How did Thomas Jefferson & James Madison use the Social Contract Theory while writing the Declaration & Const?
350730
Thomas Jefferson used the social contract theory to say that since the king was not governing as the people needed, we had the right to form our own government. (Declaration of Independence)\n\nJames Madison wrote the Constitution. His first line was "We the people..."
778590
James Madison wrote the Preamble and the rest of the Constitution.
257344
efferson died on the Fourth of July, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the same day as John Adams' death. Thomas Jefferson was in very high debt when he died. His possessions were sold at an auction on Monticello. In 1831 Jefferson's 552 acres were sold for $7,000 to James T. Barclay. In 1836 Barclay sold the estate and 218 acres of land to the United States Navy Lieutenant Uriah P. Levy for $2,700. Levy then bought the surrounding land and started to purchase original furnishings. Lieutenant Levy is called "the Savior of Monticello" because of this. Levy died in 1862 as a result of the Civil War. In his will, he left the Monticello to the United States to be used as a school for orphans of navy officers. Thomas Jefferson is buried on his Monticello estate. His epitaph, written by him with an insistence that only his words and "not a word more" be inscribed, reads:\n\n    Here was buried\n    Thomas Jefferson\n    Author of the Declaration of American Independence\n    of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom\n    & Father of the University of Virginia
161733
James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836) was the fourth (1809–1817) President of the United States. He was co-author, with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, of the Federalist Papers, and is traditionally regarded as the Father of the United States Constitution.\nFor more info, go to:
623333
All that has been proven by DNA research is that SOME male in Thomas Jefferson's line (that is, Thomas, his sons, their sons, and so on) fathered a child with one of Jefferson's slaves.  Although there has been speculation that it may have been one of Thomas's sons, it is also very possible that Thomas himself did the deed.  Possible, not proven.
1023615
From the Preamble of the US Constitution (basically like a mission statement for the US Goverment)\n\nAt the time that it was written, Enlightenment thinkers believed the legitimate job of government was to protect citizen's lives, basic freedoms, and the ability to do things like earn a living.  \n\n"blessings of liberty" would be the rhetoric for basic freedoms like speech and religion.  It ties into the rhetoric of being endowed inalienable right from the creator, etc. from the Declaration of Independence, as in blessings from god (creator) as part of inalienable rights.
477234
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 N.S. – July 4, 1826) was the third President of the United States (1801–1809), principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential founders of the United States. Major events during his presidency include the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act of 1807, and the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806).\n\nA political philosopher who promoted classical liberalism, republicanism, and the separation of church and state, he was the author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779, 1786), which was the basis of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. He was the eponym of Jeffersonian democracy and the founder and leader of the Democratic-Republican Party which dominated American politics for over a quarter-century and was the precursor to today's Democratic Party. Jefferson also served as the second Governor of Virginia (1779–1781), first United States Secretary of State (1789–1793), and second Vice President (1797–1801).
811840
Not that exact phrase, if that's what you are asking.  There was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. In that letter, quoting the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, he writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." You might also want to note the Treaty of Tripoli (1796), in which it is stated that "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."\n\nObviously, if the founders wished to create a government in which religion would hold sway, or have a formal say in civil law or liberties, they could have easily done so. They did not create a theocracy, but a democratic republic. All of the above has been primarily interpreted to support separation of church and state, and the Supreme Court has upheld this "notion" time and time again. It never fails to amaze me how some people persist in believing the founders intended this country to be based on religious (Christian) tenets. They weren't idiots - if they wished that to be the case they could have clearly laid it out as such. Their personal writings and letters reflect controversy of feeling over the matter, and quotes can be found to reflect both positions. The proof in the pudding is that they chose to erect that wall, and did not choose to install a government run by religious leaders, and made sure those would be leaders had no power to do so. Considering that the founders had widely differing religious leanings and knew the pitfalls of a government led by the "church," it probably wasn't a hard decision to reach. The difficulty most likely lay in the language to be used. There were religious leaders of that day who wished for nothing more than a theocracy to be created. The founders had to reach a consensus on how to word the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to please everybody, and that included the theocratists. They did such a good job that we are still arguing over it today. We trust our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they have done so time and time again, in favor of the wall. It's an integral part of our government, this wall, and if it weren't the Pat Robertsons and Fred Phelps of our nation would be dictating our laws and civil rights. A scary thought, that.
