Thursday, June 16, 2022

Who Led Congressional Republicans In Creating The Contract With America

Don't Miss

The Maine Senator Was Never An Independent Force In Washington But Reporters Concocted That Myth To Justify Their Phony Narratives

In 1997, only seven months into the job as a senator, Susan Collins of Maine got what many of her colleagues wait years for: a glowing profile in the SundayNew York Times Magazine. It described “a prim, earnest woman with a schoolmarm’s reserve” who had embraced moderation as her guiding philosophy. Collins, from the moment she arrived in Washington, was seen as a swing vote: A lobbyist wanted her to protect Nike’s factories in Asia, a Roman Catholic bishop called to lobby her on abortion, and the architects of new campaign finance legislation asked her to co-sponsor their bill. This “middle-of-the-roader from little Caribou, Maine,” was having a moment, theTimeswrote. “It is the moderate Republicans who hold the balance of power in Washington now.”

Of course, moderates did not hold the real power in Washington in 1997. Newt Gingrich was two years into a speakership that would transform American politics. Between 1994 and 1999, he unveiled his “Contract With America,” shut down the government for 21 days, and led the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in a frantic, destabilizing period that would galvanize the right and forever change how business was done on Capitol Hill. By the end of his tenure, Gingrich had sidelined the establishment that once ruled politics, and yet mainstream reporters continued to view the system as they always had: as an institution controlled by its most moderate members.

Meredith Shiner covered Congress between 2009 and 2016.

How Did The Contract With America Reflect The Ideals Of Republican Congressional Candidates In 1994

Who are the experts?Our certified Educators are real professors, teachers, and scholars who use their academic expertise to tackle your toughest questions. Educators go through a rigorous application process, and every answer they submit is reviewed by our in-house editorial team.

Much of the well touted “Contract for America” sought to create a less interventionist role of government.  This ideal was represented by much of the Republican leadership and filtered into the candidates selected to run in 1994.  It sought to redefine government and change “the old ways.”  An example of…

Trump Is Starting To Put Together His Own Contract With America And Hes Teaming Up With Newt

The 45th president has sat down with the former speaker, as well as Mark Meadows and Lindsey Graham in recent weeks to begin crafting a policy document.

Newt Gingrich, seen here in 2020, was the driving force between the Republican election triumph in 1994. | AP Photo/Domenico Stinellis

05/26/2021 08:52 AM EDT

  • Link Copied

Acid wash jeans, scrunchies, and… Newt Gingrich. Fashion from the ’90s is having a comeback, and so too is the ’90s Republican playbook for how to win back congressional majorities.

With an eye toward winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, former President Donald Trump has begun crafting a policy agenda outlining a MAGA doctrine for the party. His template is the 1994 “Contract with America,” a legislative agenda released ahead of the midterm elections in the middle of President Bill Clinton’s first term. And, as a cherry on top, he’s teaming up with its main architect — Gingrich — to do it.

In recent weeks, Trump sat down with the former House speaker as well as his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Sen. Lindsey Graham at his private Mar-a-Lago club to begin crafting the document, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

The group is still just beginning to hammer out the details of what a Trumpified Contract might look like. But it is likely to take an “America-First” policy approach on everything from trade to immigration. The source described it as “a policy priority for 2022 and beyond.”

  • Filed Under:

The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Patriots & Tyrants

Writing to William Smith , John Adams’ secretary and future son-in-law, Thomas Jefferson seemed to welcome Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts: “god forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.” Jefferson was confident that rather than repression, the “remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.”

Bookmark this item: //

The Democrats’ Change Of Heart About The Need For A Balanced Budget And Celebrating The 2

How the 1994

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, as we draw this 104th Congress to a close, I think it is appropriate to remember where we were 2 years ago, before Republicans became a majority in this House. The Democrats were not talking about a balanced budget. In fact, the President’s balanced budget at that time, 2 years ago, had a $200 billion deficit every year into the foreseeable future.

In 1995, the new Republican majority came in and insisted that Government do what Americans have to do in their personal family budgets–that being–balance the Federal budget. The Democrats, the President, did their focus groups, they took the polls. They decided, Americans do want a balanced budget. They think it is reasonable. Two years ago, nobody on the liberal side of the aisle was talking about a balanced budget, and now everybody is talking about it. That is progress.

