I have a question for you history buffs. (Denni being one)

[DarK SagE]

I know that Jeffersonian republicans were generally characterized as strict constructionists who were against broad constructionism. But. was this really true during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison? What about the Louisiana Purchase?

 

[AudioBitch]

louisianna purchase was not just by the president...it was by congress also...and the french had to get rid of it


Jefferson was also strict during the writing of the constitution..not necessarily during presidency

 

[AudioBitch]

oops

by being strict...they meant they wanted a strict interpretation of the constitution...this had nothing to do with purchasing of lands

 

[AndrewR]

I can answer part of your question. Jefferson was a strict constructionalist until he took office then he changed his colors since it suited the executive so much better that way (Hamilton was right, you putz!). I am not too keen on my Madison history, so I cannot say for him.

If I remember my American history correctly (it's been about 12 years!), there was some controversy surrounding the authority of the President to enter a purchase agreement like the Louisiana Purchase, but it was approved simply because the opportunity was too good to pass up. Given that it strained the bounds of Presidential authority at the time, it is definitely something which would fall under a loose constructionist theory of Presidential powers.

 

[dennilfloss]

I'm afraid that my knowledge of foreign history isn't detailed enough to know what you mean by strict constructionists versus broad constructionists. After all, I'm not an American.

As for the Louisiana Purchase,

The treaty itself makes no mention of Congress per se and states that Louisiana is ceded to the US in friendship. That was done to ease tension. The purchase was authorised only by the President. The Senate simply ratified it later.

Here is another look at it.

An overview.

More overview and map.

Useful links here.

Iconography.

More pictures.

Born On The Bayou (Creedence Clearwater revival)

 

[pen^2]

dabanshee, where are you

 

[Napalm381]

FYI dennil...
A "strict constructionist" is one who believes that the federal government can only pass laws involving areas that are explicity delegated to it by the Constitution. A "broad constructionist" is one who believes that the federal government can pass laws regarding anything, as long as they are not explicitly denied in the Constitution.

For example: A strict constructionist would argue that the federal government cannot collect an income tax on the population, since the Constitution makes no mention of such a tax. A broad constructionist would say it is fine, as the Constitution makes no mention of such a tax being illegal.

 

[dennilfloss]

Napalm381,

Thanks for the definitions. I am definitely a broad constructionist then. Strict constructionism seems illogical to me for it assumes that the writers of the Constitution knew all possible outcomes and situations far into the future. That would preclude any amendment and make for a very static obsolescent constitution that cannot adapt to modern reality.

Life Is But A Dream (The El Sierros)

 

[AndrewR]

Generally, politicians are strict and loose constructionists. If they will benefit from a broad interpretation, they are loose constructionists. If their opponents will benefit from a broad interpretation, they are strict constructionists. That's a bit cynical, but it's definitely not far from the truth.

Alexander Hamilton argued vociferously for a broad interpretation of the Constitution, mainly in the context of a central U.S. bank, if my memory serves me well. However, since Jefferson was almost diametrically opposed to Hamilton in philosophy, he argued equally as vociferously that the government was constrained by the Constitution. When he took office and realized what a limit that placed on his powers, he suddenly saw the light in a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

Denis, the key aspect of the strict/loose debate is that the federal government of the U.S. is constrained by a rigid interpretation, but the states are not in any way prevented from passing the same laws that are forbidden to the federal authorities. Since our federal government is considered to have enumerated powers, everything not given to it is reserved for the states. So, while the federal government is unable to change to a great degree (a strict interpretation restricts areas of action, not the modernization of activity though), the states can fill the void so that government authority is not hamstrung in response to new areas of concern.

I am inclined to be a bit more strict in the interpretation of the Constitution simply because the politics of Washington are rarely in touch with the local needs. However, since we currently have a huge federal investigation into the corruption of Atlanta city government, I guess shifting authority to the local level really doesn't alter the end result of entrenched authority. At least there is more oversight of state action by federal authorities than having the feds police themselves (because we've seen how well Janet Reno has done that over the past 8 years).

Isn't it amazing how a few sentence response becomes an essay?

 

[Wangel]

Is that your final answer?

 

[nateholtrop]

louisiana purchase = best real estate puchase ever and also the best 3 million the US has ever spent.

nate

 

[thebestMAX]

Nate-

Agree partially with you but think Alaska ranks up there pretty well.

 

[AndrewR]

I wonder if anyone ever did a comparison between the mineral wealth of the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska (Seward's Folly -- ha!)? Alaska is certainly tremendously abundant in all sorts of minerals, but the LP territory covers a great amount of land, some of which does have significant resources. Would be interesting.