Did Federalists interpret the Constitution loosely or strictly?
816424
B...and imagine the shocker when Jefferson pulled the Louisiana Purchase off...that was a broad interpretation.  Federalists (conservative) died out.  Republicanism died out (is was the more liberal party.)  Eventually, the Know-nothings (that wanted to get rid of Catholic power), and the Democrats came forward.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act pretty much split the Whigs, the Democrats and the Know-nothings in half.  The Whigs faded away along with the Know-nothings, and the Democrats split to become our two major parties.
333360
In the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new American states, recently British colonies, met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. By September, they had produced a document that then began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratification. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the national government would function, but it did not contain a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citizens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights were not needed. Others, however, aware of the explicit rights guaranteed in earlier documents such as the British Bill of Rights (1689) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, believed that some specific provision stating the rights of individuals was necessary.\n\nAt the height of the debate, in December 1787, Thomas Jefferson, then serving as ambassador to France, wrote a letter to his friend James Madison, one of the chief authors of the new constitution. "A bill of rights," Jefferson wrote, "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."\n\nJefferson's position gained advocates, and a compromise was reached. State legislatures agreed to ratify the draft document with the understanding that the first national legislature meeting under the new constitution would pass amendments guaranteeing individual liberties. That is precisely what occurred. By 1791, these 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, had become part of the supreme law of the land.\n\nMuch about this controversy at the very beginning of the American experiment in democracy prefigures later developments in U.S. politics and constitutional law. Intense views on both sides were moderated by a complicated, yet highly pragmatic compromise. Also significant is that Jefferson saw explicit limits on government power as a necessity. In fact, the Bill of Rights can be read as the definitive statement of that most American of values: the idea that the individual is prior to and takes precedence over any government.\n\nAs the title "The Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights" suggests, this book is our effort to explain how the core concepts of individual liberty and individual rights have evolved under the U.S. legal system down the present day.\n\nIt is intended for a great variety of readers. One obvious use is in secondary school or university classrooms. To that end, we are creating an on-line Discussion Guide with accompanying questions and background references. Please look for it on the World Wide Web at: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/\n\nA non-American reader may well ask, "But what does all this have to do with me? In my country we have a different legal tradition and there is no bill of rights."\n\nIt is true that the U.S. Bill of Rights is the historical product of a particular time and place. It arose out a long British tradition of enumerated rights within the British legal system that governed the American colonies. Some would say it has unique application to the circumstances of the United States.\n\nYet many others believe that the American Bill of Rights has transcended its historical roots. The concept of individual rights can be seen as one of the building blocks in any civil society. And in many times and many places, the Bill of Rights has served as beacon to those living under tyrants.\n\nConsider the post-1989 revolutions that ended Communist control of Eastern Europe. Looking back on these events, Adam Michnik, the Polish journalist and Solidarity leader, posed the question of which revolution has been a greater inspiration for modern Europeans — the French Revolution or the American Revolution. His answer is unequivocal.\n\n"The American Revolution," says Michnik, "appears to e
861183
C\nA\nC\n\nDiscussion on number 2:\nA. There was no president as we view the office today, in fact, the original founders did not want a central government led by one person. They were afraid of tyranny so they deliberately stayed away from that system.\n\nB. The articles did not discuss a central court, but did establish full faith and credit between the states of the the judicial and court proceedings of the states.  However, Congress was the "court" to determine disputes between the states.  A Central court, or judicial branch came later with the US Constitution. \n\nC.  The regulation of interstate commerce by the Federal Government was a sticking point.  At this time, the 13 states were 13 separate republics.  There was an attempt to amend to amend the Articles to allow Congress power over interstate commerce, but the conception of the new Constitution coincided so the "former" articles never really addressed interstate commerce.\n\nD.  Again, no president as we view it today, but there was a president of the Congress.  That position did not make decisions, because most decisions needed the votes of 9 states and major decisions needed all 13.  Vetoing power and the executive branch came later, with the new US Constitution. \n\nBEST ANSWER for #2 is A.
437255
No, he was an anti-federalist and later a democrat.  As such he was bitterly opposed to many of the actions the federalists wanted to take, which had they been successful would now mean you would have a very strong presidency and a weaker congress.  Now Hamilton was kind of the supreme federalist, advocating a strong central government (opposing the articles of confederation).
900356
No.  But it was promised because of their complaints that the Consitution lacked basic protections.  It was drafted by James Madison
75982
to interpret the constitution. which is do laws go against the constitution and has any other branch exceeded its powers.
