Quantcast

Who was right, Hamilton or Jefferson?

Pete 2010/04/23 17:41:21
Constitutional Revolution
Hamilton
0 votes
0%
Jefferson
11 votes
73%
Both (please comment)
1 vote
7%
Neither (please comment)
0 votes
0%
Undecided
3 votes
20%

You must be a member of the group Constitutional Revolution to vote on this poll.

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • DG.= Political Athiest = An... 2010/04/23 20:06:32 (edited)
    Jefferson
    DG.= Political Athiest = Anarchist
    +2
    Jefferson was RIGHT but thanks to Abe Lincoln, the Hamilton philosophy eventually won, and just look at what we have inherited because of it.
    I would like to believe Bush, Obama and all the other jokers we've had in office for the last century would make Hamilton realize the monster he created.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Archangel 2011/03/04 03:37:33
    Jefferson
    Archangel
    Hamilton did far too much appeasing in the Federalist Papers by babbling and rambling trying to make everyone happy, and as a result mucked up the entire concept of the Constitution. His babbling on sovereignty murkily split between the States and the Federal government ended up opening the door to the Federal government playing the heavy fisted bully on the block.

    Jefferson was clear and concise, "All sovereign authority resides in The People".
  • Not-A-RINO 2010/09/30 04:43:10
    Jefferson
    Not-A-RINO
    Jefferson had it right when he said, "The government which governs best governs least."
    .
  • Cymech Dragon 2010/07/08 08:18:03
    Jefferson
    Cymech Dragon
    +1
    Thomas Jefferson warned on many occasions that a big government would inevitably lead to tyranny, regardless of the intent. How right he was. Alexander Hamilton essentially would've supported a monarchy if he felt it had a right intent.

    Unfortunately for America, the Hamiltonian philosophy became the norm for the last two-hundred years, such as through Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, Bush, and now Obama.

    But fortunately for America, Obama may very well be his own undoing that we need to return to small-government virtues. Whether you may attempt to construe it as fear, or what have you, Obama has indirectly made people pay attention to the constitution.
  • drc 2010/07/04 18:47:33
    Jefferson
    drc
    Jefferson was right. Hamilton wanted more of an aristocracy and a larger government.
  • HVACRick 2010/06/14 14:25:04
    Undecided
    HVACRick
    James Madison
  • Barbara Hasler 2010/06/14 02:23:59
    Both (please comment)
    Barbara Hasler
    I have read the biographies of both. They both contributed to get the republic going. Jefferson was for small government. Hamilton wanted large government control. Hamilton did set up an governmental infrastructure such as the first federal bank of New York. Since the country was mainly being funded by tariffs at the time, he was instrumental in starting The Coast Guard to board incoming vessels and collect the tariffs. He also laid the ground work for the SEC. As far as governing Jefferson was the better of the two. He was more interested in the individual states rights than in a large controlling governmental bureauracy. Both men were incredibally brilliant and were often at each other's throats. Washington was facinated by Hamilton and made him his Secretary of the Treasurey. Jefferson was Secretary of State at the time and could not cope with Hamilton's expansion of his office. He asked Washington to choose between him and Hamilton. Washington chose Hamilton.
  • Michaelene 2010/04/28 12:27:27
    Undecided
    Michaelene
    +1
    Please elaborate, each has made thousands of statements that can be debated. Until then I cannot answer with a meaningful response.
  • Pete Michaelene 2010/04/28 13:54:43
    Pete
    Read the comment I placed below concerning the role of the central government.
  • Philadelphia Freedom 2010/04/24 02:52:14
    Jefferson
    Philadelphia Freedom
    +1
    It's ashame his words will soon disappear thanks to we the people not doing what needs to be done .
  • DG.= Political Athiest = An... 2010/04/23 20:06:32 (edited)
    Jefferson
    DG.= Political Athiest = Anarchist
    +2
    Jefferson was RIGHT but thanks to Abe Lincoln, the Hamilton philosophy eventually won, and just look at what we have inherited because of it.
    I would like to believe Bush, Obama and all the other jokers we've had in office for the last century would make Hamilton realize the monster he created.
  • Pete DG.= Po... 2010/04/24 11:43:27
    Pete
    +1
    Alexander Hamilton generally aligned himself with Chief Justice John Marshall, both members of the Federalist Party, as was Adams. The following article posted on the Tenth Amendment Center, written by Gennady Stalyarov II, perty well explains the difference in their philosophy of national power:
    John Marshall Vs Thomas Jefferson on Constitutional Interpretation
    In Marbury v. Madison (1804), John Marshall argues that the Supreme Court ought to have the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws which come before the court. Since the judges must apply the laws to particular cases, they must necessarily "expound and interpret" those laws.
    Furthermore, since the Constitution is superior to an ordinary act of the legislature and cannot be annulled by such an act, the judges-when faced with a law contrary to the Constitution-must strike down the law as to uphold the Constitution.
    Otherwise, the power of the Constitution itself would be nullified, and courts would be forced to uphold the very injustices against which the Constitution was meant to protect.
    If, for instance, Congress had passed an ex post facto law [after the fact], and an individual were prosecuted under it before the court, it would defeat the purpose of the Constitution if the court were forced to co...








