Sarah Haskins' Discussion Questions for 11/13-11/16
NOTE: We will be discussing and having a quiz over Charlotte Temple the section after Thanksgiving. For this week, we will discuss primary source documents from the online reader, including the debate over the Bank of the US (Jefferson and Hamilton's responses), the Alien Act, the Sedition Act, and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. That makes quite a few documents, but they are all fairly brief.
Discussion Prompt: What exactly is at the root of the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Bank? What are the positions of the debate and how can you best describe the nature of the conflict? Finally, in what ways are these political ideas and conflicts over the role and function of government still present today? You may wish to read in the text for background information on the political divisions and conflicts of this period to help in your analysis of the primary documents.
Discussion Prompt: What exactly is at the root of the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Bank? What are the positions of the debate and how can you best describe the nature of the conflict? Finally, in what ways are these political ideas and conflicts over the role and function of government still present today? You may wish to read in the text for background information on the political divisions and conflicts of this period to help in your analysis of the primary documents.
posted by shask at 2:14 PM
39 Comments:
All of these documents are questioning the power of the constitution and national government. In Jefferson’s attack against the Bank of the United States he argues that the bank is taking too much power. He states “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” He states that the power should be held among the states governments and that the Nation Bank is not necessary. On the other hand, Hamilton argues that the bank may not necessarily be necessary but the constitution doesn’t use the word necessary to mean absolute, it means more of something that is useful. Another point that Hamilton makes is the one about implied powers which is still in debate today. Many people choose to read the constitution strictly literally, others believed that some things are more implied and must be altered to fit to our lifestyles in this day rather than back in the 18th century. It is also still a debate of who should have more power, state or national governments. I feel that our national government has much more power than our founders intended and people stills argue which way it should really be. Whose constitution should come first? Is it that state governments that decide what they want or does the national government have a say and the state governments get what’s left over?
The Alien and Sedition Acts also question the power of the national government. They also bring up the debate on rights of citizens. The main argument with the sedition act was whether or not it was right to take away the free speech that the first amendment protected. Free speech has never gone out of debate and we still question what things the government can and cannot censor. The Alien act was also something for citizens to debate over. Jefferson believed that both these acts were the cause of the government overstepping its boundaries. Kentucky and Virginia even went as far as to declare that the acts are unconstitutional and actually said that they would not abide by these acts. Although our states now do not have near this much power as they started with, it is still debated of exactly how much power they should have. I believe these debates are something that will never be fully solved.
The debate over the alien and sedition acts occurred around 1798. Four laws were passed by Federalists in the United States Congress. It was during a time that John Adams was waging an undeclared naval war with France. The Democratic-Republicans attacked the laws as being unconstitutional and were only made to silence the criticism of the John Adam’s Administration. The laws were claimed to protect the United States from alien citizen from the enemy or opposite powers. The Alien Enemies Act is still in place today, but is only usually enforced during war times.
The alien and sedition acts were in 1798 and the purpose was not only to respond to what they thought were wrong actions by the french revolutionary government but also to destroy Jefferson's republican party because they were in favor of the french revolutionaries. It consisted of the naturalization act which postponed citizenship, the alien and alien enemies act which gave the government power to deport foreigners who they thought were a threat to them, and it also consisted of the sedition act. These acts led to the kentucky and virginia resolutions and unified the republican party. This led to kentucky and virginia wanting to defend the government now. They did not agree with the alien and sedition acts. Hamiliton brought up in his words that implied powers should be right there with the ones that are written down and that they should hold just about as much weight as the ones that are not implied. He also did not agree with jefferson on the issue of 'necessary and proper' and how jefferson says, " maintains, that no means are to be considered as necessary but those without which the grant of power would be nugatory ". Jefferson also thinks that the national bank is a bad idea because it steps outside the lines of the constitution and does not respect the rights of the people.
The economically important Bank of the United States was condemned unconstitutional in 1971. The bank was originally created to handle the financial needs and requirements of the central government of the newly formed United States, which had previously been thirteen individual colonies with their own banks, currencies, and financial institutions and policies. However, Thomas Jefferson was not fond of Hamilton's ideas of establishing an official government Mint, and the chartering of the Bank of the United States.
