Louisiana Purchase

[nickcoons]

Someone brought up a sort of ridiculous point in their attempts to poke fun at me for being a constitutionalist.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 consisted of us giving several million dollars to the French to acquire a vast amount of land (which makes up about 25% of the US today, I believe). The Constitution does not permit such a transaction by the federal government. President Thomas Jefferson understood that the Constitution didn't provide any provisions allowing the federal government to acquire land in this manner, but he did it anyway.

In the following years the land was divided into territories and eventually given statehood. Since the purchase was unconstitutional, my friend then goes on to say that everything stemming from that should be undone, and that if I don't agree that I can't possibly be a constitutionalist. In his words, "It was an Unconstitutional act by the Article One Branch of our Government! That Unconstitutional blot needs to be erased."

Of course, these aren't his beliefs. He believes that as a constitutionalist, these must be my beliefs. While giving back Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, etc. to the French is completely impractical, is there a way that a constitutionalist can justify keeping this land?

[NoxTwilight]

Yeah .. possession is 9/10ths of the law

:))


.

[hueylong]

A constitutionalist would say that the Louisiana Purchase would have still gone through if we had respected the Constitutional process. It's a matter of historical opinion at this point.

[nickcoons]

A constitutionalist would say that the Louisiana Purchase would have still gone through if we had respected the Constitutional process.

Can you elaborate?

[0zzy]

The government can buy land, don't see why they can't. At least, back then. Now-a-days we don't really need to do such things. We need to sell land ;) (to Americans, of course)

[nickcoons]

The government can buy land, don't see why they can't. At least, back then.

I can't find where the Constitution allows that.

[torchbearer]

Someone brought up a sort of ridiculous point in their attempts to poke fun at me for being a constitutionalist.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 consisted of us giving several million dollars to the French to acquire a vast amount of land (which makes up about 25% of the US today, I believe). The Constitution does not permit such a transaction by the federal government. President Thomas Jefferson understood that the Constitution didn't provide any provisions allowing the federal government to acquire land in this manner, but he did it anyway.

In the following years the land was divided into territories and eventually given statehood. Since the purchase was unconstitutional, my friend then goes on to say that everything stemming from that should be undone, and that if I don't agree that I can't possibly be a constitutionalist. In his words, "It was an Unconstitutional act by the Article One Branch of our Government! That Unconstitutional blot needs to be erased."

Of course, these aren't his beliefs. He believes that as a constitutionalist, these must be my beliefs. While giving back Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, etc. to the French is completely impractical, is there a way that a constitutionalist can justify keeping this land?

Under the constitution our federal government can enter treaties... Had Jefferson thought about this.... The purchase could have been made through treaty. Which is just semantics for what they really did... so tell your joker friend to go choke on a cock and read his history a lil' better next time. With love from Louisiana.

[torchbearer]

I can't find where the Constitution allows that.

They may no be able to buy it, but they sure as hell can take it for public use with just compensation... does that do it for ya? and yeh, that is in the constitution... a part that needs to be amended.

[bbachtung]

It is a little late now.

However, your friend seems to think that because you are a member of a group (people who cherish the Constitution) that you must fix all of the problems caused by people who violated the Constitution in order to be a "good" Constitutionalist. That is fallacious.

If your friend is a Boston Red Sox fan, then you can ask him if he thinks that trading Babe Ruth away for $100,000 to finance a musical was a good idea. If he says that it was awful and led to the only recently broken "Curse of the Bambino," then you ought to tell him that unless he goes back and undoes the last 80 years of baseball history that he is not a true Boston Red Sox fan.

[nickcoons]

Under the constitution our federal government can enter treaties... Had Jefferson thought about this.... The purchase could have been made through treaty.

The acquisition of the land could probably have been made through treaty, but treaties can't justify expenditures. We spent $15 million on that land, and I don't see where the Constitution allows such an expenditure.


They may no be able to buy it, but they sure as hell can take it for public use with just compensation... does that do it for ya? and yeh, that is in the constitution... a part that needs to be amended.

I think you're referring specifically to the Fifth Amendment, which says they can take "private" lands for public use with just compensation. I'm not sure if foreign government property constitutes "private."


