Jonathan's Discussion Questions for Nov. 15/16
Please keep reading Charlotte Temple and the other novels as you have time. We will discuss those works after Thanksgiving break. For this week, please read the U.S. Constitution, which can be found on the online reader or at the end of the textbook. Also take a look at Jefferson's Attack on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States and Alexander Hamilton's Defense of the Constitutionality of the B.U.S. also to be found on the online reader. After reading the Constitution, do you think it an affirmation of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence or a step away from them? How do Jefferson's and Hamilton's approach to Constitutional interpretation differ? Does it matter how you interpret the Constitution in determining whether it is a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary document?
posted by Jonathan Jones at 2:13 PM
23 Comments:
I think that the constitution was for the most part an affirmation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, because the Declaration stated things such as unalienable rights, and all men are created equal, so the Constitution helps to back those things up.
One of Jefferson's main arguments is that "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Stats, are reserved to the Satetes or to the people." He believes that the U.S. has not been granted the power by the Constitution to incorporate a national bank.
Hamilton believes that the government is sovereign and it has inherent powers. He also believes that as long as it is not restricted in the Constitution, not immoral, and doesnt harm society, then the bank is right to be set up.
Yes, it matter how someone interprets the Constitution in determining whether it is a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary document, because some people may see the Constitution as too restrictive, and others may see it as allowing more freedoms.
I do think that the Consitution does adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, however its purpose is different. Whereas the goal of the Declaration of Indepence was to declare independence from British rule and motivate a change; the Consitution is a document that sets up rules for us to follow that protect our liberties. So they are similar but have different functions.
Jefferson and Hamilton disagree with the overall power of the Consitution. Jefferson feels that the US doesn't have the power to incorperate a national bank, on the otherhand Hamilton thinks a national back is ok.
I believe the Consitution is a counter-revolutionary document because it was created after we won our independence, and was set up to sort of set the bylaws to our new developing country.
I thinks the Constitution was really an affirmation of the principles of the Declaration Of Independence, which states the rights of a citizen. However the Declaration had another purpose, it was written to for us to follow and so that the United states could become free form Britain. Jefferson and Hamilton had different opinions about power, Jefferson believed that the U.S. did not have the right or had been granted a national Bank, but Hamilton thought otherwise, he thought that the United States should be granted a national bank as long as it does not hurt anybody.
I really don't think it matters how we interpret the Constitution, because most of the time we do not follow it.
The Constitution and Declaration had very different purposes. The Constitution was an outline on how the government would run, while the Declaration was a list of reasons why the colonies decided to separate from Great Britain. The main difference in Hamilton and Jefferson's arguements was that Jefferson believed if it wasn't in the Constitution, it wasn't constitutional. Hamilton, however, belived theat the government had "implied powers" that didn't have to be stated for them to be in place. It does matter how you interpret it, because if you do think of the government as having implied powers, where will the government draw the line on the powers that they believe are implied?
I think that the Constitution was an affirmation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. However, both documents have two different purposes. The Declaration of Independence was declaring freedom and independence from Britain while the Constitution reiterates the Declaration but also illustrates an ideal government that promotes and protects Americans' freedom. The authors Jefferson and Hamiliton have opposing views on the National Bank. Jefferson felt that the US didn't have enough power to include the bank into the government. As opposed to Hamiliton, he thought the national bank was necessary.
I believe that the Constitution is a counter-revolutionary document because it set a foundation of laws for our society. However, in some sense, we have strayed from the Constitution, and I could see how people believe that it is not necessary important how one interprets it.
I believe that the Constitution is an affirmation of the principles laid out by the Declaration of Independence. Many believe that the constitutions laws limited some of the basic ideas of the Declaration of Independence but I believe the founders knew it was necessary to increase the power of the government with the problems they encountered during the previous years. It is also hard to compare documents that were written with different purposes. The Declaration of Independence was written and signed to bring the states together in a more idealistic way. However, many ideas are just not possible for a functioning government at that time. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had differing views on the Constitution with Alexander believing that it could be flexibly interpreted, however Jefferson believe that the Constitution stated that the Constitution should be literally translated. This debate can be shown with debate over establishing a federal bank. Alexander believed that a federal bank was needed to strengthen the Federal government which would strengthen the Nation. Jefferson believed that this was overstepping the constitution stating that it is up to the states to develop their own banking system which is on the side of States rights. I believe that if interpreted it would be revolutionary document. It was advanced for its time and started a new type of government with many new freedoms protected.
