The Articles of Confederation were created as a new central government form after the American Revolution. The Articles still consisted of problems, specifically financial ones. Hamilton proposed a plan that would put U.S. finances on a stable foundation. He planned to lower national debt and strengthen the national credit because he believed that "a national debt was a national blessing". However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties.
Essay Response “Compare and contrast the views and actions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton while they were members of the President's cabinet.” by Courtney L. Matthies APUSH Grade12 Hour 1 During their term on the President's cabinet, both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had similar points of view and yet their views were vastly differential. During their terms, the two were constantly butting heads with one another to change things they both agreed needed to be fixed, however, they wanted to approach changing these things with different strategies. For example, Alexander Hamilton wanted to create a National Bank, which is a commercial bank chartered under the federal government and belonging to the Federal Reserve System. What it did was it absorbed the debt of the several states, which would help to unify the country and solidify federal government, it controlled economic policy, and it would pay the bond debts incurred to Continental veterans. Jefferson, however, argued that since the Constitution didn't state that it would allow a National Bank, it shouldn't be created.
Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor. When he became president, his view changed. He supported a more loose view of the document in accordance with his policies. In order for the Constitution to be understood, the chaos around the time it was written must be first understood. Yet that chaos in not the same as now, therefore the constitution must be interpreted loosely in a way that it fits society nowadays.
Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not these documents should or should not be passed and what power is justified. It is these different ideas which helped shape the future of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists, such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, were against ratification of the Constitution. They believed that the closer the government was to the people, the easier it was for the people to keep it in check and making it harder for the government to become tyrannical. Anti-Federalist tried to appeal to western settlers with ideas of voting right to everyone and not just rich land holders.
On the other hand, the liberals, or Judicial Activists, believe that the founding fathers recognized that standards of their time wouldn’t apply to the future, so therefore left the constitution broadly based and available for contemporary interpretation. In my opinion, as in many others, Judicial Activism is just an excuse for justices to rule based on personal opinion. The judicial branch of the government needs to show judicial restraint because of the variety of the cases they receive. They need to make sure that the rulings they enact are rulings that follow the constitution and not their own personal beliefs as they have been doing for some time now. In my opinion, the most important example of judicial restraint being in need in American history occurred on May 20, 1940.
Gena Cooke CHA3UI-01 Mr. Pellerin Sept. 14th, 2012 Isolationism vs. Interventionism: An Ongoing Debate The debate between isolationism vs. interventionism is an ongoing and current debate in the United States. Isolationism is a policy of remaining separate from the affairs or interests of other nations, especially the political affairs of other countries. Interventionism on the other hand, is a policy of intervening in the affairs or interests of other nations using government and military power. The debate between these two policies is a difficult topic to side with and it has been a policy that many presidents have had different views on. Isolationism sounds like the right choice, staying out of other countries business’ and protecting its own country but on the other hand, seeing as America is superpower and has a powerful military, why should it not help out other countries in need of political reinforcement and aid?
The war was between the Parliament and the Stuart Kings. The Kings tried to use the concept of religious freedom to gain the support of the people. The parliament, on the other hand, was against religious dissent by the people. In Hobbes’s view, monarch could never be for the people since the authority of the monarch came from the God and not from the people. It was in trying to think about how to resolve this conflict that Hobbes came up with his new concepts in political theory.
However, the citizens wanted to make their own rules to follow, sensible and understandable rules. Further on Paine explains “the sun will never shine on a cause of greater worth?” I think that Paine is saying that it is such an issue that we should look to reform it in any way so that it is more fair to all citizens. The struggle of having a King or a Monarchy for the people at that time was difficult. The community wanted a more fair and equal government, while the king was not giving that to them. Let’s take for instance when Paine refers to the past writings of another author, Mr. Pelham “they will last my time.” The name of ancestors will be remembered for their great deeds by future generations with destinies of their own.
Democracy means ‘power voted by the people for the people’ and see’s society as a whole, more important than the individual. In contrast, liberalism core principle lies with the individual. So for liberals to adopt democracy it is also adopting collectivist views of the majority, which is a fear towards liberalism and their beliefs of the single entity of the individual. A minority of liberals - none in the modern period- reject democracy, however, no liberals accept democracy uncritically. Plato and Aristotle believed that a fear did, run though liberals as they viewed democracy as a system of rule by the masses, thus an implication of individualism; seeing society as not as single individual entities but rather a collection of individual groups, possessing opposing interest.
John Locke was one of the influential political philosophers of modern period (1632-1704). At his works he supported the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the claim that God had create all people naturally as a subject to monarch. Moreover, in his work Two Treaties of Government he argued that people have rights such as the right to life, liberty, and property that have a foundation independent of the laws of any particular society. Locke supports the right of the people to overthrow rulers who betray them; he asserts that if a leader violates the community’s trust, the people can and should replace him immediately. Similarly, if the government does not fulfill the needs of the people, it should be dissolved and replaced with other form of government which people think is the best.