756098
A little help:\n\nFrustration\n\nIn the law of contracts, the destruction of the value of the performance that has been bargained for by the promisor as a result of a supervening event.\n\nFrustration of purpose has the effect of discharging the promisor from his or her obligation to perform, in spite of the fact that performance by the promisee is possible, since the purpose for which the contract was entered into has been destroyed. For example, an individual reserves a hall for a wedding. In the event that the wedding is called off, the value of the agreement would be destroyed. Even though the promisee could still literally perform the obligation by reserving and providing the hall for the wedding, the purpose for which the contract was entered into was defeated. Apart from a nonrefundable deposit fee, the promisor is ordinarily discharged from any contractual duty to rent the hall.\n\nIn order for frustration to be used as a defense for nonperformance, the value of the anticipated counterperformance must have been substantially destroyed and the frustrating occurrence must have been beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time the agreement was made.\n\nFrustration Quotes: \n\nI am as frustrated with society as a pyromaniac in a petrified forest. - A. Whitney Brown\n\nEvery thought derives from a thwarted sensation. - E. M. Cioran\n\nThe torment of human frustration, whatever its immediate cause, is the knowledge that the self is in prison, its vital force and mangled mind leaking away in lonely, wasteful self-conflict. - Elizabeth Drew\n\nIt is the awareness of unfulfilled desires which gives a nation the feeling that it has a mission and a destiny. - Eric Hoffer\n\nI feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece cannot be moved. - Soren Kierkegaard\n\nIt is misery, you know, unspeakable misery for the man who lives alone and who detests sordid, casual affairs; not old enough to do without women, but not young enough to be able to go and look for one without shame! - Luigi Pirandello\n\nFrustration of purpose is a term used in the law of contract to describe a defense to an action for non-performance based on the occurrence of an unforeseen event which makes performance impossible, illegal or vastly different from what was originally intended. A common situation is that the subject matter of the contract - a house or a car for example - is unintentionally destroyed.\n\nGenerally, the non-performance is not excused. If the seller retained the risk of loss from damage or destruction, then the non-performance will likely be excused. However, if it is the buyer who carries the risk of loss, performance will not be excused. A seller will not be excused for nonperformance of an agreement to deliver a commodity. For example, if A agrees to sell B 100 bushels of corn, and A's own crops are destroyed in an accident, A is still contractually obliged to sell B 100 bushels of corn because A can still obtain the corn elsewhere for the sale.\n\nFrustration of purpose also arises as a defense where one party to the contract dies, if that party was uniquely necessary to the performance of the contract. Passage of a subsequent law that makes performance illegal will also excuse nonperformance under this doctrine.\n\nThe leading case in English law on the subject is the famous 1903 case of Krell v. Henry, which concerned a party who had rented a room for the purpose of watching the coronation procession of Edward VII.\n\nFrustration of purpose is distinguishable from the doctrine of impossibility/impracticability in that frustration of purpose is typically used by the buyer and Impossibility is used by the seller.
345600
The American Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes over time.  It was written by the founding fathers.  Thomas Jefferson's ideas were heavily relied upon.  Courts constantly interpret the meaning of the words, which is why it changes.  This explains, for example, why abortion rights have changed over time.
104502
Check out the book "A Thomas Jefferson Education."  You can find it at www.gwc.edu in the bookstore section. It is a must read!
285528
People... We enter into a social contract and make government to protect our rights.  We're willing to give up some rights to protect others. - John Locke in a nutshell.
122302
Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia.
1114956
Thomas Paine wrote "Common Sense" I believe. That is probably the writing they are referring to. Just go to the library and look up works by the 3 authors. I'd skip the nigeria guy. I would scan the writings, stick post-it notes to the relevant sections. For the introduction I would take one of the exerpts from one of the three books and try to relate it to current events. "Common Sense" would be a great one, because in my opinion, society today has very little of it, and proof can be seen in the many ridiculous lawsuits brought to our courts today.\n\nGood luck with your paper!
248173
Baron Montesquieu of France developed the doctrine of separation of powers which is a key concept in understanding the US constitution. It also forms a key concept in development of constitutions around the world.\n\nJohn Locke argued that a Government could only be legitimate if it had the consent of the people and protected life, liberty and property. If not, subjects had a right to rebellion. This was a key point in the American revolution and is a key concept in liberal democratic thought.
272166
It is Social contract theory (or contractarianism) is a concept used in philosophy, political science and sociology to denote an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract; such violation would signify a problematic attempt to return to the state of nature. It has been often noted, indeed, that social contract theories relied on a specific anthropological conception of man as either "good" or "evil". Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism, which is the theoretical groundwork of democracy. It is also one of a few competing theoretical groundworks of liberalism.\n\nThe social contract, as a political theory, explains the justification and purpose of the state and of human rights. According to Hobbes' canonical theory, the essence is as follows: Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the freedom to harm and be harmed; there are no positive rights, only natural rights and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). To avoid this, we jointly agree to an implicit social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to honor the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The figurehead of the society we create, representing our joint interests as members and formed by the delegation of our power, is the sovereign state.\n\n[edit]\nA fictional state of nature?\nThe emergence of the social contract from the state of nature is often explained in terms of just-so stories whose goal is to show the logical basis of rights rather than attempting historical accuracy. Rousseau's 1754 Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men is more a fictional account of what has passed than a realistic description of what happened. However, it is also true that the ambiguity persists, and that Hobbes' polemic conception of the state of nature (opposed to Rousseau's irenical conception of it) approach it from the realist description of civil war - the Leviathan may be read as an attempt to solve the problems lifted by the English Civil War (1642-1651).\n\n[edit]\nViolations of the contract\nThe social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end - the benefit of all - and, according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau, is only legitimate to the extent that it satisfies our goals. Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature; Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.\n\nSince rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, risk losing some of their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. Most of us are comfortable with laws punishing behavior that harms people because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968). [1] However, philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze have argued that this is a repressive conception, declaring that we
827511
Here are two great sites:\n\nhttp://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/elcerrito/history/jeff&ham.htm\n\nhttp://www.palomar.edu/ehp/history/sgrenz/Study%20Guides/JEFFERSON-HAMILTON%20VIEWPOINTS.pdf\n\nGood luck :-)