The Alien Act authorized the deportation of foreigners and the Sedition Act prohibited the publication of insults or malicious attacks on the president or members of Congress. It was the Sedition Act that generated the most controversy. Republicans charged that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment's prohibition agains abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Because of this, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures issued resolutions in 1978 declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unauthoritative, void, and of no force. The resolutions set forth a states' rights interpretation of the Constitution, assuring that the states had a right to judge the legitimacy of national laws.When Republican legislatures in Kentucky and Virginia repudiated the Alien and Sedition Acts and claimed the authority to determine the constitutionality of national laws, the Federalist party responded quickly. Due to this challenging Republican view, the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions outlined that the state legislatures had authority to interpret the constitution.
The debate over the Sedition Act set the stage for the presidential election of 1800. Jefferson, once opposed in pronciple to political parties, now saw them as a valuable way to watch and relate oto the people.
The United States National Bank was originally founded in order to unify the country, because at the time, there were several different currencies, all handled by the state banks. However, due to tensions between the United States and France, mostly in part to John Adams, there was a need for the country to come together as one efficient unit. Thomas Jefferson much resented the National Bank, because he believed it was another way for the government to gain more power. Even Hamilton, who was in favor of the National Bank, agreed that too much power was given to the hand of the Federal government. Before the National bank was introduced, much of the power in each state varied, depending on the needs of the people. However, the power was left largely in the hands of the national government after this, because without money at their dispense, the state governments had to be approved for their spending habits. To this day, the state governments have much less weight in the decisions than the national government. At this time the Federalist party passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in order to keep the situation at bay. The Alien Act, was put in place to deport foreigners from the US because at the time they were seen as a potential threat to the citizens. The Sedition Act was put in place to in a sense, protect the politicians of the time, from the public critique of the citizens. There was much controversy with both of these acts, of course, because by limiting the freedom of speech, the government crossed the line taking away some of the basic rights of the Constitution. Although the Alien and Sedition Acts were never favorable, they are still around today, but are only enforced in times of war or other crises.
The issue of the National Bank, as well as the Alien and Sedition Acts, deals with the issue of what powers the Federal Government has and how the Constitution is interpreted. Jefferson is totally against the idea of a National Bank because he feels it is unconstitutional. He feels it does provide for the good of the people and is just a way for the Federal Government to gain power. Hamilton and the Federalists on the other hand, support the idea of the National Bank because they feel that is Constitutional because he believes that "all government is a delegation of power [by the people but admits that, in his view] implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with the express ones." This issue still occurs today, (whether or not a certain proposal is Constitutional or not) and generally, it seems as though many of Hamilton's ideas have succeeded.
The root of the debate over the National Bank was due to the large amounts of power they were taking. Jefferson was very much against a National Bank. He believed that the National Bank was stepping outside the powers granted by the constitution. Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson, saying the rights were implied in the constitution. Jefferson believed that the National Bank was just a way for the national government to gain an upper hand in power over the state government. Before the National Bank, the states could spend their currency based on what the people wanted, whereas after the National Bank was established the state government had to get approval from the national government on how they spent their currency. Today, there is still controversy over how much power the national government should hold and how much power the state government should maintain.
The Alien and Sedition Acts which came about in the late 1700's were both highly controversial. The Alien Act was used to deport foreigners out of the United States because they believed they were a threat to the citizens of the United States. The Sedition Act was made to protect the President and Congress from public criticism. Although the public saw both of these acts as the National government taking too much power, the Sedition Act drew the most controversy. The public saw the Sedition Act as taking away their first amendment right, freedom of speech. Today these acts are still made in times of war and still draw much controversy.
The main conflict over these ideas is how much power the government has and if these ideas are granted in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson was against the idea of a national bank because he said it was "unconstitutional". He said that we do not need a national bank to function as a country and that it would just be a way for the government to gain power. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton was all for the national bank. Hamilton states that just because it is not stated in the constitution doesn't mean it can't happen. He says that some powers are implied and we cannot take all of the constitution literally.
The alien and sedition acts were totally unconstitutional. Supposedly the government was trying to protect the rights and powers of the American people, but with these acts they were in fact taking away their rights. With these acts, the government gave themselves the right to deport any suspicious enemies of America and any people with ethnicity of a country whom they were at war with. The acts also made it illegal to speak out against the government. This act was unconstitutional because it violated the right to freedom of speech. This arguement still lives today in our own government. How much power does the government have over the people? When is it okay for the government to intervene? These are questions that will always be asked and they will most likely always be controversial.
The debate over the National Bank, along with the Alien and Sedition Acts, had a lot to do with power and the constitution. On one side Thomas Jefferson was against the National bank because he believed it went against the constitution. Alexander Hamilton on the other hand was for the National Bank because he believed it was constitutional.
