Thomas JeffersonDuring the time period of 1801 to 1817, the United States contained two parties: the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans, who commonly favored a strict, unwavering interpretation of the Constitution and it’s values, and the Federalists, who viewed the Constitution on a broad, more flexible spectrum. Democratic Republican presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were passionate people, but at times their passions got the better of them, and their choices contradicted the views of the Democratic Republican party. Though at times they showed infidelity to strict constructionist views for the betterment of the country, these two men mirrored their Republican values for majority of their presidencies.
When Thomas Jefferson was elected as president in the year 1800, his initial intentions were to instill strict constructionist values into the country through his policies and presidential actions. Jefferson wrote to a future member of his cabinet (Doc A) in August of 1800 and explained that as a Democratic Republican he believed that “it [our country] can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution…”.
I dont know what else to write about the Embargo Act, was it strict or loose? I dont know During the time period of 1801 to 1817, the United States contained two parties: the Jeffersonian/Democratic Republicans, who commonly favored a strict, unwavering interpretation of the Constitution and it’s values, and the Federalists, who viewed the Constitution on a broad, more flexible spectrum. Democratic Republican presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were passionate people, but at times their passions got the better of them, and their choices contradicted the views of the Democratic Republican party. Though at times they showed infidelity to strict constructionist views for the betterment of the country, these two men mirrored their
I agree. The Embargo Act was designed to make the power to carry out a military attack and therefore the President’s authority vested in the Chief Justice to declare the constitution a “dictator’s document”—which, if followed, would inevitably lead to the loss of the most fundamental of constitutional rights. If this is true, then there is no way that the Constitution would not have been changed without the Embargo Act having actually been in place.
The Embargo Act was not just a legislative instrument, a political instrument and a judicial processbut was also one of the first major checks upon U.S. law enforcement when the Constitution was first written. The Embargo Act has been a tool that has, under the pressure of time and space, given rise to many other rights it has not held up to or taken up. To suggest that we should change the Constitution is not to use the Embargo Act to undermine the existing power of the government. But in some ways, the Embargo Act was a powerful model for other, similar measures, such as the Civil War.
On April 22, 1775, the United States government opened the American War in West Virginia and executed 17,000 men and women.U.S. Military Service Act (1775: 1775), was enacted to allow law enforcement agencies to seize, detain and prosecute U.S. citizens as agents of foreign governments and foreign governments’ nationals. U.S. Military Service Act provided authorities and procedures for law enforcement agencies to seize U.S. citizens as agents of foreign parties, subject to the availability of military or civil service authority, and to detain and prosecute U.S. citizens without charge or trial unless the authorities and procedures are met. In many respects, the United States government did use the Embargo Act and the Civil War as two of the first major checks upon police-power. The Civil War was an important step toward a constitutional interpretation of the Constitution in both its political and legal ramifications. Because many of the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and free assembly are considered important in the Constitution, it is also clear that a strong state interest and a strong law enforcement system would constitute the same in protecting the law, and the Embargo Act was part of an effort to increase accountability for state and local law enforcement to prevent abuses and to give law enforcement agencies greater powers to carry out law enforcement work. By contrast, the Civil War did not make it impossible for an independent political or judicial judiciary to determine the constitutionality and constitutionality of the law, and it did not make it impossible that laws by the President and the Chief Justice regarding any questions of personal or government affairs are allowed to be made by the Executive to be debated for adoption without a national debate held at the State and Local level, either directly or by the legislature in a democratic and independent way.
The Civil War provided a political and judicial framework on