72 Comments
Ethan Raybon
8/31/2018 05:04:03 am
By what I read in the article, "Strict Constructionism vs. Broad Constructionism" I believe that strtict constructionism is the best way to go. With strict constructionism the federal government would only be able to exercise the expressed powers in the constitution. With broad constructionism however the state government would have little to no power and the federal government would have all the power. This is why I believe that strict constructionism is the better way to go.
Reply
Braden Vaughn
8/31/2018 05:17:56 am
I disagree because a strict view would limit growth of infrastructure and lead to the nation not becoming industrialized fast enough to compete with the other nations of the world. But with a broad view the government could stretch its powers some to build faster and spend more money to compete with the rest of the world.
Reply
Chelsea Knight
8/31/2018 05:29:58 am
Hamilton's structure is the best way to go, in my opinion. It allows few limitations except for strict laws, which in some cases you can also bend those. Unlike Cuba and other countries with strict constructionism America has not been stuck in the "same" generation for decades and has been allowed to contain growth.
Reply
Trey Vaughn
9/6/2018 05:43:02 am
Though what you say is true, your answer dose not have the information to persuade me to your side.
Matthew Ctibor
8/31/2018 05:31:21 am
I disagree with the statement. Is there really anything wrong with a more powerful central government? The states would still have power just not as much so that there is more control.
Reply
Andrew Ingram
8/31/2018 05:32:20 am
I agree with this statement because you described the reasons you believed in a Strict Constructionism instead of just saying i agree with Strict Constructionism
Reply
Autumn Vaughan
8/31/2018 05:35:31 am
I disagree. Even though there is a strong or weak government, we will still be able to build the roads and buildings we need to get on with life.
Reply
Sevin Cash
8/31/2018 05:39:02 am
I agree, the people should still be able to have power in our government, but if the federal government are finding loopholes and doing their best to find ways to bend the law, then the people's power within our government will slowly be decreased and taken away.
Reply
William Underwood
9/6/2018 05:41:21 am
After reading the article, "Strict Constructionism vs. Broad Constructionism" I agree with you on the matter of Strict Constructionism. Yes, you do need federal control. But, not total control. So Strict Constructionism is the way to go, because it gives more power to the people. Which the government was made by in the first place.
Reply
I agree with Alexander Hamilton over having a broad constructionism of the constitution because the larger government would be able to build roads, invest into trade, organize banks, keep the economy flowing, and other things that could and did help America grow into a world superpower. The powerful federal government could help the farmers of America invest into newer agricultural equipment that could help their farms and America's trade as well. Another useful thing would be the ability to have a larger military so if England did decide to try and retake America or if there were more rebellions like Shay's they could be stopped much easier and more efficiently.
Reply
Tobias Raynie
8/31/2018 05:16:54 am
Way better than I did, good job.
Reply
Garrett Halstead
8/31/2018 05:18:11 am
i agree and understand
Reply
Matthew Ctibor
8/31/2018 05:22:15 am
I agree with your views on broad constructionist view points, and especially on the sentence on military.
Reply
Chelsea Knight
8/31/2018 05:23:03 am
I agree with your statement. The economy would be very diverse with Hamilton's stand point. This would allow the United states to be very prosperous, continuously.
Reply
Colby Hocking
8/31/2018 05:23:20 am
In some cases, a broad system is best. However, I also feel some things should be treated with a strict system (for example, something that the people are meant to decide)
Reply
Andrew Ingram
8/31/2018 05:26:27 am
Maggie I personally do not agree with this argument because in an article i was reading it stated "Under strict constructionism, a judge can interpret a text as it is written, considering only what is presented within the four corners of the legal document. While strict constructionism is often thought of as a way of interpreting the Constitution, it may also be used to interpret laws and other legal texts." After the reading of that part of the article i believe that the judges already have so much on their hands why make it more difficult.
Reply
Autumn Vaughan
8/31/2018 05:39:42 am
I completely agree with you. Having a Federal Government that knows what they're doing will help us in the future. Especially in the farming aspect of things because there will be more food if the farmers have better equipment to use.
Reply
Sydney Knight
8/31/2018 05:43:34 am
I agree because the people may not be able to handle a rebellion or war on their own. The government needs to help out with these things.
