The Federalists And The Constructionist Views During The Years Of Thomas Jefferson And James Madison

The Constitution’s principle of strict construction versus liberal constructionism was prominent in its design. This would eventually lead to two different political entities. The Federalists advocated a strong nation with a loose interpretation, while Republicans advocated for state and local governments with strict interpretations. James Madison’s and Thomas Jefferson’s terms in office were often marked by strong democratic views which opposed the Federalists. But, Madison and Jefferson’s presidencies are not fully definite. Madison and Jefferson would each exercise power that was beyond what is known about Jeffersonian Republicans. This deviation from core ideals did not exclude Federalists. It is not possible to accurately describe the two political parties in the period between Madison and Jefferson. This can be seen by Jefferson’s actions during his presidency, Madison’s administration exercising more powers than the Constitution, and the deviation of character that Jefferson displayed.

Jefferson, despite being known for his strict constructionist policies would sometimes deviate from these policies in certain areas. During Jefferson’s final years as president, tensions began between the British & French in the Napoleonic Wars. The Chesapeake Leopold Affair (Document C), which involved the capture of American citizens aboard a British naval vessel, would see Jefferson adopt the Embargo Act of 1807. The Embargo Act would be imposed by Jefferson. He also would soon impose a Non-Intercourse Act in order to punish British and French behavior. Jefferson’s response was uncharacteristic and showed his follow of loose constructionism. The Constitution does not allow Congress to regulate commerce. Jefferson further stated “…laws should be accompanied by institutions to promote the development of the human brain. Institutions should keep up with changing times as well as evolve and become more educated. Jefferson is aware that times change and this can lead to changes in laws or Constitutions. Therefore, because the Constitution cannot always be accurate with the times, it must change accordingly-demonstrating the premise of loose constructionism. Jefferson was able to show both strict and loose constructionist views of Constitution during his presidency. Jefferson’s view of strict constructionism can be seen in his letter from Gideon Granger. Here he writes, “Our country cannot ever be harmonious and strong while so respectable that a portion its citizens support principle which goes directly to changing the federal Constitution” (Document 1). Jefferson asserts that the Federalists will be able to interpret the Constitution in a loose manner, which is contrary to his rigid view. He also refused to pray like his predecessors because of his strong convictions. He stated that he was aware of the practice of his predecessors. However, he said that only the President of the United States has civil powers and that he does not have the authority to control the religious activities of his constituents. Document B. Jefferson believes in strict constructionism and would never follow the practice of past presidents due to the separation of church & state. These documents demonstrated Jefferson’s commitment to strict constructionism. However, Jefferson wasn’t perfect at following through on his Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson realized that the Constitution did not allow the federal government to buy land. He nevertheless continued to follow through and applied loose constructionism, purchasing land from France. Jefferson’s willingness was driven by economic and geographical benefits. It also shows that Jefferson wasn’t restricted to Jeffersonian Republicans’ strict constructionism view.

Madison was a strong advocate Jeffersonian Republican ideals and would not hesitate to abandon a strict constructionist approach when necessary. Daniel Webster addresses Madison’s presidency by saying that Madison’s administration claims the right to compel regular army members…Who will tell me any constitution injunction making it the duty of Americans to give up anything valuable, including life itself? Document D. Webster complains that Madison’s administration is doing something completely contrary to that policy. The Constitution does not allow for conscription of soldiers for the army. This policy is only allowed if it is in contradiction to the Jeffersonian Republican’s views. Madison is not in favor of party views and this is another instance. John Randolph attacks Madison on Madison’s proposed tariff. Randolph states that he is convinced that it would unfairly increase the burdens of the population to favor the manufacturer. The government created and gave authority to Congress to regulate commerce …”. (Document). Randolph is a Democratic Republican and criticizes Madison’s failure to commit to the party, its core values of strict constructionism. “Their principle right now is old Federalism, made into something that looks like republicanism …”,” he said (DocumentF). Madison’s tariff proposal being referred to as a principle old Federalism is a sign that Madison didn’t fully enforce this idea during his presidency.

Federalists weren’t limited to expressing a loosely constructedist view. Federalists met to form Hartford Convention. This convention would discuss and propose policies and amendments that would defeat the War of 1812. The Federalists resolved that no new state could be admitted to the Union without consenting to two-thirds of both houses. This application, which is Constitutional, is valid because Congress is capable of admitting statehood. This is contrary to the assertion that Federalists believed only in strict constructionism. Ironically, these documents were created to protect Federalists from Republicans who would abuse their power by using loose constructionism aspects. The Federalists were just as adept at using both elements and views during their presence as the Republicans.

It is not correct to claim that Federalists are broad constructionists, while Jeffersonian Republicans consider themselves strict constructionists. Both parties used both views to address the specific issues they were faced with. These parties cannot be consolidated on their individual ideals. Both parties had to depart from their core beliefs to be able to adapt to the times. This is similar to how modern Democrats supported the Middle East going after 9/11. Different actions are required depending on the situation.