Debates on Consistency of the American Constitution

analytical Essay
853 words
853 words

The Constitution, our nation’s living document, was and continues to be the epicenter of political arguments. Whether something is constitutional or not is usually the argument at the forefront of everyone’s mind when new laws or controversial programs pass. This was the same even in Jeffersonian Democracy. The consistency of a president’s philosophy and how he applied it as president was always scrutinized. Democratic Republican presidents, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are among those presidents who got their philosophies picked apart and still do by Americans even today. History has painted them as hypocrites who really reflected views of Federalist’s such as Alexander Hamilton during their presidencies. However, they really were not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are victims of being unjustly labeled as hypocrites when in reality their intention was simply to do what was best for the country as a whole. Hamilton was very precise with the moves he made and the people he supported. He was well-known for supporting a loose interpretation of the Constitution and promoting a strong central government. Hamilton was more interested in keeping the rich interested in the federal government at the expense of the poor. This was because as long as the poor owed the rich money the rich would do whatever they could to keep the government running so they could get their money. This was the cycle that kept government in business and arguably still does today. In terms of money Hamilton was a supporter of the Bank of the United States, which was put into effect in 1791. He wanted the bank so the federal government could issue paper money and handle tax receipts along with other government funds. Madison and Jefferson were adamant ab... ... middle of paper ... what they did because it was for the good of the nation. They may have said one thing and did another but their intentions were never malicious. Their goal was never to abuse their power. It’s normal for people to change their minds. Once they got into office and realized how difficult decisions like those really were that is when they had to apply common sense. John Calhoun said it best in his speech before Congress [Doc I]. Central and state government need each other. Instead of focusing so much on the Constitution: how politicians interpret it, argue it, and apply it, how about focusing on the actual issue. All the different views of the Constitution do nothing but detour people from the real issue at hand. Instead of parties separating and the state and federal government fighting tooth and nail, government officials should be doing what is best for both.

In this essay, the author

  • Opines that the constitution is the epicenter of political arguments. the consistency of a president's philosophy and how he applied it was always scrutinized.
  • Analyzes how hamilton was precise with his moves and the people he supported. hamilton supported the bank of the united states, which was put into effect in 1791.
  • Analyzes jefferson's bold move in 1803, the louisiana purchase, when napoleon gave up on his dream of creating a "new world empire" and sold his north american territory for $15 million. jefferson used the elastic clause to regulate commerce.
  • Analyzes how the kentucky/virginia resolutions show a major flaw in both james and thomas. both were advocates of the act but their arguments made it hard to believe what exactly they believed.
Get Access