Which is just semantics for what they really did... so tell your joker friend to go choke on a cock and read his history a lil' better next time. With love from Louisiana.

I'm not trying to be nit-picky. I'm just trying to make sure that there is no room for argument with him once I've stated my position. I don't want to respond with anything that could be considered "a stretch."

[Tom228]

I think all self-proclaimed constitutionalists should be aware that that Constitution is extremely vague. I feel that if every President in history had literally followed the Constitution, we'd still be stuck in the 18th or 19th century. That is not including additional amendments.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, once again the Constitution is so very vague on such things. Whether or not it's constitutional or not depends on you. If Jefferson had followed the Constitution to the letter I honestly believe we would have not purchased Louisiana.

[Ira Aten]

Of course, these aren't his beliefs. He believes that as a constitutionalist, these must be my beliefs. While giving back Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, etc. to the French is completely impractical, is there a way that a constitutionalist can justify keeping this land?


Another quote on this same issue was: "
I don't see where the Constitution allows..." the U.S. to buy land.

Actually, it isn't in Article I, it is in Article II.

Article II section II, states that the President can "make" a Treaty, provided TWO THIRD of the Senators present, concur" with the Treaty. so the United States can purchase goods, services, and land if the People's Representatives in the Congress vote in a two third majority manner.

So yes, there is certainly a way justifying keeping it.

But your friends shoudl be a little more concerned nowdays with NAFTA, and the SPP unconstitutional treaty agreements, rather than the Lousiana purchase for God's sake.

Wake them up to the fact that under the current Administration, the D.O.T. and Department of Commerce, managed to codify the State of Texas to GIVE AWAY land to a foreign power (CINTRA, a Corporation which is majority owned by the King of Spain) even WITHOUT the Senate voting at all, under the SPP agreement. Congress was totally bypassed on that. They should be much more concerned with that.

Or, perhaps, the fact that President Bush has ceded the property owned by private property owners for the "Trans Texas Corridor" portion of the NAFTA Superhighway, under th SPP agreement AND NAFTA. Some would say, well, NAFTA is a treaty. But the thing is, it wasn't legally ratified by the Senate. It was approved by a simple majority, but NOT THE TWO THIRDS, AS REQUIRED under the Constitution. A crooked Supreme Court ruled that it was "close enough for government work" and issued a ruling that NAFTA was Constitutional, but it was the same as saying Green is Red.

NAFTA is NOT constitutional, since the Constitution itself, says it isn't, under Article VI. To be lawful, NAFTA had to be "...in pursuance of" the Constitution, as in meaning a TWO THIRD MAJORITY had to vote it in.

A simple majority did, and the Supreme Court just pulled another "penumbra" parlor trick, and the idiots in the United States fell for it.

Why someone would worry about the Lousiana purchase, when George Bush is GIVING AWAY private property in Texas for the NAU, is beyond me.

They outa pick a better hill than the Louisiana purchase in my book.

So yes, the Lousiana purchase can be Constitutional, if the Senate performed its' function.

But NAFTA cannot, since it was NOT voted properly. Consider the North American Partnership Agreement of the SPP, which is another example of a Bush/Clintonian Administration of the rape of the Constitution's requirement under Article II, Section II of the .

[torchbearer]

The acquisition of the land could probably have been made through treaty, but treaties can't justify expenditures. We spent $15 million on that land, and I don't see where the Constitution allows such an expenditure.



I think you're referring specifically to the Fifth Amendment, which says they can take "private" lands for public use with just compensation. I'm not sure if foreign government property constitutes "private."



I'm not trying to be nit-picky. I'm just trying to make sure that there is no room for argument with him once I've stated my position. I don't want to respond with anything that could be considered "a stretch."

Um, a treaty can involve expenditures... Say... we are the losing party of a war and in the treaty we owed 200 million in reparations... except in this treaty... we agreed with france to give said amount of money for said territory. Treaties with foriegn nations allow us to acquire new territory...
5th amendment deals with territory already owned by the U.S. citizens... so then again... My explanation is on mark. Nit Picky is ok, but see the value in what is laid before you first.

