1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
aliya0001 [1]
3 years ago
9

How was john Marshall interpretation of the constitution different from Thomas Jefferson's?

History
2 answers:
Feliz [49]3 years ago
4 0
The main way in which John Marshall's interpretation of the constitution was different from Thomas Jefferson's is that Marshall believed that the Constitution could be interpreted fairly widely, while Jefferson was an "originalist". 
Arisa [49]3 years ago
3 0

The correct answer is Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not.

<em>Marshall’s interpretation of the Constitution was different from that of Tomas Jefferson’s in that is Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not. </em>

John Marshall was a federalist. Jefferson was not. He was an anti-federalist. Then, John Marshall considered the idea of a strong central government. On the other side, Jefferson thought that a strong government was not the best option for a new nation and even worse, a strong federal government could turn into a tyranny.  


You might be interested in
Explain how a provision of the northwest ordinance established a precedent for governing the united states
Serjik [45]

Explanation:

The Northwest Ordinance set several important precedents. It established that unlike many nations, which left their new territories in a position inferior to the old, the United States would admit new states to the Union on an equal basis with the original states.

5 0
2 years ago
How does the fourth principle, concerning liberty, connect to the idea that certain guaranteed freedoms in American life are lim
scoundrel [369]

Answer:

Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties.

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.

hope this helps! :)

8 0
3 years ago
Why is it important to consider the rights of the individual when making public policy?
N76 [4]

Answer:

Your individual rights guarantee individuals rights to certain freedoms without interference from the government or other individuals. ... Since the United States is a democracy, the rights and equality of each individual in society are of the utmost importance—in theory and in practice. The human rights discourse is accepted by practically every government. A state can hardly portray itself openly as a violator of human rights. But how do we turn this discourse into public policy? We propose using the tools developed by New Public Management and applying them to the public policy cycle, which can be given additional substance by unpacking the obligations, essential elements, and cross-cutting principles of human rights.

Explanation:

https://sur.conectas.org/en/public-policies-human-rights-perspective/

8 0
2 years ago
The developement of the middle class signaled a decline in the importance of nobility true or false
bija089 [108]
Technically, yes, it is true that the development of the middle class signaled a decline in the importance of nobility, since people were able to have more economic freedom. 
3 0
3 years ago
What is the Liberal Consensus?
NeTakaya

Answer:

After the Second World War, after the impact that the totalitarian Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes had caused on the American population, both Democrats and Republicans came to the conclusion that they should bet on the total fulfillment of civil and political rights in America (especially regarding racial minorities, such as African Americans).

Thus, Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement regarding this issue, by which it was agreed that both political parties would support policies, measures and movements that would tend to maximize respect for individual freedoms and equality among American citizens. This agreement was called "the Liberal consensus".

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • The womenâs suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, and the tea party movement are examples of
    8·1 answer
  • Why did Luis 14th appoint attendants
    8·1 answer
  • A colony was established in _____ to give freed slaves a place to live.
    15·2 answers
  • 5 Which of the following statements is true?
    10·1 answer
  • Why would colonial government have wanted to establish non-private schools that were ‘free, compulsory and secular’?
    12·1 answer
  • True or false-Agriculture accounted for more workers in the West than any other occupation.
    6·1 answer
  • The events that would result in the creation of the European Union began shortly after which of these? World War I World War II
    7·1 answer
  • Daniel Ellsberg released copies of a U.S. military report commonly referred to as
    9·2 answers
  • Answer quick thanks x
    6·1 answer
  • What changed between the 1860s and the 1870s that made the Washington
    6·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!