with foreign nations (doc. e). Federalist had always advocated for a strong federal government, but at the Hartford Convention they were surprisingly asking to regulate the power of Congress. New England Federalist met at Hartford to state their grievances against the War of 1812 because it hurting their manufacturing industry. This once again demonstrates that Federalist supported a strict view of the constitution when commerce was damaged. Although most of the time Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists did not adhere to their partys political view in regard to the interpretation of the constitution, there were times when Jeffersonians reflected their belief of strict reading of the constitution and Federalist their belief of implied powers. Jefferson exclaimed to the Presbyterian minister, Samuel Miller, that the constitution did not give the federal government the power to intermeddling with religious institutions states (doc. b). Jefferson was consistent with his partys belief that the constitution did not grant the federal government the authority to direct religious exercises. He feared to not follow the constitution directly like it was and wanted to keep separation or church and state. Madison, who was also a Jeffersonian Republican, kept true to his strict views when he vetoed the Internal Improvements Bill because such a power is not expressly given by the Constitutions, (doc. h). Madison knew that the bill would benefit the country because roads and canals would be built, but he was aware that the power to pass that bill was not expressed by the Constitution, so he veto it. He stated that the responsibility to do the work of infrastructure was to be completed my states. Madison had to option but to behold his signature and reflect his Republican principle. Furthermore, the Federalists most important example of their loose interpretation of the Constitutions is visible in Marbury v. Madison. This case began when Adams appointed Federalists to new federal courts hours before he left office. Madison refused

Claudia Silva Period 2 to accept the appointment made by Adams, and Marbury sued, demanding that the Supreme Court force Madison to release the appointment letter. In this case Marshall stated that the Supreme Court had the power to judge the constitutionality of federal laws. This set a precedent because the Constitution had left the Court's power undefined, but these powers would gradually be defined through the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in particular cases. Marshall had interpreted the Constitution loosely to bring power to the Supreme Court.