0
How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from Thomas Jefferson?
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
Hunter Quitzon
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How was John Marshalls interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
Marshall believed the Constitution implied strong state powers; Jefferson did not.
How was john Marshall's interpretation of the constitution different different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How was john marshall interpretation of the constitution different from that of thomas Jefferson?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How was John Marshall interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's?
novanet- marshall believed the constitution granted strong federal powers jefferson did not
How did hamiltons and jeffersons views toward the interpretation of the constitution different?
Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation, while Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation.
How was john marshalls interpretation of the constitution different from thomas Jefferson?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How would the United States be different if Washington had agreed with Madison and Jefferson's interpretation of the constitution?
Laws would have been stricter if Washington had listened to Madison and Jefferson's interpretation of the constitution. - opinion
How was john marshalls interpretation of the constitution different from thomas jeffersons?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was john marshalls interpretation of the constitution from thomas jeffersons?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was Marshall interpretation of the constitution different from Thomas Jefferson's?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from Thomas Jefferson's?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
How was John marshals interpretation of the constitution different from thomas Jefferson?
John Marshall had a loose interpretation of the Constitution while Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict interpretation of it. John Marshall strongly believed in the elastic clause (the necessary and proper clause) which meant: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof". So he thought that if a law was needed, then it could be added and adjusted into the Constitution and one didn't have to stick to the exact words of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson supposedly had a strict construction of the Constitution, but his actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Embargo Act showed loose interpretations because neither one of those were written in the Constitution. He very rarely showed a strict interpretation where he stuck directly to the Constitution, so they really weren't that different in views even though in titles they were.