Reply
Nijah Fambro
8/31/2018 05:50:58 am
I also agree that the government would need to help if there ever was another rebellion and that it would be stopped quickly
Reply
Tobias Raynie
8/31/2018 05:08:41 am
I believe a broad interpretation of the constitution is better than a strict one.This is because with a broad interpretation the national government has more power making it easier for the country to act as a hole. I the states have more power then going from state to state would be a lot harder because of how different the laws would be. If someone was 16 and the drinking age in their state was 18 but the state half an hour away had a drinking age of 16 many loopholes could be made in order to avoid the law. This could happen with all sorts of laws, and when no states can properly prosecute law breakers then criminals can run free.
Reply
Ethan Raybon
8/31/2018 05:17:51 am
I disagree because with broad constuctionism the state would have little to no powers.
Reply
Gabe Blount
8/31/2018 05:19:34 am
Alright so 1. whole* 2.Your argument is only talking about laws and nothing more. With a broader reading there is little to no power/freedom for a citizen. 3. With the drinking age, if their is that kind of law and it is addressed to congress then it could be fixed.
Reply
Maggie
8/31/2018 05:22:48 am
I agree with the laws thing, it makes sense when you think about it
Reply
Katelyn McCook
8/31/2018 05:35:23 am
The drinking age is a really good example. I didn't think about it that way.
Reply
Vincent Phadongsy
8/31/2018 05:38:45 am
First of all Toby, you misspelled hole in the line, "Making it easier for the country to act as a hole." It should be whole Toby c'mon man. Secondly, there is no need for you to put that I before "the states" in your third sentence. Another grammatical error in sentence four. That's just the grammatical errors.
Reply
Braden Vaughn
8/31/2018 05:13:08 am
I believe that a broad view of the constitution in best because it allows more economic growth. This is because it allows the government to bend the rules of the constitution and stretch the limit of power thus allowing them to build the economy much faster than a government that has a strict view on the constitution. A government that has a strict view on the constitution would takes decades to build the infrastructure and the economy as a whole but a government with a strict view could do the same in just a few years. While a broad view is the best it does have some drawbacks such as more laws could be deemed unconstitutional more than if it was a strict view because a broad viewed government would try to bend the rules more because of the way the view the rules.
Reply
Garrett Halstead
8/31/2018 05:14:09 am
In my opinion broad constructionism is better due to decision making is easier and is more fair tot the people than having the gov decide everything for them. It implies that the states can govern themselves but still have limits to help guide them if needed. A example is the states can regulate standards on learning but has to be approved by the national gov and can decide what city work will be done like road work state parks etc. This allows the state to have power that cant be taken away.
Reply
Braden Vaughn
8/31/2018 05:21:47 am
I agree because the states will still have power but the federal government can still exercise more power to build the economy.
Reply
Garrett Halstead
8/31/2018 05:38:19 am
exactly my point
Gabe Blount
8/31/2018 05:24:35 am
Wasn't the point of America to give more rights to the people instead of letting the King and Parliament decide everything for them..? *thinking Emoji*
Reply
Gabe Blount
8/31/2018 05:14:31 am
Overall I think the more strict constructionism over the broad constructionism is the better decision. It gives Congress very few implied power, this letting the people have more control over people's’ lives than if it were in a broad constructionism. The only good thing coming out of Hamilton’s reading of the government is the more thriving economic powerhouse idea, instead of a freer more controlled country. Another benefit to the strict reading is that their would be little to no taxes, but with the “economic powerhouse” you would have to pay more taxes so that the job could be done. Jefferson’s reading of the constitution is a clearly superior idea.
Reply
Colby Hocking
8/31/2018 05:20:28 am
While a strict system can be useful for many things, I also feel some things should be treated with a broad system (for example, a complex issue general people may not fully understand).
Reply
Maggie
8/31/2018 05:20:42 am
Yes, the people would have more freedom, but that would not help the country as a whole. If multiple people disagreed, a war could break out like the Civil War over how the country should be run. If the government was larger, it could help keep the peace between the people.
Reply
Garrett Halstead
8/31/2018 05:22:04 am
I see your point in the argument tho i dont agree the strict gov is the way to go due to it gives the central gov a little to much power
Reply
Sevin Cash
8/31/2018 05:24:54 am
I agree with Gabe, with a broad constructionist point of view the federal government can pretty much do what ever they want as long as the constitution didn't directly say that it couldn't. Another thing is the taxation and the "economic powerhouse" idea, the Federal government would have to increase the taxes exponentially to make this happen.
Reply
Syble Nicholas
8/31/2018 05:36:38 am
I disagree little taxes may seem good now but when the government is shutting down due to no money you'll regret your decision
Reply
Vincent Phadongsy
8/31/2018 05:41:06 am
Yeah, I agree with you Gabe.
