Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had visions for a young America that can be seen today, but these two brilliant minds were often on competing sides of the same issues. Hamilton wanted to see America be a better version of great Britain. He wanted a strong central government and thought the few elite should be in charge, while the common people voted and followed the lead of the superior members of society. Jefferson wanted the exact opposite, preferring a smaller government with less influence on state matters. He thought the common man should not only vote for the leaders, he should be the leader himself. Unlike Hamilton, he drew inspiration from the French revolution and was against the traditional hierarchy determined by class and wealth. The two men were also divided on how society and economics would best thrive. Hamilton believed in capitalism and big urban areas, while Jefferson envisioned a society based on agriculture. Jefferson believed that in this way there would be more equality of wealth. Jefferson did not trust bankers, as he thought they had too much control over the economy and were a small elite group. Hamilton believed in industry and infrastructure and a society that might benefit the upper classes. Hamilton also supported the idea of a national bank and he created the debt assumption plan that helped relieve America of the debt that came after the revolution. Jefferson did not want the national bank and he believed that the federal government should stick to the constitutional rights given to them and not impose a national bank that he considered unconstitutional (strict construction). Hamilton was arguing the opposite in favor of the national bank because he believed the constitution granted the government powers to do what it wanted to do in order to fulfill the constitutional rights it was granted. What examples of this interpretation do we see today?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that one way that we can see Hamilton's loose interpretation of the Constitution being put to use today is through the changed meanings of the Second Amendment (even though in this case, the interpretation of the Constitution doesn't necessarily directly benefit the government). Originally, in this amendment it was clearly stated that although people do have the right to "keep and bear Arms," the way it should be done so is through a "regulated Militia." This essentially means that according to the Constitution, people were allowed to own their own guns and other weapons in order to protect the general public, through the means of some sort of army. However, in the Supreme Court case "District of Colombia v. Heller," this meaning was completely twisted, due to the judicial branch's ability to interpret the Constitution in any way they wanted. In 2008, police officer Dick Heller applied for a handgun that he could keep at his home in order to protect himself, however the local government in Washington DC denied him the right to do so. Because of this, he tried to escalate the case, and succeeded in doing so, as he was able to take it up to the Supreme Court, where it was decided that the Second Amendment also "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." So clearly, even though this amendment to the Constitution had originally meant that people could own weapons to use in a regulated militia, the judicial system was able to interpret this meaning to expand this right as far as to being able to have weapons for self-defense means. As a result, millions of Americans were given rights that weren't directly outlined in our national constitution hundreds of years after it was written, which I think makes it a modern example of loose constitutional interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jefferson's view is not nearly as relevant to today's society as Hamilton's view. Our country is based on capitalism, which creates socioeconomic divides of wealth and often does favor the elite classes. While there is no "traditional hierarchy," our country is far from everyone having the same amount of wealth. In terms of national vs. state governments, the national government is strong, but not too strong to inflict on state rights.
ReplyDelete