I believe that the constitution was a step away from the declaration, due in part that the declaration didn't set any laws but the people needed laws. The constitution made the declaration not needed. Jefferson's wanted the constituion to be more open and free, but Hamilton wanted the government to have control over the constitution partially. I believe the constitution can be interpreted either way, but I think it is revolutionary because it was the first of its kind.
I think that the Constitution is actually a step back from the Declaration of Independence if the Amendments are not included as part of the Constitution. Over time as the amendments are added to the Constitution it becomes more and more like the Declaration of Independence and how I believe the founders of the United States wanted the country to become. One of the principles of the Declaration of Independence that is affirmed by the Constitution are the government is supposed to represent the people of the country which Congress does; although, the original Constitution does not affirm more ideas than it affirms. The main idea where this can be seen is in the equality of all people. The Declaration of Independence implies that all people are equal and therefore have an equal say in voting, but looking at the Constitution that does not happen as numerous groups of people are limited in their ability to vote or even if they are considered an entire individual. There are several other issues, such as trial by jury, that are not included in the Constitution but they are later affirmed in an amendment to the Constitution.
Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s approach to the Constitution differs greatly especially when it comes to the idea of the national treasury. Jefferson believes that each state should be able to have its own state bank in place of a national bank, whereas Hamilton believes the opposite: there should be a national treasury and bank. Part of Jefferson’s argument against implementing the bill for a national bank was all of the extra items that people were attempting to have implemented as part of the bill that made the bill undesirable for becoming part of the Constitution. He also references the 12th amendment which says that all powers not already granted to the government in the Constitution is then for the state’s jurisdiction therefore there should be no national bank. Hamilton believed that the national government was suppose to work with the state governments on issues that had not already been determined to find the best result for the people. Additionally, the separation of powers left some powers only implied whereas some where specifically expressed for either the national or state government.
How you interpret the Constitution greatly impacts the view of whether it is a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary document. If you believe that the Constitution affirms everything that the Declaration of Independence calls for the new country to be than it can be considered a revolutionary document because it is helping to implement the desired change. Whereas, if you believe that the Constitution does not do all that the Declaration of Independence calls it to than it would then be considered a counter-revolutionary document because that would indicate that all the fighting that was done during the Revolutionary War was pointless because no change occurred and therefore all the people who died in the war on both sides actually died in vain.
~Jennifer
I think that the constitution is a step forward from the Declaration of Independence. While many people might argue that it held back many of the rights that we Americans should have, there has to be some rules and guidelines to live by. The Declaration of Independence only stated general beliefs, there were no specific rules or guidelines. That is why the Constitution was formed. If we had no underlying structure to form our society on, then how could we ever function properly. Jefferson and Hamilton viewed the constitution differently. Jefferson believed that any form of constitutional powers had to be in the constitution. Whereas Hamilton believed that there could be implied powers that the people could abide by. Americans have so many freedoms that it would be hard to argue that the constitution is restricting our rights.
The Declaration stated how the British government ruled unjustly and declared the basic rights that the American people wanted. The Constitution built on the foundation of personal rights, yet the purpose of the document was to form a larger, more stable government than the British had. The Declaration and the Constitution had two very different functions, however, both documents had the same principle of “the people” as the main power apposed to a single authority.