What ended up happening was the Alien and Sedition Acts were very unconstitutional. Many Americans felt like some of their constitutional rights were being violated and that the government had too much power. The Alien Act was used to deport foriegners out of the U.S. if they were seem as a threat to the American people. The Sedition Act was made to protect the Government from public criticism. Today these acts are only used during times of war and crisis, but they still cause a lot of controversy.
A debate is occurring over the National bank, sedition act and alien act. The reasoning behind this debate is that some people feel these three things go against the Constitution. Other people feel that they give the federal government too much power. Jefferson feels that a national bank takes away from the rights of the people by not allowing them to choose what bank they would like to use. Jefferson also points out that powers of a national bank were not delegated in the constitution, so a national bank should not just assume they have certain power. He believes a state should decide upon a bank not the nation. Hamilton feels that Jefferson is making too big of a deal over the national bank issue. Hamilton feels that even though the powers of a national bank are not written out in the constitution, they are implied. The sedition and alien acts limit the rights of American citizens. Virginia and Kentucky wrote resolutions stating they would not follow these “obnoxious laws” because they did not support the constitution. Even in today’s society many of these debates still occur. Debates over rights guaranteed in the constitution still occur because different people interpret the Constitution to mean different things. Also, debates over the power of the state vs. the national governments still occur today.
The roots of both of these debates are centered around the power of the Constitution. The Alien Act allowed foreigners to be deported and the Sedition Act prohibited the printing of insults against the government. Many people felt that the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and press. This controversy led to the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions (1798) in which it was declared that the Alien and Sedition Acts were void and that a state had the right to interpret the Constitution.
The debate over the US Nation Bank was over the power of the Constitution as well. Thomas Jefferson said that the bank was taking too much power away from the state governments. He said, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition,” meaning that if the government takes this little bit of power then there is nothing to stop them from taking much, much more. He believed that the power should stay within the state governments and that the National Bank was not necessary. In contrast to this idea, Hamilton argues that the bank may not be necessary in the sense of being absolute but it is useful. He also argues about the literality of the Constitution and of “implied powers.”
Today, this debate of implied powers still continues. So people tend to take the Constitution as literal law while others think of it more as a guide and that the rules stated within it need to be changed and updated with the changing times. What applied back then may not literally apply today but the same general principles are still the same.
The major cause of the debate of whether or not a Bank of the United States should be created as well as behind the Alien and Sedition acts was the extent of sovereignty of the Federal government as well as the power of the Constitution. Some people thought that these acts would increase the power of the federal government too much and go against the limitations of the power of the federal government set forth by the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson says, “…that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Jefferson’s argument was that creating a national bank would centralize power and therefore make the federal government too powerful. Also, he felt that it would go against the Constitution because that power had not been granted to the federal government and creating a national bank would go against the basis of a constitutional government. In response, Alexander Hamilton argues that “To deny that the government of the United States has sovereign power, as to its declared purposes and trusts, because its power does not extend to all cases . . . . would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed without government.” Basically he is saying that the national government should be the top of the food chain when it comes to sovereignty. He goes on to say that it is the right of the federal government to pass all such acts which are necessary to the expansion and good of society.
The Alien Acts basically made it possible for the president and government to apprehend and deport any alien that they want. Some people felt that this gave the president too much power. The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States.” This act gave the government the right to throw in jail those who talked badly of the government. This could be seen as an act to allow the government to pass whatever laws it may please regardless of what people thought because they could just throw those who in written form denounced the government.
All of these arguments apply still to today. We are still arguing about the extent of power the national government should have in our daily lives. We are still arguing about what rights that the acts the national government passes tend to violate or hinder. Sometimes it is necessary for the government to hinder some rights in order to protect others but only to a certain degree. The amount of sovereignty allowed to the federal government was the major question behind the arguments associated with this documents and acts. Though not associated with these documents and acts, the same question is still yet to be answered today.
The United States bank was put together so the country could have unity in some way; everyone was using different kinds of currencies that were being used by the different states. One person that did not like the Nations Bank was Jefferson; he did not want the government to have any more power than they already did. In the end Nations Bank and the Alien and Sedition Acts comes down to who has the most power. After all the power was left mostly with the Nations Government, now the states have to get their spending habits approved before they can do anything. While this was happening the Alien and Sedition Acts were being passed. The Sedition Acts was arranged to mostly protect the politicians from being critiques from the people. The Alien Acts was passes to get the foreigner in the country because people thought as them being treats to United States. There was much talk over the two acts, they were limiting the peoples freedom the speech and people were not happy about their rights being taken away. They were taking their first amendment rights, freedom of speech. These acts are still around to this day, and only used in a time of were.