Reply
Zeke Smith
8/31/2018 05:41:41 am
Alexander Hamilton's idea didn't only support a powerful economic powerhouse, but also allows the government to protect its citizens in times of crisis, like the national guard when a hurricane hits, provide labor regulations, so people aren't working till they drop dead, and much more than just economic beliefs. I also believe that Jefferson was shooting himself in the foot with his strict ideas, because the government needs to charge taxes in order for there to actually be a government.
Reply
Ethan Raybon
9/5/2018 04:53:49 am
I completely agree with what you are saying Gabe
Reply
Zeke Smith
9/5/2018 05:06:24 am
I disagree with you, because it is no benefit when there are no taxes. If a country is ran like that then there will be no more country. And who then will protect the people and their freedom?
Reply
William Underwood
9/6/2018 05:44:08 am
I agree with you Gabe.
Reply
Matthew Ctibor
8/31/2018 05:15:43 am
I support the broad constructionists stand point. Hamilton makes a good point about having a more aggressive economic development and industrialization. In a large federal government, there will be more control over the people which means less chaos and more organization. This is mainly what the United States needs right now, especially because we are in tens of trillions of dollars in debt. This view is much more beneficial in times of war where economic upheaval has been established to provide aid to ourselves and other countries, and also in times of war, this grants the government wide powers of action. Like it said in the passage on paragraph five, "It all depends on what your definition on 'necessary and proper' is." Mine is what needs to be done at a specific time and place, which is what supports the more broad constructionists view of government.
Reply
Garrett Halstead
8/31/2018 05:19:47 am
I agree due to your standpoint of both views and points
Reply
Maggie
8/31/2018 05:31:30 am
I agree with what you're saying, but I think that the country should address a more long term answer, not a short term one.
Reply
Colby Hocking
8/31/2018 05:16:18 am
I feel that there should be some kind of middle ground between a strict reading where the government has few abilities and a broad reading with lots of abilities. I feel this because in quite a lot of cases, the people should decide for themselves. For example, lets have a hypothetical election. In a scenario like that, the government should have barely any influence because that would be kind of weird to have in a people election. However, in a more complicated scenario that the general public may not understand, the government could have influence just in case. Making up hypothetical scenarios again, lets say that the government need to decide where to have a new road built. However, one place this road could be has unstable ground, a fact that many people there might not know. In a case like that, where the people voting may not fully understand everything, the government should probably handle it.
Reply
Chelsea Knight
8/31/2018 05:18:35 am
I support Hamilton's broad constructionism over Thomas Jefferson's strict constructionism. This is because Hamilton wanted growth in The United States but not just agricultural growth like Jefferson wanted. Alexander Hamilton desired to pursue industrialization and economic development. America would have began organizing banks, building roads, and investing in diverse arenas sooner with the interests of Hamilton.
Reply
Sevin Cash
8/31/2018 05:18:46 am
I would be a strict constructionist because I think that the people should have full liberty to do what they please as long as their actions are within the law. People should be able to govern themselves and should only have little interference from the federal government. The government should not be able to give itself more and more unnecessary powers so that they can have better control over the people even though these powers are what are angering the people and making them stand up for what they believe in. The federal government shouldn't be able to tax large amounts of money and should only have to tax what is needed for the state or government. Only specific powers that have been listed in the constitution and given to the federal government should be used. The state government should have most of the power because the states are representing the people.
Reply
Andrew Ingram
8/31/2018 05:19:04 am
I personally like a strict constructionism better than a broad constructionism because legal philosophy that applies a strict interpretation to a legal text. It makes the jobs of the judges a lot easier by them only having to read whats on the paper and not having to dig a little deeper. The judges who adhere to the legal philosophy are known as Strict Constructionist. The judges that are Strict Constructionist are not driven to hand down a particular ruling or judgment for the sake of obtaining a specific result. That approach is widely known as judicial activism. I really do not like the idea of the Broad Constuctionism due to the fact that is forces the judges who already have a lot on their hands to dig deeper into the text.
Reply
Sydney Knight
8/31/2018 05:21:09 am
In my opinion, the U.S Constitution should be interpreted with Broad Constructionism. Giving the government a wide variety of powers allows the government to get involved in important events and problems. The government should be able to take control of what the people do not want to handle themselves, such as war. In addition, the people of our country may not always be able to handle things on their own if everyone were to disagree with each other; the government stepping in to help with these problems would really benefit decision making.
