0
What else can I help you with?
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 did slavery encourage different interpretations of the Constitution and the nature of the union?
You doing We the People too?
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.
Why do historians have different interpretations?
Historians have different interpretations because they all have different opinions.
Why was there different interpretations on the British empire?
because as stories spread there will be different interpretations on it
HOW WAS JOHN MARSHALS 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 marshall's 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.
Can you give me a sentence with the word interpretations?
The answer got many different interpretations from the crowd.
What happend at Alexander Hamilton's Federalist vision of America compared to Thomas Jefferson's vision?
they both wanted different things because they both had two different thoughts. poopy
Why are historical interpretations subject to change?
Interpretations differ because they are written for different audiences.
How are interpretations different from facts?
Facts speak to what occurred, whereas interpretations speak to the meaning of what occurred.
How was Thomas Jeffersons role as chief foreign affairs advisor different from John Jays?
rtyg