The alien and sedition acts were made to loosen criticism on John Adams and his naval battles with the French. The debates centered around the constitutionally granted powers of the government, many thought the acts suspended first amendment rights and were therefore violating the constitution. Virginia suspended the alien and sedition acts when it declared that the state government had the power to interpret the constitution. The debate over the national bank is likewise one of constitutional interpretation. Hamilton believed a federal bank would be beneficial to the nation. Jefferson said that it took to much power away from the states and that it would only result in all power being reserved in the federal government.
After the National bank was established the arguement strayed from the topic of a National bank being Constitutional and turned torwards policy. Andrew Hamilton, the founder of the National bank deemed it neccesary to control foreign affairs and state-state relations. Hamilton, however started a policy of national debt to run the bank. This policy was strongly encouraged trade and commerce and an urban America the Thomas Jefferson strongly opposed. Jefferson envisioned a rural America so argued with the policy. The arguement over national debt still goes on today.
The Alien Acts and Sedition Acts were the root for a whole lot of controversey over the literal meanings of the Constitution. The Sedition Act limited the rights of free speech and free press by stating that anyone who spoke out against the government would be sentenced to jail time. This was in direct violation with the First amendment which deemed both of those Constitutional rights that came with living in America. The Alien Act was also deemed unconstitutional. These acts stemmed a debate over whether or not the national government had too much power and led to stronger state governments and constituions.
Kentucky and Virginia deemed both the Sedition Acts and Alien Act unconstitutional in their respective states. This lead to the arguement of how much power the state legislatures and the National government held. The debate still goes on today.
The root of the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Bank is the weather the national government had the right to create a National Bank, to force foreigners out of American in times of war, and to put people in jail if they were against the workings of the National Government. The main positions of the debate were that most states were against the National Government having the right to do the things listed above and that it should be in the power of each individual state to control the banks, jail persons in violation of the law, and kick out those that seemed suspicious. On the other hand you had those in government including the Senate passing laws that allowed the government to have control over the bank and the rights to kick people out of the country or put them in jail. In many ways these political ideas and conflicts are still around today just over different ideas. The National Senate and local State Senate still struggle for control over who should have the power and control on certain issues. For example, the issue on immigration and illegal residency is something that the National Government and local State Governments argue over. The National Government has hardly put out any laws restricting it, but several State Governments have instituted laws that try and restrict illegal immigration in that particular state. State Governments are also changing the main language to English to make these foreigners convert to their ways. This debate is more than likely to continue and persist as long as State Governments can enforce laws different from those of the National Government.
The debates about the Alien and Sedation Acts and the National Bank have been brought on due to questions based on these issues being constitutional or unconstitutional. The Alien Act deals with containing foreigners in America and holding them accountable for their country's crimes against America. The Sedation Acts allows government officials to punish Americans for publicly speaking negatively or publishing negative comments about the American government. The states of Virginia and Kentucky are deeming both these acts unconstitutional. Also, the debate about the National Bank involves the question of whether a national bank would benefit America as a whole, and not just the American government. Again, this argument relates back to the constitution and the question of benefitting all Americans. Today, many of the laws we vote on relate back to the question of being constitutional or unconstitutional. Politicians still debate today about how laws will benefit America and its citizens, and not just the American government.
The debate over the national bank and Alien and Sedition acts were rooted in the power of the constitution. Depending on whether a person had a strict or flexible view of the powers granted to the government in the constitution impacted if they thought the government was overstepping its boundaries. The plan for a national bank was opposed by the Republican party, which had a strict interpretation of the constitution and believed the government didn't have the power vested in it to create a national bank. The Federalists on the other hand, had a more flexible view of the constitution. They believed that a national bank was constitutional because of the “necessary and proper cause” in the constitution. The Alien act was made because many immigrants in the United States spoke out against the government and criticized the undeclared war the nation was having with France. It allowed the immediate deportation of foreigners. Adams used the Alien act to silence critics. The Sedition act was also used to silence critics. It banned the publication of insults against government officials. The main point of debate over these issues was free speech. Republicans believed that the government was limiting their first amendment rights, while the Federalists believed they were protecting the people by making sure the government was not overthrown. The conflict can best be described as a political conflict because it basically pitted the nation's political parties against one another and was a platform for future elections. These issues extend into modern society because our nation is still concerned with what the constitution can and cannot do. The idea of freedom of speech, for example, was recently challenged in the court case of Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier. A Hazelwood high school newspaper published a controversial article about pregnancy and the newspaper wasn't allowed to be distributed. The students claimed it was a violation of their first amendment rights and the case went to the supreme court. The conflict centered around the same issue as the Alien and Sedition acts; whether or not the government could limit what a person said.