Reply
Nijah Fambro
8/31/2018 05:45:50 am
I agree that the government should be allow to intervene with important events and problems
Reply
Zeke Smith
8/31/2018 05:24:26 am
I believe in a government with a broad constructionism, which was led by Alexander Hamilton. The reasons for me believing in broad constructionism over strict is that with a broad idea the government can grow to be powerful and strong. The problem with the strict is that is limits the power of the government tremendously to the point where there is basically no government left. With a broad look on the Necessary and Proper Clause the government can build roads, banks, and invest in useful infrastructure which is vital for the growth of any nation. This broad look is meant to create economic powerhouses like the US is today. Not only does this view help economically but also in times of crisis where the government can step in and help. I would much rather live in a broad constructionism government that creates power, economic stability, protection, labor regulation, education policies, and environmental regulations than a weak, poor, and powerless nation that is formed by the strict constructionist.
Reply
Vincent Phadongsy
8/31/2018 05:25:35 am
I believe in a strict constructionism system because it prevents the government from holding too much power over the people. A strict constructionism also allows for more freedom of the people and often requires less taxes to be payed. Also in the past a strict constructionism government has proven to be plenty successful. In the past the Supreme Court has enforced strict constructionism in order to restrict the govenment's ability to regulate our economy.
Reply
Syble Nicholas
8/31/2018 05:25:46 am
I agree with the liberal interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause because the government should help its people. The government should protect those who were not as lucky as others. The safety of the citizens should be the governments number one priority and bad roads and unreliable banks are not safe. When banks are unreliable and few and far between people will keep their money at their house and get robed. Even those who can put their money in banks are not safe if the government never intervened the bank could crash or close and people could lose their life savings. Bad roads are a whole different problem; they damage cars and cause car crashes. If the government is going to help people the interpretation needs to be broad.
Reply
Emily Danielson
8/31/2018 05:48:56 am
I agree, if the government has more room to act on then they can help with many different problems that its people will have.
Reply
Katelyn McCook
8/31/2018 05:27:06 am
I agree with Thomas Jefferson that strict constructionism is the best. I believe this because it'd create a smaller and less powerful government. This would allow each state to be individualized and include regulations more specific to that state. If the federal government was meant to have more powers, it would've been stated in the Constitution. Of course we have to remember that we've industrialized ourselves and the world isn't the same as it used to be. So yes, some rules can be added, but we want to prevent the federal government from being overcontrolling. With broad constructionism, however, the government could continue to give itself more and more unnecessary power adding rules and regulations to our everyday lives. There's no way to avoid this because we all know people are greedy and will do whatever it takes to be in charge. By then, we might as well have a unitary government.
Reply
Autumn Vaughan
8/31/2018 05:28:02 am
My opinion on these two subjects is that the broad constructionism is the best way to go. When you have a strict condtructionism, the things that need to be done, like a new building, will not get done even if it's a must have because it is not specifically listed in the constitution. With a broad constructionism, we are able to build new roads, new schools, and even new hospitals without having to turn to the constitution for the answer. You are also able to help the people who are in bad conditions, get into something way better than they're in now.
Reply
Emily Danielson
8/31/2018 05:28:31 am
A government with a broad set of rules to follow would be best for our country. I say this because with rules not creating a specific path the government to go down only using the knowledge people knew in the past it would be easier for the government to change and follow modern times. It is known that peoples' thoughts and opinions change over time, and the government needs to have the ability to follow that, if not people may revolt against it.
Reply
Rhett Blount
8/31/2018 05:33:43 am
I support the broad constructionists stand point due to the fact of industrializing our nation as seen today. The way our nation is set up today the government is fixing the roads, organizing banks for the people, and investing into smaller contractors for the benefit of the nation as well the people. Then in times of need(war) the people have been leaning towards the broader constructionists side due to the government having the generals and the war experience to lead the U.S.A to victory. We as a government expand much faster with a broad constructionist rather than a strict constructionist.
Reply
Zeke Smith
8/31/2018 05:34:37 am
I believe in a government with a broad constructionism, which was led by Alexander Hamilton. The reasons for me believing in broad constructionism over strict is that with a broad idea the government can grow to be powerful and strong. With a broad look on the Necessary and Proper Clause the government can build roads, banks, and invest in useful infrastructure which is vital for the growth of any nation. This way also allows governments to form labor regulation, environmental rules, educational policies, and many more that we the common people cannot do by themselves. This broad look is meant to create economic powerhouses like the US is today. Not only does this view help economically but also in times of crisis where the government can step in and help. By me saying I support a broad constructionism type of thinking, that does not mean I want the government who is tyrannical and all controlling but a government that creates strong and powerful nations.
