How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's? A) Jefferson believed that judicial review was implied in the Constitution; Marshall did not. B) Marshall believed the Constitution implied strong state powers; Jefferson did not. C) Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not. D) Jefferson believed the federal courts could overrule state courts; Marshall did not.

Question

History

Devan Galvan

18 May, 22:52

How was John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution different from that of Thomas Jefferson's? A) Jefferson believed that judicial review was implied in the Constitution; Marshall did not. B) Marshall believed the Constitution implied strong state powers; Jefferson did not. C) Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not. D) Jefferson believed the federal courts could overrule state courts; Marshall did not.

+1

Answers (2)

Know the Answer?

Dereon Hernandez · Answer 1

The correct answer is C) Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not.

Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution was different from that of Thomas Jefferson's in that Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Jefferson did not.

John Marshall was a federalist. Thomas Jefferson was not. He was an anti-federalist. Then, Marshall considered the idea of a strong central government. On the other side, Jefferson thought that a strong government was not the better option for a new nation and even worse, a strong federal government could turn into a tyranny.

Dominik Moyer · Answer 2

John Marshall's interpretation of the Constitution differed from that of Thomas Jefferson because (C); John Marshall believed the Constitution granted strong federal powers; Thomas Jefferson did not. John Marshall political philosophy was one that of a federalist approach.