In the late eighteenth century, the United States government issued The Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien Act stated that if any group conspired together in order to defy any measure of the United States government, “they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor.” The Sedition Act said that if anyone spoke out against the President, Congress, or the government with bad intent, they would be punished. In 1798, both acts resulted in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which said that the acts were unconstitutional. The Virginia Resolution even went so far as to claim that the United States government would be transformed into an absolute or mixed monarchy because of the supposed unconstitutional Acts. Jefferson shared the belief that the government was acting in an unconstitutional way. He felt that a National Bank was not necessary and the U.S. was not delegated to establish such a bank because the Constitution did not give the right. Hamilton felt, however, that it was “essential to the being of the national government” and “the word ‘necessary’ should be exploded.” Jefferson and both Resolutions were angered and believed that the government was trying to take away the First Amendment rights of the common people. Today, the population of America would still be angered if their freedom of speech was threatened and would revolt in just the way Jefferson and the people of Virginia and Kentucky had revolted.
The root of the debate is basically how much power the federal government should have. If they should be able to create a National Bank or not allow people their freedom of speech when it came to the president and congress. It was a difference of opinion on the meaning of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson went against the National Bank. He said that it was taking too much power. Thomas Jefferson also went against the Alien and Sedition acts. When he came to office after John Adams he pardoned all of the people convicted because of the Alien and Sedition acts and repaid them the fines the paid. Today still many people question if the federal government is taking more power than the constitution or the Bill of rights allows. We are given the right of freedom of speech but in the 1700’s because of the Alien and Sedition acts that right was taken away. Today we are in a war that congress did not approve of. Our president is taking more power than he is supposed to have. These are different problems but essentially they have the same root. Is the government taking more power than it is supposed to have?
In Thomas Jefferson’s opinion, the implementation of a national bank is something that he views as taking the easy way out. He frequently argues that although the construction of a nationally centralized banking system would be very convenient for executing the enumerated powers, the Constitution states that only actions that are necessary for carrying out these powers are valid. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton, who concludes with Jefferson that the necessity for a national bank is sketchy, disagrees that the Constitution forbids the construction of such an infrastructure with the term necessary. These two men were caught in a debate that is still present even today, the debate of the interpretation of the implied powers granted in the Constitution. Should these powers be taken literally, or bent to the situation at hand. Another debate of the meaning and literalness of the Constitution is represented in the conflict described in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. In the Sedition Act, Section 2, they state that if a group of conspirators gather together and attempt to start a rally against the government, or any of the government’s powers provided by the constitution, they shall be punished by imprisonment and/or a fine. It is funny that they mention the Constitution in this act, because by declaring the latter, is a direct violation of the first amendment of the Constitution. Again, this is another common debate in our world today, what is free speech? Obviously, by this amendment the spoken word is protected but what about other forms of expression? It goes back to Hamilton’s debate of whether or not to take the literal or the self-adjusted definition of the Constitution. In regards to the Alien Act, is the government allowed by the Constitution to decide which of its citizen’s (non-naturalized) can be arrested simply because their home country, who could have been a close ally at the time of emigration, is now an enemy? Jefferson believed that these acts were both overstepping the given bounds of the Constitution; however, the debate did not die with Jefferson, but rather continues with us today.
The basic root of the debates over the alien and sedition acts and the National Bank is simply a matter of power, and whether or not these things are constitutional. When federalists passed the alien and sedition acts in 1798, they were supposedly designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers. In short, the president could basically deport any alien resident that he considered dangerous to the United States, or if they were from a country that was currently at war with the United States. Obviously, there was opposition. Democratic-republicans thought that the new acts were unconstitutional. As for the National Bank, people such as Thomas Jefferson felt it would gain too much power, leading us back to the root of these problems. The alien acts were later repealed, but the sedition act is still in use today.
The root of debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Banks is the question of whether they are constitutional. Power is another issue that encouraged debate over the acts and the national bank. The Alien Act was viewed as giving too much power to the president, since, it allowed him to deport any alien from a country that has declared war with America back to that country. The Sedition Act was seen as intruding on first amendment rights. It denies the right to publicize malicious articles about government officials. The National Bank was another issue of constitutionality. Hamilton, the originator of the Bank thought it would be required to have a National Bank in order to conduct state-state relations, as well as keep healthy economic foreign affairs. Jefferson believed that the idea of this bank was unconstitutional. Both tried convincing George Washington to do as they wished. The National Bank was created and the United States is still in debt.
