Loose vs. Strict Constructionist free essay sample

Interpretation of the Constitution The debate over how much power a government should employ over its citizens has been issue in the United States, since its first development of government. This clash of views essentially led to the formation of political parties, and was the first major political dispute in the United States. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton who was pro strong central government, industrialization, businesses and banking, was for a loose interpretation of the Constitution, meaning the government had the right to interpret the Constitution and its contents based on connation, in order to protect its citizens according to the Necessary and Proper Clause. Republican’s, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was aiming in establishing America as an agrarian country favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning the government defines and applies the contents of the Constitution as they are, word for word, to be in accordance with the concept of state’s rights. We will write a custom essay sample on Loose vs. Strict Constructionist or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The stance taken on this ongoing debate is inclined towards the side of loose constructionists, for its greater contribution in forming solutions to federal problems, helping the country flourish and aiding in today’s society as well. The idea of a loose interpretation of the constitution is seen triumphing over a strict interpretation when considering the Hamilton’s idea to establish a national bank. His philosophy was that in order for the country to further prosper economically, there had to be a common currency, and have a stable banking system in the new nation. The bank was established and helped the government boom economically, and participate in trade overseas. When the bank’s charter ended in 1811, a Second National Bank was chartered in 1816 by Henry Clay as part of his â€Å"American System†, in order to advance the nation economic growth further, displaying its major role in the government. To the strict constructionists, such a Thomas Jefferson, a national bank was unconstitutional, and that banking should be left to the individual states n accordance with the tenth amendment. When Jefferson was elected president in 1800, even though he was still pro-farming and a president for the â€Å"common man†, he uses the power of the bank in order to proceed with the Louisiana Purchase and purchasing western territory from Napoleon in order to benefit the country. This act went against his prior beliefs and ordeals of a strict interpretation of the constitution, but he was able to see the beneficial uses of a national bank and use it to his advantage, agreeing with the philosophies of loose constructionists. A loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution can be seen triumphing over a strict interpretation in dealing with the ordeals between the British and French during the French Revolution. Alexander Hamilton admired Great Britain’s business, making them an economical, industrial and military powerhouse, all things Hamilton dreamed for America. Britain’s government stability was possible due to their concern for the citizens and the actions they took in an aim to protect them. Jefferson adored France for their agrarian lifestyle, something he felt that was constitutional for America. Britain was always able to come out as victor over France for their definite action taken to ensure their victory. Hamilton realized that if America was to come out as victor in the world, they would have to take necessary steps to do so. Interpreting the constitution loosely was one of these steps, in order to obtain their ambitions to establish themselves as a powerhouse as well. By doing so, in the future America was able to establish trade overseas, create factories and progress politically with a more open view on matters. When Thomas Jefferson was writing the Constitution in 1776, he was addressing present issues that might arise in the country, and creating laws in order to the solve those controversies. As the country started firmly establish itself, issues arose that were not directly addressed in the Constitution. If the Constitution was to be only interpreted strictly, many problems would have gone unsolved. When interpreting the Constitution more loosely, the government is able to look at the content more as principles then definite laws. In a more strict interpretation, the laws are more set in stone, and the solution of the problem is delayed and proper action, which would be beneficial to all involved, would be delayed. This idea of looking at the amendments more as principles on which our country was established on, helps the government approach the situation with more options and gives them more freedom on how to apply said â€Å"principle† in the given situation, find the proper resolution and take action more promptly. Furthermore, the United States was able to prosper at a constant pace, leaving its mark in history with a more loose interpretation of the Constitution. It helped establish a national bank which led to expanding territory, overseas trade and industrialization. Also it helps the government make quicker decisions, and take actions more efficiently in order to find a resolution, instead of having to create new amendments in order to keep to the constitution word for word. This interpretation continues to help the country run smoothly, while helping it remain an economical powerhouse.