Thread: Was the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional?

Thoughout history the government has ignored the constitution when it suits is. Also those who support certain points about the constitution are usually only reading a certain part of it. I am reading a wonderful book called "For the People: What the Constitution Really Says About Your Rights." It stresses the point that the Constitution needs to be seen as an entire document. That the framers created it as a single piece not as a bunch of little bits.

A awesome question. I googled and found a few articles on it..It appears from the second link that YES, through IMPLIED POWERS he was able to.

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase and US Ratification: Strict Construction of the Constitution and Federalist Opposition

Congress was called into a special session to deal with the issue. It was Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, who pointed out that the Constitution allowed for the acquisition of territory through treaties. Interpreted as an implied power, it allowed President Jefferson to offer the treaty for Senate ratification.

Read more at Suite101: The Louisiana Purchase and US Ratification: Strict Construction of the Constitution and Federalist Opposition http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_louisiana_purchase_and_us_ratification#ixzz0kM RAQjs1

Jefferson sent Lewis as well, pretty much lying to Congress as to their intent.

Perhaps we should just give it all back. Or give it all to those who had slaves as ancestors, that would be fairer.

Originally Posted by Oldschool

Jefferson sent Lewis as well, pretty much lying to Congress as to their intent.

Perhaps we should just give it all back. Or give it all to those who had slaves as ancestors, that would be fairer.

Slaves as ancestors? Seriously?

The vast tract of territory ranging between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains that today makes up Americas heartland was originally populated by native tribes ranging from the Choctaw in the southeast to the Apache in the southwest to the Sioux in the northern plains. However, European exploration soon began to encroach on native lifeways, and the territory was grandiosely claimed for France in 1682 by explorer Robert Cavelier, who named it Louisiana after the reigning monarch, King Louis XIV. Thus, the French administered and populated the territory over the next century, living in a relative state of peace with the natives they had usurped.
SparkNotes: Thomas Jefferson: The Louisiana Purchase

Originally Posted by angryamerican

A awesome question. I googled and found a few articles on it..It appears from the second link that YES, through IMPLIED POWERS he was able to.

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

The Louisiana Purchase and US Ratification: Strict Construction of the Constitution and Federalist Opposition

Congress was called into a special session to deal with the issue. It was Jefferson’s Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin, who pointed out that the Constitution allowed for the acquisition of territory through treaties. Interpreted as an implied power, it allowed President Jefferson to offer the treaty for Senate ratification.

Read more at Suite101: The Louisiana Purchase and US Ratification: Strict Construction of the Constitution and Federalist Opposition http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_louisiana_purchase_and_us_ratification#ixzz0kM RAQjs1

Neither link supports the thesis that the Louisiana Purchase was uncontitutional.

What they do support is the fact that Jefferson reversed his own original view that the Federal Government had no power not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, and that buying land from another nations was therefore unlawful without a constitutional amendment.

Jefferson's original view was silly. The constitution does explicitly give the Federal government the power to make treaties with other nations, without circumscribing treaty content at all. Hence treaty content must be allowed considerable implied flexibility or the government would on one hand be forbidden to conduct business that on the other hand it was authorized to conduct.

Originally Posted by Dittohead not

If the implied flexibility in the Constitution is necessary for the government to conduct its business, what implications does that have for the 21st. century?

I have not made a case for any issue except that concerning the content of treaties.

Obviously Federal powers have expanded far beyond anything contemplated in the early 19th century, with both parties and all three branches of government having done their share to enable expansion. I prefer what actually took place to numerous alternatives such as a partially racially segregated society or one where there is no federal power to block sale of contaminated food and medicine. Where to draw the lines of Federall power is a continuing challenge, since there are literally thousands of lines to draw, and no general principle that I know of which may easily be applied as a guide in all cases.