Thomas Jefferson believed Constitutional interpretation to be literal and strict. He thought that powers not delegated nor prohibited by the Constitution were reserved to the State governments. Jefferson argued, in his Attack on the Constitutionality of the Band of the United States, that the “incorporation of a bank…has no been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.” Jefferson opposed the national treasury idea because he believed that the States should be responsible for their own banks since the Constitution did not originally give that power to the federal government. Alexander Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson’s opinions on Constitutional interpretation. Hamilton believed that “implied powers [were] to be delegated equally with the expressed ones”
The Declaration was a set of broad ideas about freedoms and rights that men should have, whereas the Constitution laid down laws that set up a government for the United States. Although the Constitution seemed to be a step back from the ideas expressed in the Declaration, I don't think it was detrimental to the U.S. The ideas in the Declaration sounded good on paper and in theory, but no where in the Declaration did it say how to ensure those freedoms. The Constitution actually laid out a frame for government so certain rights could be gauranteed.
Jefferson and Hamilton believed very different things about interpreting the Constitution. Hamilton thought that it had "implied powers", not directly stated in the Constitution. For example, he believed that these powers should allow the government to set up the Bank of the United States. However, Jefferson disagreed and argued that a B.U.S. would be unconstitutional because the Constition said that banking should be left up to the states. He took a direct and very literal approach to interpreting the Constitution.
It would matter how you decide to interpret the Constitution to decide if it is revolutionary or not. You could view it as a set of rules and guidelines that people are forced to follow, which goes against the ideas of revolution for the sake of freedom. Or you could look at it as a framework for a government that does not allow for one person or a small group of people to rule. Therefore, it would protect people's rights and freedoms to govern themselves, and be very revolutionary.
I believe that in many ways it is an affirmation of the principles expressed in the declaration of independence.But it also can be a step away from the main ideas. For example. The Declaration was written to express reasons that america was breaking away from england. It was main ideas where the constitution started what could be done( rights of the people). But there are many things in the Declaration that are not stated in the Constitution. (way that the Constitution was a step back).
Jefferson belived that the Constitution was written to express that the powers of the united states are reserved to the states and or to the people. the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States.
where Hamiltion belived that the Constitution general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of the progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.
I dont think it matters that much on how you view the constitution because either way viewing it as a guide line to follow or viewing as a set of rules that must be followed. you are view the consitution as a document that is important in history that express ways/ideas that must be followed to ensure the prefect nation
Undoubtedly the Constitution is a step away from the radical ideas of the Declaration. This is not a surprise though because people do this all the time, its easy to get caught up in things and make very extreme statements, but after some time and thoughts most people lessen their views, the founders were no different.
Jefferson and Hamilton had very different ideas about what the constitution says. Jefferson strongly believes that banking should be left to the states since the constitution does not explicitly say it should be federal. He also cites that anything not encompassed by the Constitution is left up to the states. Hamilton on the other hand believes that the Constitution has informed powers and as such the federal government has the right to create and run a bank.
I think interpretation has a lot to do with rather it was a revolutionary document or not. More importantly is what your comparing it to, when compared to the Declaration of Independence, it seems counter revolutionary, but when compared to anti revolutionary propaganda of the time, it still seems like a very pro-revolution document.
I believe that the Constitution was a step in the right direction, and a step above the Declaration, but it was still an affirmation of it. Yes, you could argue that the Constitution put more restrictions on the people that the Declaration, but thats because its what it was supposed to do. The Declaration was exactly that. A Declaring of Independance from Britain, not a set of laws or rules for THE PEOPLE. It was a set of guidelines for BRITAIN to follow. I also think that the Constitution was in great need, so it is a good thing that it was put into play. With American society transforming rapidly, there was a strong need for some type of limits, or else chaos would have ensued.
The Constiution is a different document than the Decleration. The Declaration as we talked about in lab last week was the set up of how the country was run. It was meant to spirutally uplift the patroits and make the King look bad. However the Constitution was a set of laws on which the country should be run. Jefferson wanted it boared and Hamilton wanted it defined, I think you can look at it either way. The document is look at by me as a revolutionary document because it was the first of its kind in this country. Although there was other documents with laws before this is the one that was going to stick so obviously they did something right with it. Till this day people still use the constitution to look up rights and laws, it defiently had a major impact on this country.
