Question
How did Daniel Webster and John Calhoun differ in their opinions about main purpose of the Constitution?
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to force both federal and state governments to approve all laws, while Calhoun believed that it was created to give the U.S. Supreme Court the power to approve all laws.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to serve the will of the states, while Calhoun believed it was created to serve the will of the American people.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a Bill of Rights to protect people, while Calhoun believed it was created to allow the federal government to rule over people.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a government that could act without state interference, while Calhoun believed that it was created to act as a compact among states.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to force both federal and state governments to approve all laws, while Calhoun believed that it was created to give the U.S. Supreme Court the power to approve all laws.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to serve the will of the states, while Calhoun believed it was created to serve the will of the American people.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a Bill of Rights to protect people, while Calhoun believed it was created to allow the federal government to rule over people.
• Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a government that could act without state interference, while Calhoun believed that it was created to act as a compact among states.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
Daniel Webster and John Calhoun had fundamentally different views about the role and purpose of the Constitution, particularly regarding the relationship between the federal government and the states.
Webster believed that the Constitution was created to establish a strong federal government that could operate effectively without interference from the states. He emphasized the importance of national unity and the idea that the federal government has the authority to act on behalf of the entire nation.
In contrast, Calhoun believed that the Constitution was a compact among the states. He argued that the states retained significant rights and powers and that the federal government should operate with respect for state sovereignty. Calhoun advocated for the idea of states' rights and believed that the states had the ability to nullify federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional.
Therefore, the correct distinction between their views is: **Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a government that could act without state interference, while Calhoun believed that it was created to act as a compact among states.**
Webster believed that the Constitution was created to establish a strong federal government that could operate effectively without interference from the states. He emphasized the importance of national unity and the idea that the federal government has the authority to act on behalf of the entire nation.
In contrast, Calhoun believed that the Constitution was a compact among the states. He argued that the states retained significant rights and powers and that the federal government should operate with respect for state sovereignty. Calhoun advocated for the idea of states' rights and believed that the states had the ability to nullify federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional.
Therefore, the correct distinction between their views is: **Webster believed that the Constitution was created to set up a government that could act without state interference, while Calhoun believed that it was created to act as a compact among states.**