How was johns Marshall interpretation of the constitution different from Thomas Jefferson?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

John Marshall, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, believed in a strong, centralized government and a broad interpretation of the Constitution. He emphasized the supremacy of federal law and the importance of a strong federal government. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson, as a strict constructionist, believed in a limited federal government with most powers reserved for the states. He advocated for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and emphasized states' rights.