I think that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance have two different purposes. The Constitution is a list of things that were thought of to make America more safe and secure and the Declaration of Independance was a document of things that America wanted freedom from the British. Hamilton thought that the Constitution had things to it that were implied like the banking being federal and Jefferson thought that the Constitution was straightforward and the banking should be inside the states government. I think that it differentially depends on how you interpret the Constitution in determining whether it is a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary document. If you look at it in different ways then it will be interpreted in different ways.
In my opinion, the Constitution was an affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, but yet the Constitution also had a different purpose. The Constitution was more of a set of rules rather than just stating how the people thought things should be.
Jefferson believed that the states should have the powers and that the Constitution had implied powers, which were not actually written. Hamilton believed that everything should run according to what is written down.
I think that the Constitution is is an affirmation of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. I think this because it tells what peoples rights are and helps back up the constitution. Hamilton believed that the Constitution should be interpreted with flexibility, while Jefferson thought literally. Jefferson felt that the US did not have enough power to include a bank in the government, while Hamilton felt that the bank was necessary to strengthen the US. It doesn't matter which way you view the constitution, it is just there to be a guideline for the US.
I think that the Constitution is similar to the Declaration of Independence because both of them were made to set up rules and guidelines for the United States. Although they were not made for similar purposes, they still are following the same things.
Hamilton and Jefferson thought differently. Hamilton thought that the things in the Constitution was meant to imply things. Jefferson on the otherhand thought that the COnstitution was meant to be what it said. That it was straight to the point.
If the Constitution is taken in different ways such as in whether or not it is revolutionary or counter-revoluntionary than it would have different ways to be taken. So yes I think that it matters on how it is interperted.
-Jessica Wallter
I think that the U.S. Constitution is obviously affirmation of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence because by constitution of the United States: “in order to form a more perfect union,” perfect union means independence union or nation. Jefferson and Hamilton have different opinion. Jefferson asserted to separate from British; in contrary, Hamilton asserted to protect American’s freedom. I think that the Constitution is a revolutionary because the Constitution changed a lot of things to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and it was first time.
Whereas the Declaration of Independence was one of the colonist's first decisive moves against their mother country, citing various heinous acts committed by the crown and the declaration of themselves as a nation, the Constitution was more organized, and served rather to lay down a set of laws for their newly minted government in a rational, well-organized fashion. The tones of the two documents is entirely different, and though their purposes may seem similar, each's is quite distinct. Differing interpretations of the document sprung up almost at once, withThomas Jefferson favoring a literal interpretation (believing anything less to be a step towards chaos) and Alexander Hamilton viewing the Constitution as more of a guideline for rules and regulations. How one interprets such things is important but entirely up to the individual, though the intentions of the documents (i.e. what they hoped to accomplish) do not change.
-Katie Woods
I believe that the Constitution was a step forward in the path of the Declaration of Independence. I believe that it was an affirmation of the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was a very broad and very vague set of rules and we needed a more specific set that could be changed throughout history as morals and times change. People are different and even technology is different (e.g. guns back then were for protection and guns now are more powerful)
Hamilton and Jefferson had very different views on the Constitution. Hamilton believed in that the government had a duty to protect its people and that it had a lot of power while Jefferson believed that the states had a lot more power and that the power should be mainly left with them.
I do not think it matters if a person is to interpret the Constitution as a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary document. The Constitution is for the future and is to help set guidelines for the future
I think that the Constitution is more of a step away from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is more of an idealistic hope for how life would be in America. Whereas the Constitution actually got into the specifics of how this could work. As we all know without rules there would be chaos, therefore I think putting down these laws was necessary.
Jefferson and Hamilton both had different ways of viewing the Constitution. Jefferson took more of a literal and strict interpretaition of it. Whereas Hamilton took more of a loose interpretation of it.
No, I think your interpretation of the Constitution is less important when weighting its counter revolutionary tactics. I think the importance is whether you believe you could actually pursue happiness in a land without rules, laws, and government. In my opinion you cannot.
Post a Comment
<< Home