Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Constitution
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 11. 2013
- www.tomrichey.net
Was the Louisiana Purchase Constitutional? Did Jefferson violate his strict constructionist principles when he purchased Louisiana? Historians often claim that he did, but I don't think that's the case. Jefferson was a champion of the Constitution and the Louisiana Purchase was no exception. Part of a series of lectures on Jefferson and the Constitution.
Good message and lesson. You're right. This country was built upon the Constitution, and yet some wonder why it's falling apart some these days. Leaders, not politicians needed.
I believe Thomas Jefferson remained true to his strict constructionist belief because he wanted to make sure the power of adding land was within the delegated powers. The constitution clearly states the federal government has the power to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Jefferson fretted over an action that was utilized many times before, the only reason this was different was the lack of a war that preceded these negotiations. Due to this assessment I concur with you thesis that Jefferson remained true to his strict constructionist beliefs by keeping his actions for America within the powers delegated to the federal government.
Didn't Jefferson send his representatives to France with an offer of $10 Million for (at the time) a piece of foreign land known as the port city of New Orleans? Where was Jefferson's Constitutional crisis then?
Great radio voice Timber Tom
I agree with your argument, Mr. Richey! I respect Jefferson's loyalty to this idea of strict construction. It's cool to see that he wrestled with this decision & thought of the constitutionality of it instead of trying to find a loophole right off the bat just so he could get his way (like a Federalist or, as you said, certain presidents nowadays). His virtue & ability to maintain his values proves that he is the epitome of republicanism-- I guess that's why they named it after him!
Before the concept of judicial review the concept of legislation being unconstitutional was left up to the states for the most part. Jefferson was not the only one who thought about this issue and it was debated until the civil war when it seems the Constitution was circumvented often. Even and annexation and statehood of Texas was debated on whether it was constitutional or not. Today we often hear that the Constitution does not apply to today's issues and should be a "living document" that changes over time. Well it really does change but through the proper process of amendment. If we could amend the Constitution with the 18th and 21st amendments (crazy as that entire thing was) then why not use this process instead of twisting and re-inventing the English language to make it say what 5 justices can agree on. For those that oppose the 2nd amendment why not put forth an amendment that changes it and let the people (states) decide? (No answer needed as it is self evident).
I agree with your thesis that Jefferson did not compromise his strict constructionist beliefs by adding land to the US. Jefferson agonized over the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, therefore not compromising his beliefs. Your argument is valid and has no fallacies and I agree with it.
I definitely agree with you, Mr. Richey! I think that it says a lot about what kind of guy Jefferson was knowing that he followed his own rules, and didn't just make them an order to those around him. Jefferson truly cared about the matter of what he was signing, and not just the fact that he had the power to sign it. I think that is a significant act for a man in Jefferson's position of capability to just do as he pleased. Additionally, I absolutely do not think that Jefferson violated his principles of a strict Constitutional construction because it can obviously be seen that the section of the Constitution regarding treaties/ land transactions was written with situations like the Louisiana Purchase in foresight.
"Put my name on there." - Jared Scheiper
I agree that Jefferson was constitutional in making the Louisiana Purchase. Considering that treaties had been made throughout the 1800s to transfer land I don't think that Jefferson compromised on his belief of strict construction. This was obviously a practice well before Jefferson's presidency, and if Jefferson hadn't made such a big deal and "agonized" over the constitutionality of it - then it would not have been such a problem. Also, the constitution could not address each and every issue that America would face for the indefinite future. Using the fact that treaties can be used to transfer land, and treaties are power given to the federal government, it should be known that the government can transfer land.
I agree with you fellow lover of liberty. Excellent Video!
***** Always glad to have your support, my friend!
I wonder how America would be today if Jefferson decided against the Louisiana purchase
Could you not argue that the ACA is constructional by way of the government helping to protect its citizens? If Jefferson can by land by using treaties then could you not argue medicine protects as much a military arms? I’m an idiot so please judge my question kindly :)
I think it's a little idealistic to think that Jefferson really AGONIZED over the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase. He probably was just thinking about what this "agony" would do for his reputation among his fellow republicans. Whether it was truly sincere or not is irrelevant, though, because I appreciate the gesture either way. I agree that leaders today need to follow his example. Perhaps there would be fewer bipartisan disputes.
"Pessimist's Mug" great stuff Tom
I've always admired Thomas Jefferson's strict constructionist values and his dedication to the constitution. From his stand on the National Bank(and agraianism), to agonizing over the Louisiana Purchase, my opinion hasn't wavered one bit. I back your side of the argument 110%. Even though Jefferson's cabinet said the constitution implied the power of the federal government to transact land, because the constitution does not explicitly say that, Jefferson agonized over the decision. Because he was so distraught over a decision that would benefit the U.S. because it wasn't directly in the constitution, my opinion of Jefferson has only increased. Like you mentioned, the politicians of today would benefit greatly from learning a lesson from the people that founded the country they now run and glance at the constitution every now and then.