The liberals and big Government advocates try to belittle this Republican Congress, and criticize the

Contract With America. We are going to celebrate our 2-year anniversary of the Contract With America today. Let us just remember that most of the brag items of accomplishments that President Clinton mentioned in his acceptance speech were passed by the Republican-controlled 104th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Contract With America items signed into law in the last 2 years.

The material referred to is as follows:

The Providential Detection Depicts Jefferson Attempting To Destroy The Constitution

In this cartoon, Thomas Jefferson kneels before the altar of Gallic despotism as God and an American eagle attempt to prevent him from destroying the United States Constitution. He is depicted as about to fling a document labeled “Constitution & Independence U.S.A.” into the fire fed by the flames of radical writings. Jefferson’s alleged attack on George Washington and John Adams in the form of a letter to Philip Mazzei falls from Jefferson’s pocket. Jefferson is supported by Satan, the writings of Thomas Paine, and the French philosophers.

Artist unknown. The Providential Detection, 1797–1800. Copyprint of lithograph. Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts

Bookmark this item: //

Document Led To Many Successes But Miscalculation In 1998 Midterms Proved Costly

OPINION — In 1994, Republicans did something really big.

At the height of the midterm elections that year, on Sept. 27, House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich and a Republican Conference driven by conservative change agents, offered the American electorate a policy document called the “Contract With America.”

Friday marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of that contract on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. A few weeks later, Republicans won the House, ending a losing streak that dated back to 1954. That victory remains one of the most important events in American political history, an unexpected election outcome that dramatically changed the direction of the country.

Gingrich was one of those rare political leaders whose vision and strength of personality could change not only the course of a nation but the lives of its people in direct and positive ways. His victory, however, didn’t come easy.

It was a long journey for a man who had spent years in the political wilderness as a backbencher, driving what he saw as an “opportunity agenda,” anchored in policy, that could serve as a means to effect political change. For him, it was all about content and communicating the value of that content.

Here’s what I wrote in a piece for The Ripon Forum on the contract’s 20th anniversary:


The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement And Modernization Act Of 2003

At several points, participants close to the conference committee negotiations believed that another opportunity for reform would be missed. On November 15, however, the conferees reached agreement on a new version of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. The 678-page conference report included many of the features that had come to be widely accepted in earlier proposals, such as the discount card, additional assistance for low-income beneficiaries, a substantial gap in benefits for individuals with high drug costs , and the use of private pharmacy benefit managers in lieu of direct governmental regulation. Yet the bill reflected “concession” more than “compromise,” with the final provisions on some of the most controversial issues watered down so as to become almost meaningless to their proponents. This deepened rather than resolved cleavages that pitted Democrats against Republicans and, at times, Republicans against Republicans .

The final product included the following major provisions :

Here’s another bit of insanity: The bill pays private insurance companies to take elderly patients. You know how one of the tenets of conservative philosophy is that private companies can always deliver a product better and cheaper? So why does the Medicare bill offer billions in subsidies to private insurers to induce them into the market? That’s not competition; that’s corporate welfare.

For Republicans Crisis Is The Message As The Outrage Machine Ramps Up

With next year’s midterm elections seen as a referendum on Democratic rule, Republicans are seeking to create a sense of instability and overreach, diverting focus from their own divisions.

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders would like everyone to know that the nation is in crisis.

There is an economic crisis, they say, with rising prices and overly generous unemployment benefits; a national security crisis; a border security crisis, with its attendant homeland security crisis, humanitarian crisis, and public health crisis; and a separate energy crisis.

Pressed this week on whether the nation was really so beleaguered, the No. 2 Republican in the House, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, thought of still more crises: anti-Semitism in the Democratic ranks, “yet another crisis,” he asserted, and a labor shortage crisis.

“Unfortunately they’re all real,” he said, capping a 25-minute news conference in which the word “crisis” was used once a minute, “and they’re all being caused by President Biden’s actions.”

But for divided House Republicans, outrage may be the tie that binds — at least their leaders hope so.