Reply
Katelyn McCook
8/31/2018 05:37:58 am
I agree with Thomas Jefferson that strict constructionism is the best. I believe this because it'd create a smaller and less powerful government. This would allow each state to be individualized and include regulations more specific to that state. If the federal government was meant to have more powers, it would've been stated in the Constitution. Of course we have to remember that we've industrialized ourselves and the world isn't the same as it used to be. So yes, some rules can be added, but we want to prevent the federal government from being overcontrolling.
Reply
Zeke Smith
8/31/2018 05:51:22 am
Who would want a less powerful and and small government? America is great today and one of the largest and most powerful in the world due to the ideas of Broad Constructionism
Reply
Ethan Raybon
9/5/2018 04:55:47 am
I agree with what you are saying Katelyn.
Reply
Rhett Blount
9/5/2018 05:00:53 am
If we were to have a strict constructionist government, then how would we pay for roads to be built? There is no taxiation in the national government so we would have to rely on state government to do that. But the state government can’t do that either and nobody is just going to give money away willing.
Reply
McKenzie Saunders
8/31/2018 05:41:57 am
The Constitution is a map for the United States, in that map, specifically under Article I, Section 8, lies the Necessary and Proper Clause. Congress makes laws as it is required to do in order to exercise the other powers established by the Constitution. It states what it states, while people are trying to look into that, I believe that strict constructionism is necessary. Congress should have limited power and stick to what the Constitution outlines for it's specific needs. In the view of broad constructionism, there have been examples of powers that are stated nowhere in the Constitution that have still been exercised by congress. Leaving the American people free to manage their own affairs is a part of being responsible, which is needed in order to be a respectful citizen of the United States.
Reply
Emily Danielson
8/31/2018 05:46:18 am
A government with a broad contructionism would be best for our country in my opinion. For is will give the government space to improve our country, but there will still be some orders, so they can not do anything. This will give the government the ability to deal with war and money usage, but will leave people some problems that they can work with their own opinion. With this way the government can also be able to follow the way the country feels. This will make a less chance of the people to revolt against it for it will follow them in a way.
Reply
Syble Nicholas
8/31/2018 05:51:53 am
Yes I agree we need to be able to improve
Reply
Zeke Smith
9/5/2018 05:00:02 am
I agree with you, people need a form of order to help them deal with large problems like war and keep order so people aren’t hurt or going absolutely crazy with complete freedom.
Reply
Ya Boi
8/31/2018 05:47:54 am
01001000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01110011 01110011 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100011 01101111 01100100 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011
Reply
Jamizyah Banks
8/31/2018 05:50:37 am
After reading the article "Strict Constructionism vs. Broad Constructionism" I agree with the anti-federalists and the strict constuctionists. The government should be small but not so small that the people can easily over power it. The states also need a lot of power because each state thinks differently and deserve the power to make their own rights. Just like Jefferson said, there should be few of no taxes because if the taxes get too expensive we will back to what we were trying to escape from with the king. In my opinion, having broad constructionism makes the government too powerful therefore making the citizens unhappy.
Reply
Trey vaughn
9/5/2018 05:03:23 am
I'm in the middle of the two parties, I like both ideas and believe that if they could work toghtoge that many good things would be accomplished. As much as I like the strict interpretation of the Constitution, the thought of little to no taxes is a little over done. Taxes are a way that yes the government takes our money but uses it on things we as citizens may not understand. Hamilton's broad interpretation of the Constitution, I don't agree with because I don't like the idea of a very strong and controlling central government. Although the thought of using the national money for roads, banks, and industrial properties, I believe we'll help the future of America redeem it self out of debt. I in between these two parties can not decid which I like because I like both qualities given both the article.
Reply
Matthew Ctibor
9/6/2018 05:42:42 am
I see that you stated what you disagree with, but which side could you agree with more if you had to make the choice?
Reply
Chelsea Knight
9/6/2018 05:41:28 am
I support Hamilton's broad constructionism over Thomas Jefferson's strict constructionism. This is because Hamilton wanted growth in The United States but not just agricultural growth like Jefferson wanted. Alexander Hamilton desired to pursue industrialization and economic development. America would have began organizing banks, building roads, and investing in diverse arenas sooner with the interests of Hamilton.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2018
Categories |