One of the things that inevitably comes up when we're talking about the Louisiana Purchase
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.