There is a lot of differences between federalist and democratic republicans. The federalist and democratic republicans have a lot of different ideas and plans. But I chose one of those differences that I am going to compare and contrast. The difference I chose is loose vs strict interpretation.
Strict construction means interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions and societal changes.One difference is that the strict constitution states that the government of the United States holds only those powers specifically granted to it by the constitution. Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the constitution. He said “people should follow exactly what was stated and allowed in the document.” He believed in a strict interpretation when it came to a national bank. The only time he believed in a loose interpretation was when it came to the contrary.
Also a strict interpretation attempts to interpret the law based on the words of the law itself. Strict constructionists tend to dismiss the idea that
…show more content…
Jefferson won the election of 1800 by promising to limit the size and scope of government. The Supreme Court enforced a very narrow reading of the commerce clause from the 1870s through 1937, blocking many federal attempts to regulate economic activity. However, the general trend in American history has been toward the broad constructionist view. Strict Constructionism can be seen as a view of “dead” interpretation. This is the view that what the constitution says what it says and will not be fixed. It says is a view that we should be literal while looking at it to use its technical meeting rather than its figurative one. It says what it says and we should completely follow exactly what it says and it should be touched or
Throughout the course of time the elastic clause and the commerce clause has been utilized in court cases and arguments. With time the clauses have changed the fit into the change of society. As represented by various court cases. A variation of interpretations has been drawn out within the time frame of its establishment. A loose and strict interpretation has been implemented in the constitution depending on point of views. Although, the interpretation of the constitution is strictly restricted to the Judicial Branch as concluded in the court case Marbury Versus Madison. The elastic clause is known as congress has the power to do what is “Necessary and Proper”. In contrast, commerce clause is, often, limited with concerning trading issues. Thus concluding, the Elastic Clause has more power rather than the Commerce clause.
During the early 1800s America was still developing, trying to develop the government so it can learn to stand up on its own. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played a key role in the country’s developing time, they created the idea of strict v. broad constructionism. Political parties were contradicting each other on the different point of views they had on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson during his presidency sometimes made decisions that were based literally on the Constitution, whereas James Madison being a broad constructionist didn’t always take the Constitution literally.
...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.
The Jeffersonian-Republicans (also known as the Democratic-Republicans) were opposed to the Federalists from before 1801-1817. Leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French, whereas the Federalists supported the British. Each party had its set of views. The Federalists supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank (all ideas of the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton). The Democratic-Republicans opposed all of the said ideas and fought for states' rights and the citizens to govern the nation. Originally, each of these parties stuck to their own views and ideas, but eventually would accept eachother's views and use them as their own.
The Constitution of the United States explicates the enumerated powers that the people have granted to their public administration. A narrow interpretation of the Constitution would mean denying the government the powers granted to them to keep order, equality, and fairness. An expanded interpretation would “extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, and we might question the application of the term…” (244). It is the government’s responsibility to exercise powers that cannot be exercised by its governed people. There are no guidelines in the Constitution’s composition that discloses how to interpret the language; therefore, it is in the hands of three federal branches of government to decipher the Constitutions meaning.
With respect to the federal constitution, the Jeffersonian Republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists. To what extent was this characterization of the two parties accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison.
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
In opposition to Hamilton?s Federalist Party, Jefferson who believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Jefferson anticipated that everything should be done through strict evaluation and a laws should abide by what is written. Although Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was also not an Antifederalist; he was a Democratic-Republican, a composite of the two. Jefferson vindicated that all powers not enumerated by the Constitution are obtained by the States. Issues between the two groups lead to the imperative question: should a strong central government be established or should each individual state have control? The attacks of the succeeding debate and public scurrility led to the Sedition Act. This act prohibited intermingling and conspiracy against the America government and the correspondence of scandalous and malicious writings against the government or its officials, under penalty of a fine or imprisonment. Succeeding the Sedition Act, the Republicans turned to the states arguing that federal government had strode past their powers; the powers delegated to it by the states through the Constitution. Therefore the states acquired the right to repeal the act.
There were many differences between the Federalist and Democratic Republican Parties. One party was wealthy, the other poor. Each party had control over a particular part of the nation. They each had their own idea as to how to interpret the Constitution. This split between parties was just the beginning of the American political party system, it is inevitable since people have and will always have different ideas on the best way to run the nation and the best way to govern the people. We the American people will just have to agree to disagree and work together for a better future.
As the young colonies of America broke away from their mother country and began to grow and develop into an effective democratic nation, many changes occurred. As the democracy began to grow, two main political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. Each party had different views on how the government should be run. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict construction of the Constitution. The Federalists opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Throughout the years, the political parties have grown, developed, and even dispersed into totally new factions. Many of the inconsistencies and changes can be noted throughout the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
The ideals of Federalists and Republicans were almost at the extreme opposite of the political spectrum. Federalists were cautious, strict, and focused on elite leadership, while Republicans were more willing to change, incorporate the whole of the people, and rebel. Linda K. Kerber's article on Federalists, “The Fear of the Federalists” gives a suitable reference for the perspective and beliefs of the Federalists during the early 19th century.
Here the government was instituted only by “consent of the governed”, making it clear that Jefferson thought that the only way a ruler or ruling body could be seen as legitimate was if they were elected by the people (Cummings 2015, 64). This was a direct critique of the British King’s rule over the Colonies. For Jefferson, not only was British rule oppressive but also completely illegitimate as it was a system of rulership that did not source its power from the people (Cummings 2015, 65). In addition, the introduction of popular sovereignty as a core governing principle also lent itself to the idea of limited government. If the government “derviv[ed] their just powers” from the people, not from divine authority, as it was with Britain and other monarchies, then it followed that the government would only be able to exercise powers in the areas allocated by the people and, therefore, would be limited to their purview alone (Cummings 2015, 64). This was an important point because it ensured the America would never be under the illegitimate rule of a tyrant again. This idea directly connected to the final important principle of government the Declaration laid out; the right to revolution. If a government had become “destructive of these ends”, such as failing to protect the people’s rights or abusing the
There are two major ways that the Constitution is interpreted. One of which is called the “Strict Constitution” of national law, an example of this would be the “Dred Scott decision. The other way is the federalist position, where the Constitution grants broad power to the federal government. Two great examples of this type of interpretation were Chief Justices John Marshall and Earl Warren.
Strict constructionists said that it was to be followed to the letter...if it wasn't in the Constitution you couldn't do it. They felt that it covered everything adequately and allowing a broad interpretation opened up too many possibilities.
The Founding Fathers created the Constitution “in Order to form a more perfect Union”. As we are well aware, this concept of a more perfect Union can be challenged for a number of different reasons. While following some sort of guideline is necessary to run a country, we have to be aware of whether or not these regulations properly fit within the structure of society that is active during the present time. We should then begin to question the very structure of what we are being governed by, and realize that maybe it’s time for changes to be made. I believe that there are ways in which the Founding Fathers did what they were supposed to do while making the Constitution, however I also believe that there are huge flaws within the system.