Answer:
The general opinion of many Americans at the time of the purchase was that Jefferson was being hypocritical by going through with it. Jefferson was known to have a strict interpretation of the Constitution and believed the president only had the powers the Constitution gave him. Since there was no Constitutional precedent for buying land to add territory to the United States, there was theoretically no Constitutional authority for the president to buy the land.
Many of those in the Federalist party (the opposing party to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans) believed that he would have objected on Constitutional grounds if any of them had tried to do the same thing. Therefore, the Federalists were very much opposed to the purchase. They also believed that by buying land from France, they would alienate Great Britain, whom they wanted as a close ally.
The need for a stronger Federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789.
Kernel sanders is the answer np
Answer:
Smith argued that by giving everyone freedom to produce and exchange goods as they pleased (free trade) and opening the markets up to domestic and foreign competition, people's natural self-interest would promote greater prosperity than with stringent government regulations.
