is that Jefferson betrayed his strict constructionist principles when he purchased Louisiana - that

he had to stretch out the constitution a little bit more than he did before he became president.

Of course, if you're taking a standardized test, note that this controversy exists, but

I think this is largely a controversy of Jefferson's own making.

When France offered to sell us Louisiana, the first thing that Jefferson did is he went

to the Constitution and he's looking for some very specific language. As a strict constructionist,

he wants to see, ideally, something in the Constitution that says, "Oh... The United

States can add land. That is a power of the federal government." That would make Jefferson

happy to see that explicitly as a delegated power, but then again, the Constitution doesn't

get that specific. Now, Jefferson is asking these questions and he's wondering, "Is this

purchase constitutional?" and he asks his advisors about this and he really grapples

and struggles and really agonizes over the constitutionality of this.

Now, his advisors, of course, just say, "Hey, look. It's right there in the Constitution.

It says that the federal government has the power to approve treaties. And this treaty-making

power is what enables the United States to make any treaty - including a land transaction.

Now, let's think about what a treaty is. A treaty is an agreement between two nations

and if we look back at a few of the treaties of the eighteenth century - think about the

Treaty of Paris (1783) that ended the American Revolution. There was a transfer of land in

that treaty. Then, we go back to 1763, the end of the French and Indian War, the Treaty

of Paris 1763, which also included a land transaction.

So, we have a couple of precedents, there. When the Framers were drawing up the Constitution

and they wrote that the federal government has the power to make treaties, the last two

treaties that the United States had been part of - first, as colonies and then as victors

in the American Revolution - both of these treaties included land transactions. So, it's

really unquestionable that the Framers' intent included the ability to transact land through

treaties because this had happened before.

So, really, Jefferson's kind of making this a problem for himself.

Instead of looking at Jefferson as betraying his principles, when I look at this situation,

I'm thinking, "Hey! I'm glad that he asked. Really, Jefferson's being MORE true to his

strict constructionist principles because Jefferson is agonizing over the constitutionality

of this measure.

Wouldn't it be nice if presidents today agonized like this. You think for a second that George

W. Bush agonized over the constitutionality of the Patriot Act? Or that President Obama

thought for a second about whether Obamacare is constitutional? OF COURSE NOT! Neither

one of these presidents really gave a hoot about whether the legislation they were signing

was constitutional or not.

Nowadays, politicians tend to sit back and think, "Now, let's just pass what we can,

let's sign what we can, let's do what we can and maybe the Supreme Court will come back

and declare it unconstitutional. We've really lost sense this day and age of the president's

responsibility to interpret the Constitution. This is not just the Supreme Court that is

responsible for this, but we tend to be lazy and just let them decide. It is every American's

responsibility - and especially people in our government - to consider whether something

is constitutional or not.

So, I challenge you to re-think the way you look at Jefferson, the Constitution, and the

Louisiana Purchase. This guy wasn't a traitor. This guy was a hero - a constitutional hero.

And I challenge all of our elected leaders - presidents, senators, representatives - to

think before you vote, before you sign, "Is this constitutional?" Because it's everybody's

responsibility. And if our leaders spent more time asking these questions and less time

thinking about what they can get away with, we as a country would be much better off.