1109324
It was a struggle between a strong central government vs a strong state government. States' Rights. Lincoln was afraid that if the South seceded from the Union, as a divided country, we would be open to invasion and take over by foreign nations. "United we stand; divided we fall,"  he said. So he wanted a Strong central government to keep a degree of unity and to keep us strong.\n\nDavis, on the other hand, had to argue that the power of government should remain basically in the hands of the states who were sovereign and who could overrule the federal government. That is how he justified slavery, namely, that slavery or no slavery was the job of each state to decide and not the federal government.\n\nLincoln won that debate via a Civil War, the argument still rages today--whether the states should have equal or more power than the federal government.\n\nI hope this helps.
827242
It was the federalists at first because they supported a strong central government.  Even George Washington had federalist views.  The anti-federalists, later known as the first republican party(not associated with GOP) gave oppostion because they said federalists were too much like the British.  They weren't a party until later on though.  They both gave great value I believe.  To me they both did good for our country because they both wanted sovereignty and to be independent but just thought of different ways to have it.
754284
Not per se.  There is the 4th, 5th and 9th ammendment which imply that the federal gub'mint can only do certain things, although no such restrictions were originally placed on the states.  For instance, for a long time the establishment clause of the first ammendement was not believed to extend to the states, so a state could establish itself as Christian.  The commerce clause and other vaguaries have been used for good and evil to hugely expand the amount of power that the central government exercises.
231860
Federal Republicanism.  a system of divided and difused powers.
10183
When the US first separated from England after the Revolution, the people were wary of strong, centralized government (because of their experiences under the English king).\n\nThey first formed a loose fedaration of separately-governed states.  It proved too 'loose' to be effective, so the states re-organized under the current US constitution - which gave more power to the Federal government, but still left some control with states.\n\nSince then, balancing state & federal powers has been a near-constant issue.
75138
The preamble basically outlined the goals of the new Constitution when it was written. It also denotes powers in the government, but not specifically.
926516
A --the formal amendment process is definitely the correct answer. It requires the approval of the states, and congress and it changes the basic document that federalism is based on: the Constitution.
800335
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. -- Alexander Hamilton\n\nShays’ Rebellion had a lot to do with changing their minds.  Without a stronger “Union” they (United States) had little power to put down the uprising.\n\nOn the other hand, Confederations are very weak forms of government.  To put things into perspective, many confederations have been tried throughout world history, but none survive today.  The main reason is because states maintained their full sovereignty. Since they were all individual nations, there was little motivation for allegiance to each other.  This is especially true when it came to commerce among the states.  Also the articles were very limited when it came to what they regulated, and had definitive language that would prove to be obsolete over the years.  The Founders wanted something that would last.
799951
Federalist ->Sovereignty\nAnti-federalist ->Independence
523017
First, be sure to break up the methodologies that are grouped into Originalists:\n\nOriginal Intent - The constitution should be interpreted by what the original authors meant.\n\nOriginal Meaning - Interpretation of the constitution should depend on the ordinary meaning of the text at the time it was drafted.\n\nTextualism - Original meaning constricted to its ordinary meaning and excludes intention of the legislature in passing the statute. It should be noted that textualism is concerned with the meaning of the overall text moreso than each individual word.\n\nConstitutions are documents which act as a frameworks for making laws. Laws should only be created by those designated as legislatures (Congress). It is up to the justices to interpret whether laws are constitutional when a challenge is raised. Under originalist views, if the law does not match the constitution, it should be rejected; if it matches it is fine. Those in favor of the 'living document' theory may refer to the constitution and past judicial decisions; but tend to favor personal and social opinion.\n\nThe biggest difference in the views comes when the constitution has nothing to say about the law in question. Originalist tend to reject the case since there is no constitutional backing. Those in favor of the 'living constitution' tend to interpret the law despite no constitutional backing.\n\nIf the constitution has nothing to say on the issue, then it is Congress's job to radify a new ammdment to the constitution. Originalist tend to honor this power, while 'liing document' theorists will attempt to interpret law without constitutional backing.\n\nOriginalist also tend to honor stare decisis, that prior decisions should be recognized as precidents. They may overturn prior decisions that don't have constitutional backing, however, they tend to honor the prior decisions moreso than 'living document' theorists.\n\nI think Antonin Scalia says it best in this attack on 'living document' theory:\n"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things . . . [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court . . . They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable."
849817
Ummmm....the US Constitution?