“Look, our main crisis is we’re not the majority — that’s our top crisis,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma.

House Republicans, still overwhelmingly in the thrall of Donald J. Trump, have learned over the last four years that grievance, loudly expressed, carries political weight, especially with their core voters.

Jefferson Experiences The Political Limits Of Freedom Of The Press

President Jefferson’s support for freedom of the press was sorely tested in 1802 when James Callender publicly charged that Jefferson “keeps and for many years has kept, as his concubine, one of his slaves. Her name is Sally.” The Richmond Recorder, first printed Callender’s account of Jefferson’s intimate relationship with his wife’s half sister, Sally Hemings, but controversy has surrounded the accusation and the relationship to the present day. Callender, whose vitriolic attacks on Federalist opponents of Jefferson in the 1790s had been secretly funded by Jefferson and Republican allies, turned against Jefferson when the president failed to give him a patronage position.

The Richmond Recorder, September 1, 1802. Courtesy of the Virginia State Library, Richmond

Bookmark this item: //

A Win For Biden Us Senate Passes $1 Trillion Infrastructure Bill

After years of partisan gridlock, Republicans join Democrats in support of future investment in highways, transit.


The United States Senate approved a major infrastructure spending bill designed to invest $1 trillion in roads, bridges, public transport and improved internet access across the next five years.

After years of partisan gridlock in Washington, DC, Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the legislation, delivering a legislative victory for President Joe Biden who has urged members of the two major parties in Congress to work together.

Hours later, the Senate passed a $3.5 trillion budget resolution – voting 50-49 along party lines – meant to serve as bedrock of the Biden administration’s resphaing federal priorities. The budget framework aims bolster family services, health, and environment programmes.

“The American people will now see the most robust injection of funds into infrastructure in decades,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said after the passage of the infrastructure bill.

“You’ll find better roads, bridges, airports, broadband in the United Arab Emirates than in the United States of America,” Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, said.

“The bill will make large and significant differences in both productivity and job creation in America for decades to come,” Schumer said.

It would provide tuition-free community college and foster investments in programmes to significantly reduce carbon emissions blamed for climate change.

President Clinton And Hillary Clinton Were Campaign Targets

Teske adds that Republicans had some easy “targets to attack,” from the unpopular, early years of President Bill Clinton, to the Hillary Clinton-led health care proposal to individual corruption cases in Congress.

The overarching goal of the contract involved cutting taxes, reducing the size of government and reducing government regulations, taking aim at Congress, itself, to be more transparent, less corrupt and more open with the public.

“Essentially, it claimed that it would ‘drain the swamp’—though they didn’t use that term, in terms of what Donald Trump would later articulate,” Teske says. “If successful, the contract specified 10 bills they would bring up for votes in the first 100 days, including a balanced budget amendment, term limits, social security reform and others.”

The Contract With America: Implementing New Ideas In The Us

How the 1994

Select a Section 1/0

Decades from now, historians quite likely will reflect back uponthe Contract With America as one of the most significantdevelopments in the political history of the United States. As NewtGingrich, the first Republican Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives in 40 years, has written: “there is no comparablecongressional document in our two-hundred-year history.”

Never before had so detailed a document become such an integralpart of a congressional election campaign; never had so manyinnovative ideas been drafted into legislation so quickly; andnever in the previous six decades had so much legislation beenpassed by the House of Representatives in less than 100 days afterthe newly elected Members of Congress took office. As the chiefpolitical columnist for The New York Times, R. W. Apple,wrote in a front page news analysis: “Perhaps not since the startof the New Deal , to which many of the programs now underattack can trace their origins, has Congress moved with such speedon so many fronts.”

The Contract and the Conservatives

The changes being debated in America now can provide usefullessons and insights to democratic societies throughout the worlddealing with social and economic problems similar to thoseconfronting the United States.

Perhaps the best way to address various aspects of the ContractWith America, the ideas in and behind the Contract and its relationto the size and scope of government activities, is to answer threebasic questions:

The Impasse Before And After The 2000 Presidential Election

In the wake of the bipartisan commission’s deliberations, Senator Breaux and Representative Thomas joined Senator Bill Frist on a series of proposals to include a prescription drug benefit as essentially an inducement for beneficiaries to shift from the traditional fee-for-service program to a private health plan. More liberal and moderate members of Congress introduced proposals for an independent outpatient prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program.

