Yes, Jefferson argued with the necessary addition to the constitution. This is because he felt he had to protect the people from the abuses of power and government.
About Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
elected leaders (apex)
it had no bill of rights
You could argue that.
It was violated because it did not say anywhere in the Constitution that the president could buy or sell land, But after much consideration he did make the settlement. The argument can be made that the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson was unconstitutional since there are no rights listed for the President to expand the borders of the United States. Supporters of this action however argue that Jefferson was acting as a treaty with France and Spain in the purchase and therefore it was constitutional.
It was violated because it did not say anywhere in the Constitution that the president could buy or sell land, But after much consideration he did make the settlement. The argument can be made that the Louisiana Purchase by President Jefferson was unconstitutional since there are no rights listed for the President to expand the borders of the United States. Supporters of this action however argue that Jefferson was acting as a treaty with France and Spain in the purchase and therefore it was constitutional.
The anti federalists werent against the constitution, they were with it.
people argue sometimes. Thats just the way it is.
he wanted to prove it was a law, and it was in the constitution
Federalists
It is not necessary because the people just argue about something that is simple they should just stop arguing and work together!
Necessary and proper