How did Thomas Jefferson & James Madison use the Social Contract Theory while writing the Declaration & Const?
410611
OK, you're doing your homework.  You probably have a formal definition of "social contract theory," since you use capital letters.  I don't, but I'm going to answer anyway.  Maybe it fits, maybe not.\n\nA contract, in law, is an offer, acceptance and consideration.  In a social contract, therefore, we have an assumption that social institutions are voluntary, the way a contract is voluntary, and that there are benefits on both sides (consideration).  In the Declaration of Independence, this is explicit:  "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."  It is implied strongly in the Constitution:  "We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."  \n\nIn both cases, they were contrasting our system to one with a monarch, yet that monarch was also subject to a written contract, the Magna Carta.  So the concept of contract was not new, only the way in which it was used.  It was developed to be the ruling document of the nation.  And it was a nation with a Constitutionally defined President, not a monarch.
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
1167231
The federalist party was really a non-factor after the war of 1812. The party was led by Alexander Hamilton, although it's figurehead was Washington. Other notables are John Adams, John Jay, and John Marshall. The Federalist party was born of the Federalists, who I assume you know were the supporters of the ratification of the Constitution (and, of course, many were framers, Hamilton, Washington, and Jay included). Hamilton and Jay wrote the famous letters in The Federalist. The party was for a strong central government and support of the economy through Hamilton's ideas (Hamilton was first secretary of the treasury), like: paying back the loans given to finance the revolution, spending to encourage growth and business as well as trade both foreign and domestic, spending that would spur the economy and hasten the transformation from an agrarian to a more diverse economy. Federalists also preferred to remain neutral toward France (republicans wanted to support republicanism in France) and wanted to build a stronger U.S. military. You could make a decent case that the Federalists were similar to today's republican conservatives in overall policy, while the Jeffersonians and Madisonians were more libertarian. The most important piece of legislation in the federalist period was the alien and sedition acts, second was a treaty with britain negotiated by John Jay that created a political firestorm. When Jefferson and his democratic-republican party won in 1800, the federalists began a decline in relevance, and by Madison's presidency, the "era of good feelings" (because there was relatively little opposition to the Jeffersonians anymore) the federalists were really over.
933237
Thomas Jefferson\n\nHe wrote the declaration of Independence.   A document whose principles have lasted for over 200 years.  These founding principles are the best part of this country.\n\nHe did not pursue any personal glory and only served his country because he was asked to.  \n\nHe wrote The Missouri Compromise which set the course to end slavery.\n\nHe was a man who never stopped thinking.  He was not just a farmer but also a scientist, an inventor and a philosopher.
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).
478042
Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823\n\nAnd it means that people should not try to find every loophole available in the original meaning behind the Consititution. They should just remember what the principles it was based on represented and conform to that.
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.
626444
He was absolutely correct.  However, he intended that they should be educated in what he would have called "Republican Principles". (Which has nothing to do with what Republican means today as a party name, and meant instead limited central power for certain listed or "enumerated" functions, with most real power reserved to the people at the State and local level.)  But with the liberal slant of education today what students get is politically correct brainwashing rather than true education on the principles that would make good government.  Too many of todays teachers teach that big government is good and right (rather than wasteful, inherently corrupt, and self destroying).  That "rights" means entitlement and government policing (rather than liberty and freedom to make free choices to as large an extent and in as many areas of life as can be possibly realized without threatening the nation's ability for self defense, or internal harmony).  \n\nYes Jefferson was absolutely right, but he did not forsee that his radical republican ideals would be outdistanced by more radical socialist or social democratic ideals.  Jefferson believed the role of government was to provide liberty and justice to allow people who worked hard to keep the fruits of their labor.  Many people today believe government's role is to provide security and "a minimum standard of living" to everyone whether they work hard or not out of a big central honey pot (which naturally draws flies and puts a strain on the "worker bees") filled with about 30% of everything an American earns in a lifetime (unless, of course you can afford to lobby for loopholes or subsidies or whatever, then you can keep maybe 15%)\n\nJefferson wanted freedom for people to work and earn what we today would call "the American Dream".  The liberal agenda of today is working to consume the American dream to save the poor, the lazy, and the drug addicts from themselves, and the ultimate result will be to take so much of what people earn to support the social programs and their expensive bureaucratic machinery, that the incentive for hard work will be erased and everybody will see that its easier to live off the state and do drugs than to work and create like our forefathers did.\n\nYou can't legislate a "Great Society" you have to let the people pursue their own interests and goals while carrying as little deadweight (Bureaucrats and Bureaus and entitlees)as possible.  The natural result of freedom in a free economy is that people find a useful niche and produce economically.  The natural result of the "safety net" is that a certain percentage who fall into it are satisfied there and never climb out.  Thus you come to the basic flaw of the liberal agenda, somebody has to hold up the net, and it keeps getting heavier and heavier.\n\nUnfortunately, the conservatives of today do not believe in limited government either.  America only has limited government in history class these days.
588160
The Declaration of Independence
140346
Thomas Jefferson.  He believed in limited government powers, and believed in the small community.
185515
The Federalist Papers advocated the proposition that the colonies should have a strong centralized government that would downplay to some extent the notion of states' rights.   It lined up as a game of wills between the forces led by Alexander Hamilton (Federalists) and those of Thos. Jefferson (Republcans).  In the end, there was naturally a certain amount of equivocation on the part of both sides but a deal got done.  Unfortunately, the most important issue of all -- slavery-- was set aside and not properly addressed.  For purposes of the government, a slave was counted as 3/5 of a white person.   Failure to resolve the SLAVERY issue properly eventually was a cause of the CIVIL WAR!!!!
1099627
For starters, write in plain English, without substituting numbers for letters and using proper grammar. If you ask me, you should know what to write about the Federalist papers if you're in AP US History, but maybe I'm just fooling myself. 2 pages seems like a bit much for such a short letter.\n\nIf you don't have it already, there's a text for these papers at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm\n\nWhat is this project? A summary? An analysis? If it's a summary, then you have your work cut out for you. Summarize each paragraph, as easy as that. If you're doing an analysis, think of what factors might have caused Madison to publish this paper and why he wrote what he did. Try to gauge the impact that the papers had on society and the atmosphere of the time.\n\nAnd use Wikipedia. Like mad.
1137752
James Monroe (who wrote the Constitution):\n"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."\n\nOr Grover Cleveland: \n"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. ... I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."
27665
Thomas Jefferson lived in France for a period of time following the American Revolution. When he returned, he brought new foods and introduced them to the U.S. Many have since become staples of our culture: macaroni & cheese, ice cream, french fries, for example. \n\nYou could explain the history leading up to Jefferson's time in France, what happened when he was there, give out samples of some of the foods he brought back with him, and talk about the role they play in our everyday lives today.
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
298637
read the Jefferson papers. He wrote the Articals of confederation before he wrote the Constitution. He also was a avaid sponser of the secant amendent. He was a active member of the first contintal congress. and amny other things. He was one of the greatest men in the begining of our nation.