In addition, in his 1999 State of the Union address, President Clinton proposed his own plan for a voluntary outpatient prescription drug benefit available to all Medicare beneficiaries. A new Part D drug benefit premium would be established, providing subsidies for low-income beneficiaries with incomes below 150 percent of poverty. This plan introduced the idea of combining modest benefits for most if not all beneficiaries with “stop-loss” protection for the relatively few enrollees with catastrophic costs. Medicare would cover 50 percent of an enrollee’s first $5,000 in annual drug spending and 100 percent of any additional expenses .

Another reason for the deadlock was that the amount proposed in the president’s budget was only one-tenth of what the Congressional Budget Office projected that the Medicare population would spend on prescription drugs during that period. Heading into the 2002 election, Democrats reasoned that no benefit was better than an inadequate benefit.

Thomas Jefferson’s Annotated Copy Of The Federalist Papers

Thomas Jefferson called the collected essays written by Alexander Hamilton , James Madison, and John Jay , the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” Jefferson, like many other contemporary Americans, tried to determine which essays had been written by each of the three authors. On this inside cover sheet Jefferson credited Madison with authorship of more than a dozen essays. The question of who wrote each of the essays has never been definitively answered.

The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution. Vol. 1. New York: J. and A. McLean, 1788. Rare Book and Special Collections Division

Bookmark this item: //

National Bipartisan Commission On The Future Of Medicare

Following the failure of President Clinton’s health care reform proposal in 1994, Republicans captured majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1995 the main policy issue regarding Medicare was not how to improve benefits but how to restructure the program and limit the federal government’s financial liability for existing coverage. The Medicare Preservation Act, which Congress passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 but President Clinton vetoed, included major reforms and reductions in spending in Medicare and other government programs as well as substantial tax cuts. Republican strategists miscalculated both the president’s willingness to accept the legislation and the public’s reaction . Nonetheless, reducing the budget deficit remained a high political priority, and two years later, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 cut projected Medicare spending by $115 billion over five years and by $385 billion over ten years .

The Balanced Budget Act created a new Medicare+Choice program, which encouraged beneficiaries to choose among the traditional fee-for-service Medicare, HMOs, and preferred-provider organizations. It also created Medicare medical savings accounts, changed payment policies and formulas for providers and health plans, strengthened efforts to prevent and prosecute fraud and abuse by Medicare providers, and created the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare.

Political Attack Ads In The Era Of The Founding Fathers

In this critical cartoon, Thomas Jefferson as the cock or rooster, courts a hen, portrayed as Sally Hemings. Contemporary political opponents of Jefferson sought to destroy his presidency and his new political party with charges of Jefferson’s promiscuous behavior and his ownership of slaves. The cock was also a symbol of revolutionary France, which Jefferson was known to admire and which, his critics believed, Jefferson unduly favored.

James Akin. “A Philosophic Cock,” Newburyport, Massachusetts, c. 1804. Hand-colored aquatint. Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts

Bookmark this item: //

Prescription Drug Policies In The Nixon Administration

Following submission of the task force’s report, Secretary Finch appointed a review committee headed by John Dunlop of Harvard University, the former chair of President Nixon’s health transition team who had been appointed secretary of labor. The committee convened in April and submitted its report on July 23, 1969. With only one dissenting voice from a representative of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the committee endorsed a number of the task force’s recommendations. In particular, “the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should recommend an Administration decision for an out-of-hospital drug insurance program under Medicare” .

The proposed regulations were very similar to those recommended by the task force in 1969. Such a policy stemming from a Republican administration came as a surprise, however, and illustrated how concerned policymakers were about rising medical costs. Weinberger’s announcement touched the pharmaceutical industry’s most sensitive nerves, endorsing generic substitutes for brand-name products and limits on reimbursement. Despite vigorous industry opposition, state laws were already changing to allow pharmacists to substitute cheaper, generic drugs for brand-name products. Now the federal government was adopting similar methods.

