Absolutely not. The constitution contained no provision for expansion of the country and the Louisiana Purchase has always been historically seen as a case where Jefferson overstepped his powers as President. Jefferson himself was conscious of this and even considered seeking a constitutional amendment to grant hims the authority for the purchase, but he had to abandon it when it became clear that an amendment couldn't be ratified before Napoleon changed his mind about selling Louisiana. So the Louisiana Purchase is an example of an act which goes far beyond anything that could be considered "strict construction."
I am Shawn G who knows alot.
This is FALSE because Jefferson was strict
true true
"The Federalists strongly opposed the purchase, favoring close relations with Britain over closer ties to Napoleon, and were concerned that the United States had paid a large sum of money just to declare war on Spain." I COPIED OFF OF WIKIPEDIA. I DO NOT CLAIM THIS.
It was the idea by Andrew Jackson of favoring white males and the "common man."
After the debacle of Shay's Rebellion (another topic entirely), there was a faction favoring a stronger, more centralized government than the confederacy created by the Articles of Confederation. These eventually became called the "Federalist" Party, so called, because they favored a centralized federalgovernment. The Constitution is proof of this, as are The Federalist Papers.
territorial expansion
Federalists generally believe in a strong central government and support policies that enhance its power and authority. They tend to prioritize national unity, stability, and order, often favoring policies that promote economic growth and protect property rights. Federalists also tend to advocate for a broad interpretation of the Constitution and support the idea of a living Constitution that adapts to changing times and needs.
No that is false. It is an example of loose construction.
The Federalist Papers.
If you meant "by the government", I'm guessing that they would interpret the acceptance as favoring Christianity, and the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. (Of course it wouldn't be favoritism if they accepted the diplomas of every religious school, but try telling them that, and they would probably reply with something about the separation of church and state, which is NOT in the Constitution.)
Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the new US Constitution. They believed it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the states's power. They favored the addition of a Bill of Rights to the new document before they would approve it. After the Constitution was ratified, the beginnings of political parties were formed, with the Federalists favoring more power to the national government and the Anti-Federalists favoring states' rights.
Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the new US Constitution. They believed it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the states's power. They favored the addition of a Bill of Rights to the new document before they would approve it. After the Constitution was ratified, the beginnings of political parties were formed, with the Federalists favoring more power to the national government and the Anti-Federalists favoring states' rights.
A Favoring Current - 1911 was released on: USA: 25 July 1911
A Person That Is Favoring One Side Of An Political Issue Is Called An Partisan.
favoring, for, with
Sectionalism is another word for favoring one section of the country over another
Girondists
It means favoring slavery.
No, because the states have to go by the US Constitution and under Amendment I in the Bill of Rights, it says that the government cannot have a national religion, nor can the government favor one religion over another. In this case, it would be favoring one religion over another.