    Alexander Hamilton generally aligned himself with Chief Justice John Marshall, both members of the Federalist Party, as was Adams. The following article posted on the Tenth Amendment Center, written by Gennady Stalyarov II, perty well explains the difference in their philosophy of national power:
    John Marshall Vs Thomas Jefferson on Constitutional Interpretation
    In Marbury v. Madison (1804), John Marshall argues that the Supreme Court ought to have the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws which come before the court. Since the judges must apply the laws to particular cases, they must necessarily "expound and interpret" those laws.
    Furthermore, since the Constitution is superior to an ordinary act of the legislature and cannot be annulled by such an act, the judges-when faced with a law contrary to the Constitution-must strike down the law as to uphold the Constitution.
    Otherwise, the power of the Constitution itself would be nullified, and courts would be forced to uphold the very injustices against which the Constitution was meant to protect.
    If, for instance, Congress had passed an ex post facto law [after the fact], and an individual were prosecuted under it before the court, it would defeat the purpose of the Constitution if the court were forced to convict the individual under the law. Marshall emphasizes that court justices take an oath to support the Constitution, and it would thus be immoral for them to violate what they have sworn to support.
    Those who insist that courts do not consider the constitutionality of laws in their decisions are in effect insisting that the justices violate their oaths. Furthermore, "the judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution," and thus it would be absurd for the courts to examine a case arising under the Constitution without examining the instrument under which it arises.
    In his letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of others.
    [Jefferson is correct in this aspect; activist judges "expound" the law and are, in effect, making new law, a function exclusively of the legislature.]
    If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution "is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
    Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution's meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.
    Marshall and Jefferson present two diametrically opposed views of the nature of constitutional interpretation. and it is regrettable that Marshall's view has been uncontested in the United States during the past century; Jefferson was correct to warn that giving the Supreme Court sole ultimate power to interpret the Constitution would shift supremacy from the text of the Constitution to the subjective wishes of Supreme Court justices.
    Perhaps it is time to give each branch of government the sovereignty to judge for itself what is constitutional, and the ability to act as a check against misinterpretations by the other branches.
    Gennady Stolarov II is an independent philosophical essayist, composer, amateur mathematician, contributor to "Misses.org", editor-in-chief of "The Rational Argumentator" and "The Progress of Liberty", and a high-ranking content producer on "Associated Content."
    [ ] added by me.
    (more)
  • DG.= Po... Pete 2010/04/24 15:20:31
    DG.= Political Athiest = Anarchist
    No argument from me on that! thanks for the article.
  • spankum1 2010/04/23 19:58:27
    Undecided
    spankum1
    +1
    Right about what? Has anyone seen the HBO series about John Adams and the founding fathers. The series was called John Adams, but it depicts the fact that Adams and Jefferson worked together in many ways in influencing the direction our country took back then. It was really very well done and very entertaining.
  • spankum1 spankum1 2010/04/23 20:00:29
    spankum1
    Based on that my answer is John Adams even though he's not in the running. lols
    I have to know what they might be right about first.
  • Ripped1X... 2010/04/23 19:53:57
    Jefferson
    Ripped1X...
    Is this a trick question. LOL!
  • Pete Ripped1... 2010/04/23 22:27:01
    Pete
    +1
    No. Right or wrong about their philosophy pertaining to limits on the federal government?
  • debrarae POTL _ PWCM 2010/04/23 17:51:38
    Jefferson
    debrarae POTL _ PWCM
    +1
    No doubts...........
  • Pete 2010/04/23 17:43:42
    Jefferson
    Pete
    +1
    Hamilton believed in a nearly unrestrained federal power while Jefferson advocated a severly limited federal power.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/23 15:28:49

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals