Jefferson’s dilemma in the Louisiana Purchase In April of 1803 Thomas Jefferson was faced with many moral dilemmas in the process of buying the Louisiana territory. Though the price for the territory was beyond generous, Jefferson felt that by purchasing the territory he would be going against his beliefs that the constitution should be followed word for word. The constitution said nothing of the president having the power to purchase land from another government, or to use money of the states for the same purpose (“the moral dilemma”). Another problem was once the land was purchased, there was a fear that it could have been a waste since they had no way to know the layout of the land, and what it would be useful for. What's more
Another issue was that the states might get too much power and could overrule the government. Sooner or later, they warned, Louisiana would be carved into enough new states to outvote the eastern states in Congress. Opponents said that the Constitution made no provision for purchasing foreign territory. But still, The Louisiana Purchase was
Before this many Colonists did not know of the harsh injustices done by the British. They also did not believe that the cause for revolution was urgent. Thomas Paine showed them that the cause was urgent by explaining the wrongs the British had committed and why King George was a tyrant. He also showed them that America did not need the British Empire 's protection. This quote shows his reasoning “Small islands, not capable of protecting themselves, are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something absurd, in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.” Another reason it was so influential is because it was sold very cheaply so as many people could read it as possible.
One of the foreign entanglements and questions of foreign policy Jefferson had to deal with during his presidency was the Louisiana Purchase. He feared that because the Constitution never stated anything about acquiring new lands, people would get mad at him for violating his own principle. He believed that the acts stated in the Constitution should not be violated. Yet, he was doing this by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon. 10.
cannot suspend the right to trial by jury in criminal cases, that the government cannot pass any ex post facto laws or bills of attainders, among many others. While the constitution was being drafted there were many disagreements between the federalists and the anti-federalists about whether this new constitution sufficiently protected individual rights. Obviously the anti-federalists, who were not in favor of a strong central government, weren’t too excited at the prospect of scrapping the Articles of confederation for one with a stronger federal government. The Federalists wanted a
France at this time did not consider it a great loss as it was expensive maintain and the Louisiana Territory was nothing more than a swamp that did not yield much benefit. When Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France in 1799 he looked for world domination. One of the areas on his mind was to retake the Louisiana Territory from Spain. In a secret negotiation and deal with Spain, France re-acquired the Louisiana Territory in 1800. Relatively, the Louisiana Purchase included 828 million
One of America’s most controversial issues today is the border between the United States and Mexico. The big part of the issue is due to illegal immigration, which is when foreigners enter the U.S. without an entry or an immigrant visa. President Trump says he has found a solution, otherwise known as the “border wall,” but this will not stop people from wanting a better life. Of course I get why he and others would want to continue the process obviously to keep us safe from terrorists and other dangers of the world, but, to every pro there is a con. Even though the fence along the U.S./Mexico border is already being built, it should not continue being built because it is expensive, hurts the environment, and immigration rates have significantly dropped.
Yet, with the little progress they’ve made in the six months they were given, I’m doubtful. Even though President Trump is opposed to the McCain-Coons plan, I believe that it is reasonable for both Dreamers and border security. It doesn’t solve every immigration issue, but it takes care of the two most urgent problems and serves as a good foundation. Like many lawmakers, I am not in support of a border wall, and I think that the large sum of money required for a wall could be used to improve border security in better, more technologically advanced ways. Although border security is important, it is more important that Dreamers are able to stay in the United States and have the chance to earn citizenship.
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
Why did homosexuals want gay marriage to be legalized? Problem surrounding human right has always been a conundrum; and one conflict that recently gain popularity is that whether a government (or nation) should legalize gay marriage or not. The fact that the government should be the decider is because, they are the one who overlook their citizen (both heterosexuals and homosexuals), and only the government decision can decide whether gay marriage is legal or not; and as a citizen both heterosexuals and homosexuals should abide to the rule. Something to note is that homosexuality is not an event that happen recently. As a matter of fact archaeologist has found a 5000 years old skeleton of a man that is buried with household jugs (a trait that
States could simply ignore certain laws without any repercussions. Citizens also lacked the ability to file cases against the national government, because there was no court system in place for a lawsuit. One major difference in the Articles of Confederation and its successor-The Constitution of the United States-was its lack of a chief executive. Without a chief executive the United States was left without a presidential figure to handle foreign affairs. The United States even received complaints from nations such as Britain, because they lacked the knowledge of whom to contact in order to initiate diplomacy.
Chase dreams even if doing so is technically illegal. Throughout history, we have celebrated those who disobey unjust laws in the name of justice. Take Martin Luther King for example. “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right of vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law.”(King, p469) However, all sorts of devious methods were used to prevent the colored from becoming registered voters. All men are created equal, but the colored were not given the equal rights to vote nor were they treated equally at that time.
It’s hard to defer whether or not John Adams was an effective president because, although many historians believe that Adams was correct in not expanding the naval war with France into a conflict which saved many people’s lives, there were things that he established and believed that completely contradicted the newly established constitution. This could’ve put America into jeopardy. These things included the belief that the executive branch should stand above politics, his agreement to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the fact that mostly of the people in the United States, including his own party, turned away from his ideas, which definitely did not make him the most effective president. Much of Adam’s isolation reflected a well conceived
The US may or may not switch to the metric system in the future, but both sides to the argument have reasonable reasons to which why Americans should or should not switch to metric. Americans protest to the change of measurement but the other half see, why not? To begin with, the French created and started with the metric system and the British founded the other system, which is now renamed and knowns as, the US customary system. America should not switch to the metric system that all other countries follow - which is known as the national system of measurement - because without it America stands out and is different from other countries, also making Americans know more since we learn and use both systems, and it will cause confusion throughout the whole nation. America is different from other nations by many things but one could be the use of measurements.
When purchasing the Louisiana Territory, President Jefferson faced the risk of being prosecuted for violation of the Constitution, which was different from Hamilton’s creation of a national bank because it was illegal. To begin, after the French acquired the Louisiana Territory 1802, Jefferson worried that the French would no longer allow American farmers passage on the Mississippi River or the right to trade at New Orleans, so he sent Robert Livingston to France to negotiate to purchase New Orleans. When Livingston arrived, he was surprised by France’s offer to sell the US the entire Louisiana Territory for just 15 million dollars. Livingston knew he was not authorized to purchase the territory but he also knew that if he waited to ask Congress, the deal might be gone already, so he purchased the territory.