Claudia Silva

Period 2

Loose Construction vs. Strict Construction

During the early 1800's, Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the power of the federal

government was strictly limited to what was established by the Constitution, and the Federalists

believed in a broad interpretation that granted the government with power that was not prohibited

by the Constitution. Although Jeffersonian Republicans were characterized by a strict

interpretation of the Constitution, and Federalists were characterized by a loose interpretation,

these characteristics were mostly false in regard to the partys’ vision on governmental power

during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, during which time the Jeffersonians leaned

toward a loose interpretation and the Federalists leaned toward a strict one. However, there were

instances when Jeffersonians and Federalists actually adhered to their political ideology.

Jeffersonian Republicans leaned toward a loose interpretation of the Constitution during

the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. John Randolph, a Democratic Republican from

Virginia, stated in a speech to the House that the current government of Madison failed to its

republican principles when it placed a tariff to protect manufacturing in New England, which

burdened economically the other regions of the country (doc. f). It is interesting to note that

Randolph, who was a republican himself, was denouncing the way that the president of his own

party was using the implied powers that the Constitution granted him to favor New England’s

commerce. It is evident that as time passed republicans were becoming more detached from what

they once believed. Even Thomas Jefferson’s view of the interpretation of the constitutions was

changing. Jefferson declared to Samuel Kercheval that some men look at constitutions as if they

were “too sacred to be touched,” when they actually were meant to change as new discoveries

were made and “new truths disclosed,” (doc. g). Although Jefferson had been an advocate for the

strict interpretation of the Constitution, he now seemed to have changed his mind and was

Claudia Silva

Period 2

affirming that amendments can be made to it when necessary. This was not the first time that

Jefferson had set his republican principles aside. When he had served as the third president of the

United States he bought the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon without the approval of

Congress. The Louisiana Purchase is a clear example of Jefferson leaning toward loose

interpretation of the constitution because the constitution did not authorize the president to

purchase land from other countries.

Federalist of the early 18th

century failed to maintain their political views consistent with

their actions, and tended to interpret the Constitution strictly. Daniel Webster, a Federalist from

New Hampshire, in a speech to the House criticized the Madison administration for conscripting

men for war (doc. d). Although Federalist believed that the constitution could be interpreted

loosely, in that occasion Webster argued that there was no article that allowed the government to

take men for battle. Webster was ironically asking the federal government to adhere to the

powers that the constitution granted them, even though he belonged to a party that supported

loose interpretation of the constitution. Furthermore, during Jefferson’s presidency Federalist

condemned the Embargo Act. The Embargo Act was placed to punish Britain for the

impressments of American sailors by not allowing American merchants from trading with

foreign countries. In the political cartoon “OGRABME” by Alexander Anderson the Embargo

imposed by Jefferson is referred to as “cursed” because it damaged the New England economy

(doc. c). Federalists condemned Jefferson for implementing the act because only Congress had

the power to regulate commerce. Federalist were once again mad at republicans for interpreting

the constitution loosely, which is hypocritical of them because they promoted implied powers.

This shows that Federalist supported a strict view of the constitution when their economic

interests were hurt. Furthermore, at the Hartford Convention Federalists asked that “Congress

Claudia Silva

Period 2

shall not have power, without concurrence of two thirds of both houses” to prohibit trade with

foreign nations (doc. e). Federalist had always advocated for a strong federal government, but at

the Hartford Convention they were surprisingly asking to regulate the power of Congress. New

England Federalist met at Hartford to state their grievances against the War of 1812 because it

hurting their manufacturing industry. This once again demonstrates that Federalist supported a

strict view of the constitution when commerce was damaged.

Although most of the time Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists did not adhere to

their party’s political view in regard to the interpretation of the constitution, there were times

when Jeffersonians reflected their belief of strict reading of the constitution and Federalist their

belief of implied powers. Jefferson exclaimed to the Presbyterian minister, Samuel Miller, that

the constitution did not give the federal government the power to “intermeddling with religious

institutions” states (doc. b). Jefferson was consistent with his party’s belief that the constitution

did not grant the federal government the authority to direct religious exercises. He feared to not

follow the constitution directly like it was and wanted to keep separation or church and state.

Madison, who was also a Jeffersonian Republican, kept true to his strict views when he vetoed

the Internal Improvements Bill because “such a power is not expressly given by the

Constitutions,” (doc. h). Madison knew that the bill would benefit the country because roads and

canals would be built, but he was aware that the power to pass that bill was not expressed by the

Constitution, so he veto it. He stated that the responsibility to do the work of infrastructure was

to be completed my states. Madison had to option but to behold his signature and reflect his

Republican principle. Furthermore, the Federalists most important example of their loose

interpretation of the Constitutions is visible in Marbury v. Madison. This case began when

Adams appointed Federalists to new federal courts hours before he left office. Madison refused

Claudia Silva

Period 2

to accept the appointment made by Adams, and Marbury sued, demanding that the Supreme

Court force Madison to release the appointment letter. In this case Marshall stated that the

Supreme Court had the power to judge the constitutionality of federal laws. This set a precedent

because the Constitution had left the Court's power undefined, but these powers would gradually

be defined through the Court's interpretation of the Constitution in particular cases. Marshall had

interpreted the Constitution loosely to bring power to the Supreme Court.