Transgender Athlete Rene Richards Barred From Us Open

What was not included? Details on how these bills would be executed and what they would cost.

“It probably did not matter that it was vague on costs, and that was even an advantage,” Teske says. “The goals were big picture, and ones that many voters could understand, without getting into—and bogged down by—the details of budget costs, specific programs that might go away, etc.”

Jefferson Urges Supporters To Write Newspaper Attacks

Thomas Jefferson seldom wrote articles or essays for the press, but he did urge his supporters such as James Madison, James Monroe , John Beckley , and David Rittenhouse to publicly counter the Federalists. In this July 7, 1793, letter, Jefferson urges Madison to attack the ideas of Alexander Hamilton: “for god’s sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to peices in the face of the public.” Both Republicans and Federalists engaged in critical attacks on their opponents.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison July 7, 1793. Manuscript letter. Manuscript Division

Bookmark this item: //

Prescription Drug Coverage In The Health Security Act

Shaping the Late 20th and Early 21st Centuries timeline ...

The next opportunity to add an outpatient prescription drug benefit in the Medicare program came in 1993 as part of the health security act proposed by President Bill Clinton . Adding a Medicare drug benefit was good policy and good politics: It would be extraordinarily difficult to guarantee comprehensive health benefits, including drugs, to all Americans under age 65 and not to do the same for senior citizens and the disabled, whose needs were generally higher. A new drug benefit might also rally the support of Medicare beneficiaries for the Clinton plan, or at least neutralize potential opposition, given that the plan called for savings in other parts of Medicare as a way to help pay for coverage of uninsured persons under age 65.

The proposed expansion of the Medicare program would include an outpatient prescription drug and biologics benefit as well as a guaranteed national benefits package for those under the age of 65. The Medicare drug benefit would become part of Part B, adding $11 per month to the premium. Beneficiaries would pay a $250 annual deductible and 20 percent of the cost of each prescription up to an annual maximum of $1,000. Low-income beneficiaries would receive assistance with cost sharing.

In the report describing the health security act, the Clinton administration made clear its strategy to contain the cost of the prescription drug benefit:

Federal Prohibition Of Foreign Importation Of Slaves

In his “Sixth Annual Message to Congress” on December 2, 1806, President Jefferson, at the earliest moment allowed by the Constitution, called on Congress to abolish the importation of slaves from outside the United States. The United States Constitution had forbidden Congress to abolish “the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit” prior to 1808. Congress readily complied with the president’s request and the importation of slaves was prohibited as of January 1, 1808.

Thomas Jefferson. “Sixth Annual Message to Congress,” December 2, 1806. Manuscript. Manuscript Division

Bookmark this item: //

Clinton’s Actions Led Republicans To Devise Contract

  • Oct 28, 1994

At the outset of the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton stressed the importance of a middle class tax cut. After waffling for months on whether he would deliver on this “central’ promise, Clinton signaled retreat at a Jan. 14, 1992, press conference: “I never did meet any voter who thought that it was important.’

And now, with his approval rating at record lows, a failed legislative agenda and facing the end of his Democrat-controlled Congress, Clinton is reverting back to campaign mode and promising the middle-class a tax cut. Clearly, he hopes the American middle class has a short memory:Maybe they’ll forget the last time Clinton promised a middle-class tax cut, Clinton and his Congress raised their taxes on gas, on middle-income seniors’ Social Security benefits and on more than a million small businesses.

Maybe they’ll forget Clinton and his Congress failed to “end welfare’ as we know it.

Maybe they’ll forget the Clinton and his Congress’ attempt to ram a government-run health care scheme down our throats.

Maybe they’ll forget nearly $7 billion in pork barrel and social welfare spending as a “surtax’ for a watered-down crime bill that saw its toughest provisions stripped by Democrats.

Maybe they’ll forget they were promised “change’ and received instead more taxes, more spending and more government.

