Between 1801 and 1817 the two parties in the national government of the United States traded sides on the issue of loose construction vs. strict construction of the Constitution because they had also traded sides of the power table. The Democratic-Republicans having gained power seemed to have abandoned their strict constructionist beliefs and adopted a broader perspective. The Federalists having lost power seemed to have dropped the loose construction and adopted strict interpretation. These years show people that political parties sometimes change their values in order to serve their own needs.
             John Randolph sees the situation unfolding right before his eyes, but his speech apparently has no effect on the House (F). Randolph, a Democratic-Republican, believes that the Tariff of 1816 will harm the majority of people in the U.S. for the benefit of a few factory owners. As a Democratic-Republican, Randolph stuck to his beliefs that the welfare of the majority is more important and opposes the tariff, but the rest of the Democratic-Republican House was power hungry and approved the tariff. In this case, Randolph saw the problem and pointed it out, but it still had no effect.
             In 1800 before becoming president, Jefferson wrote to Granger (A) that he still believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even though the Constitution does not specifically state that the president may make purchases using the nation's funds, Jefferson used a loose interpretation of the Constitution to buy Louisiana anyway. After his presidency in 1816 in Document G, he writes that a looser interpretation is more effective. Jefferson's blatant contradiction serves as justification for his actions during the Louisiana Purchase.
             When the Embargo Act was passed in 1814, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution while the Federalists used a strict interpretation. Jefferson believed that th...