[angrydragon]

Jefferson, always the strict constructionist, feared that the purchase would be deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, he personally drafted a constitutional amendment authorizing the national government to acquire new lands and allowing for the indefinite settlement of the new territory. However, Jefferson and his colleagues feared the time it would take to adopt a new amendment might allow the deal to slip through their fingers. Urged by fellow Republicans, he dropped the amendment and submitted the treaty that provided for the Louisiana Purchase to the Senate, where it was speedily ratified.

Commentary

Jefferson had long imagined an "empire of liberty" that would span North America, and perhaps even extend into South America. However, he did not enter office with any clear plans for expansion. With Spain, an increasingly weak power, in control of the Louisiana Territory, Jefferson reasoned that it was only a matter of time until the US would have an opportunity to expand westward. However, once the Louisiana Territory changed hands, the situation changed. Jefferson did not trust France, or more specifically Bonaparte, to stay out of North American affairs. He feared the nation would find itself wedged between Britain in Canada and France in Louisiana, a weaker player in a North American geographical struggle dominated by the world's two largest powers.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/firstyears/section6.rhtml

[bbachtung]

I think all self-proclaimed constitutionalists should be aware that that Constitution is extremely vague. I feel that if every President in history had literally followed the Constitution, we'd still be stuck in the 18th or 19th century. That is not including additional amendments.

As for the Louisiana Purchase, once again the Constitution is so very vague on such things. Whether or not it's constitutional or not depends on you. If Jefferson had followed the Constitution to the letter I honestly believe we would have not purchased Louisiana.

False. If we had followed the Constitution, then we could have drafted amendments to address "deficiencies" while remaining true to the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution contains all of the powers enumerated to the federal government; if it is not in the Constitution (generally Article I, section 8) or is too vague to be clearly authorized, then the federal government does not have the power to act in that area.

[Tom228]

I did state "That is not including additional amendments."

The thing is it takes forever to get an amendment passed. In over 200 years, only 17 amendments were passed and one was repealed. I personally find that a lot of the growth of America had to do with private individuals and not the Constitution.

By no means do I despise the Constitution, I just find it a bit lacking in clarity on some issues.

[dmitchell]

It was unconstitutional. It was also the right thing to do, and the greatest accomplishment of Jefferson's presidency. Jefferson did what was right for the country. He never claimed it was consitutitonal.

[stephens]

Sorry if this is too far off topic, but I thought that there seem to be some people here that really like history. I suggest you check out the XYZ Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair). It isn't directly related to this, but it involves America, the French, treaties, large sums of money, and undeclared "wars".

:)

[johnrocks]

Here's how I approach things when asked about things like the La. Purchase or some other historical process that happened. The founders;as great as they were;were not perfect men,they did not think of every little thing that could happen in the future. There may well be times when we have to act quickly such as in that case but that is no reason to go in the opposite direction and IGNORE the Constitution.

[Tom228]

Sorry if this is too far off topic, but I thought that there seem to be some people here that really like history. I suggest you check out the XYZ Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair). It isn't directly related to this, but it involves America, the French, treaties, large sums of money, and undeclared "wars".

:)

We haven't declared war since the 40s or 50s.

Side-Note: dmitchell, this may in intentional on your part but it's "a more perfect union" not "a more perfect state." Justing pointing that out if you weren't sure.

[nickcoons]

It was unconstitutional. It was also the right thing to do, and the greatest accomplishment of Jefferson's presidency. Jefferson did what was right for the country. He never claimed it was consitutitonal.

It's very dangerous for someone in the federal government to do something unconstitutional under the guise of it being "the right thing to do." That has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

[dmitchell]

It's very dangerous for someone in the federal government to do something unconstitutional under the guise of it being "the right thing to do." That has gotten us into a lot of trouble.
I agree. Jefferson had a very narrow window of time in which to negotiate the sale, and the congress was taking too long to authorize it. So Jefferson decided on his own to make the purchase. It was unconstitutional, but Jefferson believed it was an opportunity that could not be missed. He made a concession to political reality, and I think he made the right call.

Next time I get a chance to talk to Ron Paul, I'll ask him if he would have made the Louisiana purchase.