+Trey Scheiper I don't think Jefferson is necessarily a hypocrite in this case, but I do think this event and many others prove how wrong Jefferson usually was as a practical political thinker. Sure, we look at whether Jefferson betrayed his principles by making the purchase, but what about the means in which he makes the purchase? Jefferson and Madison fought tooth and nail to kill the Assumption and the National Bank, but had they won the purchase of the Louisiana Territory would not have been possible. My own readings of Jefferson have me believe he was a dreamer, and lived in a world that would never and could never exist.
Timeless American message!
Ignore the previous comment, I've got my autocorrect on... It should not be a controversial issue whether or not Jefferson sold out on his constructionist principles. The Purchase was completely Constitutional because it was in a Treaty, so why is it an issue? And though it would be positive for modern politicians to become strict constructionists, this would be too much to ask for. The popular political demographic has changed so much that the general public is apathetic to judicial matters and
you look like matt damon
That last point: TRUTH!
So, currently if something isn't unconstitutional, it's constitutional. Is that the arguement?
Point taken as to this being Constitutional. However another question, not so much as to the legality as to the morality of the purchase, is that this treaty did not provide for a land transfer from France to the United States, rather Jefferson acquired "imperial rights" from France to land that was populated and settled by natives.
I would say that morally the United States was wrong to embark on a great imperialist bacchanalia.
Great Success. (HIGH FIVE)
You make some good points Tom. However, I think our country would be much better off also if "the people" were more informed when they voted regardless of what party they voted for. Then we would not get some of this extremist garbage that is circulated through the political system and for that matter the news cycle.
we know he was a man able to compromise his principles for practical purposes.
also i love ur mug anyway
ayo im watching this in online schoo
Who els is waching this because of a test u for got about until now
same but for online hw :/ btw lol this is a year later hi
... most people believe the Constitution to be a breathing document that can be changed on an as-needed basis. (see bellow for rest of comment)
The constitution is not a breathing document but the nations contract and the highest law of the land, besides natural law. The constitution is written in plain English and for the most part is pretty easy to read. It is politicians and judges trying to distort it's meaning thats the problem. If someone wants to amend the constitution then follow the law, end of story.
I think that corrected he didn't have a degree in constitutional law talk constitutional law
WOOT NEW VID
It should not BSA
did trump think about whether a n y t h i n g he did was constitutional? n o .
Jefferson was also principled enough to know that one generation's laws should not bind another in perpetuity, and that the constitution should probably be revisited for debate and alteration to contend with present-day challenges well beyond the conceptions of Enlightenment contemporaries. Because sometimes an 18th century document denoting jurisprudence and procedure just isn't elastic enough for 20th-21st century governance and the society the former is a steward thereof. After all, it's a work of man...flawed, fallible, and limited...made precisely in our image. You got on your soapbox towards the end with rhetoric...so too shall I in offering another viewpoint on Jefferson, especially since both major American political traditions revere him. Additionally, it is wrong to suggest that a man as erudite as Jefferson, contextually a man of his time, can or should be inferred to aptly apply his reasoning in that of our own time. To do so is simplified, unnuanced conjecture with a dash of myopia.
On a separate note, I've always admired the brief amount of social commentary he had regarding Jacksonian populism prior to his death. Would've loved to have read his perspective further.
great video! i will say though that Barrack Obama taught constitutional law and the idea that he didn't think about the constitutionallity of the affordable care act is bogus, IMO of course. and in my opinion the supreme courts decision to say no to the medicaid mandate for states will hurt alot of americans in poor states that republicans have control of. i know in my state the decision to not expand the medicaid program will at the end of the day hurt alot of poor people because they wont be able to afford insurance on the exchanges.
Rand Paul 2020
I think you should consider becoming an old man
+Trevor White It will happen eventually whether I consider it or not...
+Tom Richey I think your a very educated man, and I would be honored if you were to be my grandfather.
Wrong. I thought you were a history teacher. You're being lenient with the interpretation of what a treaty is. A purchase of land is not a treaty. You also don't know that he didn't get the approval from congress until after the agreement for the purchase was made. You should really take some time and study history.
First of all Jefferson own many slaves more than any other president ignored to slaves right to the Constitution and where in the constitution does it say Obama's health care is unconstitutional since he did have a master's degree in that very area
Washington owned more slaves than Jefferson, but that doesn’t mean anything when it comes to their contributions to governmental administration.
One very obvious example of the unconstitutionality of the ACA is that the Supreme Court considers it a tax. The legislation originated in the senate, and per the constitution, the senate is not allowed to originate tax bills. Tax bills must originate in the house and the senate can only make amendments or pass them as is.