Loose Constructionist v. Strict Constructionist Interpretation of the Constitution The debate over how much power a government should employ over its citizens has been issue in the United States, since its first development of government. This clash of views essentially led to the formation of political parties, and was the first major political dispute in the United States. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton who was pro strong central government, industrialization, businesses and banking, was for a loose interpretation of the Constitution, meaning the government had the right to interpret the Constitution and its contents based on connation, in order to protect its citizens according to the Necessary and Proper Clause. Republican’s, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was aiming in establishing America as an agrarian country favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning the government defines and applies the contents of the Constitution as they are, word for word, to be in accordance with the concept of state’s rights. The stance taken on this ongoing debate is inclined towards the side of loose constructionists, for its greater contribution in forming solutions to federal problems, helping the country flourish and aiding in today’s society as well.
The idea of a loose interpretation of the constitution is seen triumphing over a strict interpretation when considering the Hamilton’s idea to establish a national bank. His philosophy was that in order for the country to further prosper economically, there had to be a common currency, and have a stable banking system in the new nation. The bank was established and helped the government boom economically, and participate in trade overseas. When the bank’s charter ended in 1811, a Second National Bank was chartered in 1816 by Henry Clay as part of his “American System”, in order to advance the nation economic growth further, displaying its major role in the government. To the strict...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document