The debate over the alien and sedition acts and over the National bank issue, both have at their heart, the power of the federal government. How far, under the constitution are they allowed to go. With the alien and sedition acts, it caused states such as Virginia and Kentucky to take sides on the issue. Both of which protested the acts, citing the 12th amendment which basically says that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states should be left to the states and or the people. Each state held that the federal government overstepped their bounds in passing these acts. The same thing can be said for Thomas Jefferson with the National bank issue. He was against it, saying that the government would overstep their bounds by doing this and it should be left up to the states or people, not to the government. He cited both the 12th amendment and the "neccessary and proper" clause to back his case. The funny thing is, so did his "opponent" Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton used the same things to back up his arguement on why their should be a national bank, and tried to point out why Jefferson's argument was flawed. Today, the very same arguments are very present. Just a few years ago, the goverment passed the patriot act. The patriot is sort of a modern day alien or sedition act, except one that caters to our technology in the country today. The patriot act caused a stir about if the federal goverment had a constitutional right to invade our private lifes by tapping phone lines and such, just because of a high risk of terroist activity. This is very similar to the Alien and sedition acts, because those acts were meant to be used in a time of war, and if anyone wasn't a citizen they could be removed, reagrdless of whose side they were on. And if in the governemtns opinion you wrote or said anything malitious toward the government you could be punished. The patriot act basically did the same thing, and thus sparked a debate over the powers of the federal government.
The basis of all this is the skepticism of the writer's about the powers that should belong to government and the men in charge of distributing power (i.e. the authors of the constitution.) This leads into the discussion of whether or not these are were constitutional. The fact that the Alien act allowed the president to deport any immigrants he considered a threat was considered by men like Jefferson a merely temporary and faulty sollution that gave the government too much control over tis people. The sedition act was much the same way and many followers of Jefferson's ideals also saw felt that it gave the government too much control, which they were wary of having recently broken away from a very controlling government. Others, like Hamilton and his followers believed something slightly different, thus sparking debate. Though Hamilton felt the governement had too much power and took unnessecary measures as with the National Bank, he also felt that sometimes such force was necessary. He saw the constitution as full of implied powers, or powers given to the government though not specifically written down. We still see much controversy today between the control of the government. Some believe that issues such as the Patriot Act gave the government an almost tyrannical control over its people whereas others did not see so much of a problem in it. This controversy is alway seen as it is the basis of our country; the freedom to speak out against or for such issues and decide amongst ourselves through debate etc. what is best for our country.
The National Bank was orignially created in order to boost the countries moral, and sort of bring everyone together. They looked at the issue sort of like this...If a settler from one colony were to travel to a different colony and attempt to buy something, the posibilty of the transaction being denied was rather prevalent, based on the fact that there were so many different forms of currency. Some people were all for the National Bank, but like always, there were opposers who said that they did not feel comfortable with the federal government having so much control over there money. There was also the debate that Jefferson sided with that decided that it was unconstitutional to implement a National Bank. He thought that it invaded too many personal rights and was quite frankly crossing the line. As far as the Alien and Sedition Acts are concerned, they were more a debate on how people literally interpreted the Constitution. They challenged free speech and non-citizens rights. What it comes down to is that the sole debate was over how much power the federal government actually should have.
Hamilton created the National Bank in hopes of creating a more unified government. This meant the powers of the current government needed to become greater. Unfortunately, this idea created a wide spread debt throughout the country, which led to several debates. Several people including Jefferson believed the government already had too much power over the people. The Alien Act stated that if any foreigners that entered the United States, posed a threat to the country and its people, the president of the United States had the right to "dispose" of those "Aliens." Also the Sedation Act limited peoples right of speech by stating that if any person(s) "conspires together" in order to bash the government and its officials than they should be "punished" whether it be paying a fine, or serving time. The decrease of American rights create an overall disappointment in the US government.
From 1798 to 1799, the Alien act and Sedition act were debated by Federalist such as Alexander Hamilton of NY and James Madison of VA. In the Wikipedia website, there is definition of these acts: “The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed by the Federalists in the United States Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams, which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War.”
