0
What else can I help you with?
What president have taken a narrow view of presidential powers?
Some critics argue that President Thomas Jefferson took a narrow view of presidential powers. He believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which limited the scope of the federal government and sought to maintain states' rights. As a result, he was cautious about expanding the powers of the presidency and was hesitant to exercise authority beyond the specific powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution.
Why did Alexander Hamilton argue that the Constitution gave the US government the power to create a national bank?
The Constitution gives Congress power to do useful things. This does not constitute a dangerous interpretation of the Constitution. Powers not specifically given in the Constitution can be implied.
Why are there rules for statutory interpretation?
Statutes passed by U.S. Congress are typically general in nature. The words used in the statute need to be applied to particular circumstance, cases. Attorneys argue about proper interpretation of statutes. When an appeals court decides which interpretation is correct, that ruling stands as a valid interpretation until a higher court decides otherwise. The interpretation of a statute becomes the law of the land.
Is a written pronunciation copyright?
It can be, if there is an element of interpretation and creativity, but that would be hard to argue.
Why did Madison argue for congress power to collect taxes?
Potatoes.
Why did Madison argue congress power to collect taxes?
Potatoes.
What did the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argue?
States could nullify federal laws. That states could and should decide when Congress was passing unconstitutional laws PLATOO against a loose interpretation of the constitution
A proponent of states' rights would argue that?
the national government's powers should be interpreted narrowly.
Can the constutition be changed?
Yes, the Constitution can be changed by amendment. Amendments are either proposed by Congress and then passed by the legislatures of 3/4s of the states, or they can be proposed and passed by 3/4s of the state legislatures directly. The third way the constitution can be "changed" is through interpretation by the Supreme Court. Some would argue that this does not constitute a change, only an interpretation of original intent, while others would argue that some of the interpretations of the Supreme Court in the past are far removed from the original intent of the framers. I don't think the constitution can be changed, but I'm pretty sure that it can be added on to!!! Yes
Why did Alexander Hamilton argue the US could still charter a bank?
He argued there are both implied and expressly enumerated powers, and that both types of powers are delegated to the national government.
Why did Alexander Hamilton argue the United states could charter a bank?
He argued there are both implied and expressly enumerated powers, and that both types of powers are delegated to the national government.
Why might some people disagree with the elastic clause?
Some people may disagree with the elastic clause because they believe it grants too much power to the federal government. They argue that it allows for an expansive interpretation of the Constitution and can be used to justify policies and actions that go beyond the original intentions of the framers. Additionally, they may feel that it infringes upon the rights and powers of individual states.