American Federalism 1776 To 1997:significant Events

Analyst in American National GovernmentGovernment DivisionUpdated January 6, 1997


Since ratification of the Constitution, which established a union ofstates under a federal system of governance, two questions have generatedconsiderable debate: What is the nature of the union? What powers, privileges,duties, and responsibilities does the Constitution grant to the nationalgovernment and reserve to the states and the people? During the 208-yearhistory of the Constitution, these issues have been debated time and againand have shaped and been shaped by the nation’s political, social, andeconomic history.

During the pre-federalism period, the country waged a war for independenceand established a confederation form of government that created a leagueof sovereign states. Deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation promptedits repeal and the ratification of a new Constitution creating a federalsystem of government comprised of a national government and states. Almostimmediately upon its adoption, issues concerning state sovereignty andthe supremacy of federal authority were hotly debated and ultimately ledto the Civil War.



Third, neither level of government canabolish the other. The Civil War was fought not only on the question ofslavery but also central to the conflict were questions of states’ sovereigntyincluding the power to nullify federal laws or dissolve the Union.


Jefferson’s Plans To Improve The Urban Environment

Nicholas King’s sketch of Thomas Jefferson’s plans for Lombardy poplars to line Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the President’s House in Washington, D.C., was sent in 1803 to Jefferson by Thomas Munrow , superintendent of the city of Washington. Jefferson’s landscaping ideas were influenced by the elegant avenues and gardens in Paris and contemporary concepts that trees and plants would purify the air in cities.

Nicholas King. March 12, 1803. Manuscript sketch. Manuscript Division

Bookmark this item: //

Contrasting Procedures Of The Senate And The House

The order of business in the Senate is simpler than that of the House. While the procedure of both bodies is basically founded on Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice, the practices of the two bodies are at considerable variance. The order and privileged status of motions and the amending procedure of the two are at less variance than their method of calling up business. The business of the Senate is not divided into classes as a basis for their consideration, nor are there calendar days set aside each month in the Senate for the consideration of particular bills and resolutions. The nature of bills has no effect on the order or time of their initial consideration.

The Senate, like the House, gives certain motions a privileged status over others and certain business, such as conference reports, command first or immediate consideration, under the theory that a bill which has reached the conference stage has been moved a long way toward enactment and should be privileged when compared with bills that have only been reported.

The continuity of sessions of the same Congress is provided for by the Senate rules:

At the second or any subsequent session of a Congress, the legislative business of the Senate which remained undetermined at the close of the next preceding session of that Congress shall be resumed and proceeded with in the same manner as if no adjournment of the Senate had taken place.

The Midterms Introduced Extreme Divisive Politics

As for the contract’s lasting impact? Most of its ideas and proposals did not pass Congress, or were vetoed by Clinton, and, according to Teske, the ones that did pass were not radical departures and instead relatively minor in scope. But it did put Republicans back in power in Congress, which they’ve largely held onto in the years since.

“The Gingrich approach of extreme right ideas, combined with a scorched-earth personal level of politics in attacking opponents—later seen in Clinton’s investigations and impeachment—has also had a major impact on American politics” he says. “It helped bring a much more ‘win at all costs’ mentality, and a divisiveness that persists today.”

Our Liberty Depends Upon The Freedom Of The Press

Eighteenth-century political philosophers concerned themselves with the balance between the restrictions needed to make a government function and the individual liberties guaranteed by that government. Jefferson’s efforts to protect individual rights including freedom of the press were persistent, pivotal, and not always successful. Jefferson was a staunch advocate of freedom of the press, asserting in a January 28, 1786, letter to James Currie , a Virginia physician and frequent correspondent during Jefferson’s residence in France: “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

Thomas Jefferson to James Currie, January 28, 1786. Manuscript letter. Manuscript Division

Bookmark this item: //

Jefferson Advocates Limited Power Of Constitution

Republican governors

Thomas Jefferson’s February 15, 1791, opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank is considered one of the stellar statements on the limited powers and strict construction of the Federal Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, a proponent of the broadest interpretation of the constitution based on the implied powers of the Federal Constitution, was the leading advocate for the national bank. Jefferson and Hamilton quickly became outspoken leaders of two opposing interpretations of national government.

Thomas Jefferson. Opinion on a National Bank 1791. Manuscript. Manuscript Division

Bookmark this item: //

Popular Articles