Letter to Cabell February 2, 1816:
“the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”

Letter to Colonel Carrington May 27, 1788:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground”

autobiography:
“it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. … Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

It’s my belief that every single expansion of federal power, outside the scope of the constitution, needs to be resisted…even the ones that seem to give good results in the short term.

Point well taken. You are absolutely correct. It would have been interesting to be inside of Jefferson’s mind as he wrestled with this decision. In the end, I think he exercised good judgment from a strategic perspective, but he was admittedly on dubious ground constitutionally. In fact, Jefferson, in a letter to John Breckinridge in 1803, assumed that Congress would accept the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana and also propose a constitutional amendment to specify the powers of the president after the fact. He also wrote another letter a month later to Wilson Nicholas urging the adoption of a constitutional amendment on the matter. His intent, as a strict constructionist, was to avoid situations in which “loose construction” (i.e., giving the Constitution a new and different meaning) would become a standard procedure. He believe strict constitutional limits were the best way to protect the liberties of the citizens. Oh, that he were with us today!

One thing on Jefferson that might be of interest. While he was a strict constructionist, he did make the Louisiana Purchase despite not finding any Constitutional authority to do so.

“The purchase was a vital moment in the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. At the time, it faced domestic opposition as being possibly unconstitutional. Although he felt that the US Constitution did not contain any provisions for acquiring territory, Jefferson decided to purchase Louisiana because he felt uneasy about France and Spain having the power to block American trade access to the port of New Orleans.

Napoleon Bonaparte, upon completion of the agreement, stated, “This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride.”[4]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Despite exceeding his authority, it was, however, a pretty good buy.