Federalist Alexander Hamilton was afraid of anarchy, and he thought they needed strong public order and strong government. He thought commercial interests were very important, so they needed National Bank for control using of money for the country. On the other hand, Jefferson feared a strong central government. To him, the ‘necessary and proper’ clause seems to be a way of telling the federal government that they may make all choices pertaining to issues that they have been given without asking the States. But I think Hamilton was right at that time. I think a national bank was needed. And I think Jefferson’s ‘necessary and proper’ clause and Alexander Hamilton as a Federalist helped for Congress and The Constitution of the United States.
In the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and the National Bank, the root centers on the possible freedoms and rights of America as a newfound country. The Alien Act enforces the lack of toleration for illegal immigrants in the country. It labels males of at least 14 years of age from any foreign nation or government as alien enemies in which must immediately be removed from the country. The Sedition Act restricts a group from conforming against the government or any law of operation of the United States and from creating an additional written form of laws counteracting to those found in the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson and Hamilton argue against the Proposal of the National Bank. Jefferson shows how he doesn’t agree with the Proposal in his letter to Washington. He feels overall the idea of a National Bank is unconstitutional. While Hamilton feels the “exceptions specified in the constitution are not immoral.” Overall, the proposals are being debated over their constitutionality. In other words, Jefferson and Hamilton are deciding whether or not the proposals are constitutional. In some way all of the proposals contradict each other. For example, the National Bank Proposal states that, “Alien subscribers [are] capable of holding lands.” While the Alien Act completely denies all rights of illegal immigrants in the lands of the United States. Jefferson shows is strong anger against the National Bank Proposal; he argues the importance of providing to the general welfare of the United States through taxes whereas it isn’t relevant to create taxes for any purpose, “but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”
The debate over the rights of illegal immigrants is still in effect today. Although, the same rules are applied, sometimes the enforcement is what is questioned. Activists try to create opposition with enforcement toward the United States government. There are always groups of people with thoughts of opposition. And the National Bank has completely changed the possibilities for the United States, although Jefferson found it to be unconstitutional, it has opened up many positive advancements for the United States.
In 1798 Congress passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which were four acts that the Federalist believed would strengthen the government and protect the U.S. from foreign enemy powers. Theses acts were accepted by some and opposed by others. The oppositional debate was mostly concerned with the National Bank and the government having to much power. The Sedition Act mainly focused on punishing anyone who were to go against any government official in the form of writing. The National Bank was an idea that would allow the government to have control over banking industry which many people believed was to much. Thomas Jefferson was totally against the idea of a National Bank and against the Alien and Sedition acts. Once he came to power he pardoned the people imprisoned for crimes against the Acts. In todays society the government still has a lot of control over the people. What you say and write can still get you in trouble. When we vote on different laws there is always the question of whether or not it is constitutional.
The debate of the Alien and Sedition Act and the National Bank is whether they fit into the Constitution. The side for thge National Bank was headed by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton defended the Constitutionality of the bank by saying the US Government had "sovereign right" to make a decision like the National Bank and if the government can not make decisions then the people would be being ruled by a fake government. Jefferson said the National Bank is just trying to take money from the people of America and that it is not necessary to have one single bank. For the Alien and Sedition Acts took those the government thought were detremental to the United States and kicked them out of the country or put in jail. These people could be from another country that the government felt could not be trusted or someone who wrote something that was about the United States. Some felt that these acts were put in place to protect American citizens from those who may harm them and try to destroy the its government. However, most of Americans believed this went against many of their rights like freedom of speech. There were many who felt that the National Bank and Alien and Sedition Acts were indeed unconstitutional. In present day some of these basic debates are still around. The Patriot Act was viewed as unconstitutional by many saying the government had no right to take away citizens rights. An older example is during World War II when all Japanese Americans were put in camps to "protect" US citizens. There are many different examples of where the line of power the government has in declaring acts and whether they are unconstitutional and don't even fit into the power the government has.
The root debate about the alien and sedition acts is the constitutionality of the acts. There were two different approaches concerning the acts. Those in favor of the acts thought that they would protect the United States from illegal aliens and to stop seditious acts against the government that would dilute the power of elected officials and the president especially. The Sedition act’s penalties included being imprisoned for up to two years if convicted. Those against the act believed that constitutional rights were being taken away, the freedom of speech especially. The alien act gave the president the right to deport any resident who brought danger to the country. Those opposed to this act believed that the act gave too much power to the president; Jefferson especially was against the act. In 1802 the sedition act was put to rest after Adam’s term ended. The alien act, however, is still in effect today.
The issue at hand here is the power of government according to the constitution. Jefferson thinks that the proposed National Bank goes against the constitution. The first points that Jefferson makes dictate exactly what he thinks is unconstitutional. He says “2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain. 3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage. 4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents. 5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat. 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution. 7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.” He also says “The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.” He thinks that because the powers assumed by the bill are not delegated to the United States that it should be assumed by state government. In response, Hamilton argues that Jefferson erred in his interpretation of the word “necessary.” According to Hamilton, Jefferson’s interpretation of the constitution would make it impossible for any forward progress because of the ambiguity of it. This problem still exists today because different people interpret the same thing differently. Also, the problem exists as to whether the constitution should be adapted to current times rather than taken literally, kind of like the Bible. The Alien and Sedition acts, though dealing with different issues, were debated on the same grounds, namely state power versus national power. In my opinion, as time goes on the issues will change but the debate over who gets what power and how the constitution should be interpreted will remain the underlying issue.
There were many arguments on whether or not the Bank of the United States was a good idea. Many people thought this gave too much power to the Federal government. Thomas Jefferson agreed with this. Jefferson thought it went against the constitution. Alexander Hamilton thought that the National government should have the most power and the Bank of the United States violated this. The Alien and Sedition Acts were also too much power for the government. The Alien Act made it legal to deport aliens for any reason. The Sedition Act made it possible to punish people for speaking out against the government. These issues are still valid today. There are many debates about how much power the government should have. It is still a balancing act of sovereignty.
The root of debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts and National Bank is power within the government. Should state or the national government have more power? When it came to the debate over the National Bank, an idea formulated by Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson opposed it saying that the national government had too much power as it was. Whereas Hamilton was in favor of it.
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts was very similar, in which it was underlined by the fight for power within the government. Although the Alien Act caused problems, the Sedition Act was more controversal. The states of Kentucky and Virginia disputed the act and tried to get it over turned because they said it went against the 1st Amendment, which fought for the freedom of speech.
Both disputes were over power in the government, which is still a common topic of debate today.
During the late seventeen hundreds there was much debate over three acts. The National Bank Act intended to establish a federal banking system. It was protested by many because of the extent of its power. The bank would be able to control commerce between states. Another proposed law was the Sedation Act which gave government the power to arrest anyone who criticized it. One more controversial law was debated, it was the Alien acts which allowed the government to arrest and deport citizens of foreign enemy countries. The core of the protest against these acts was that it gave the government too much power. Thomas Jefferson agreed and thus strongly opposed them, claiming they went past the constitution. Alexander Hamilton on the other hand claimed that a lot of the power in the constitution was implied in the wording. The argument over the extent of government power exists today. One example is unwarranted wire tapping. From the seventeen hundreds till today there is still debate over the power of the government.
Many early Americans feared having a government with too much centralized power, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were their fears coming true. They felt the government was overstepping the bounds of what it should be able to do. Of course, the root of this issue still exists today: The Constitution can be interpreted many different ways. That's still one of the biggest issues today, and there's no real way to fix it. With every law that people disagree with, the question is brought up as to whether its Constitutional. The Patriot Act is a good example. Going back to the colonies disagreements, the debate was essentially over how much the central, federal government should be able to do. On the one hand, too little power meant a government that would fall apart, like the US under the Articles of Confederation. On the other hand, a government with too much power would be bad to live under. It was a matter of finding the writing balance. It's a complex, multifaceted issue, and it's very important, so it's understandable that there was, and still is, a great amount of debate on it.
The National Bank was created with the intention of creating a concrete banking system which had the ability to control trade and commerce between U.S states. The argument with the Alien and Sedition Acts was over if they were constitutional or unconstitutional. The Alien Act was extremely controversial because it gave the government the power to arrest citizens of foreign countries. Thomas Jefferson believed that this act was unconstitutional and it gave the government a significant amount of power. The Sediion Act was also controversial because again, it was a problem over power. Some believed that this act took away the people's constitutional rights. The argument of government power is an on and going issue that still exists in the United States today.
The National Bank was created with the intention of creating a concrete banking system which had the ability to control trade and commerce between U.S states. The argument with the Alien and Sedition Acts was over if they were constitutional or unconstitutional. The Alien Act was extremely controversial because it gave the government the power to arrest citizens of foreign countries. Thomas Jefferson believed that this act was unconstitutional and it gave the government a significant amount of power. The Sediion Act was also controversial because again, it was a problem over power. Some believed that this act took away the people's constitutional rights. The argument of government power is an on and going issue that still exists in the United States today.
Post a Comment
<< Home