Federalist 84 – Hamilton Opposes a Bill of Rights for Good Reason

Constitution.org ^ | 1788 | Alexander Hamilton

[Pistolshot]

There should have been term limits written into the Constitution.

[Loud Mime]

The only safeguard against the gubmint is a populace that jealously and vigilantly guards and preserves its own freedom.

You are correct.

I believe that we are heating up to a boiling point in the US.

[bamahead]

I believe I made it clear by putting my remark in the context of law. You put yours in a theological context.

Completely understood. But there is ample evidence that even the folks that wrote these great documents believed that the theological context outweighed or superseded any written or codified law that the state could produce, which would disparage or limit those rights which are considered inalienable.

This is why it is clearly stated in the DOI that whenever the state and it's codified laws would become destructive or disruptive of these rights, the people retain the right to dissolute or abolish it as a transgressor, and start over.

[LearsFool]

The only safeguard against the gubmint is a populace that jealously and vigilantly guards and preserves its own freedom. Short of that, scheming politicians, lawyers, and thieves will always find a way to have their way.

Well said! And those schemers will sell plunder in exchange for power - and find plenty of takers among the people.

Only the people can maintain a representative republic. If they choose a democracy instead, all bets are off as to whether the nation will survive for long. (It'll depend on their leaders, I'm afraid. And that's not a bet I'd want to take!)

I'm sorry, Mr. Frankin, but we couldn't keep it.

[LearsFool]

Err...Mr. Franklin. :-)

[contemplator]

I disagree with your point about the 17th. The ‘states’ didnt lose their Senators, the state party beauracracy lost their power over the Senators. The people of the states gained more control over their Senators.

[Loud Mime]

Well, that’s one way of looking at it....

I prefer to go a few steps further in the course of events. The people having control of their Senators may be mistaken for the Senators controlling the people. They do this by providing benefits from the treasury.

The States are unable to stop this theft. To dismiss state powers as a simple bureaucracy is minimizing an important facet of government power. With the 17th, the States lost all official influence in the legislative courses of the US government (a very important point) and the Tenth Amendment lost its guardians.

Please consider these points; it was not just bureaucratic power.

[Loud Mime]

LOL! How different can two people get! (Franken v. Franklin)

[hosepipe]

[ The government does not grant rights. It recognizes them. / It does both. ]

The Government grants privileges.. and alienates rights..
Thats what gov't does... alienates unalienable rights and converts them to privileges..

No democracy has ever yet been democratic..
Democracys always become Oligarchys..
Because democracy is defacto Mob Rule by mobsters..

The U.S. Constitution has NO WHERE in it the words democracy, democratic, or democrat.. by design.. it was not a clerical error..

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****When liberals claim they have a right to health care from the federal government, cite Federalist 84 and watch the deer in the headlights.*****

I remember under the X42 admin there was a claim that poor folks had a constitutional right to have government paid AIR CONDITIONING.

[zeugma]

BFL. The Federalists were right when they claimed that by listing a subset of rights specifically to be guaranteed, that some would later claim that anything not listed is not a "right". (See some so-called 'conservatives' that argue against us having a right to privacy simply because the specific right isn't enumerated - even though the 4th and 5th certainly imply such a right) At the same time, You merely need look at Britain and Canada to see what happens when you don't specifically enumerate at least some rights. They have seriously discussed banning kitchen knives in Britain.

[Freedom2specul8]

The bill of rights was created to protect our God given rights. The states, using legal frame works can grant priviliges that can be taken away. IE: driving a car. There is no comparison to the 2nd amendment.

[Freedom2specul8]

Bump~

[Munz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM

everyone should watch this video

A soldier is telling his senator he wants an apology for supporting the health care bill.

he knows his stuff.

God bless this guy

[Zionist Conspirator]

I'm a Hamiltonian, but I have to admit that one of his reasons for opposing the Bill of Rights (they're not necessary because the Constitution doesn't expressly provide for the violation of anyone's rights) is specious, since he didn't believe in strict construction.

However, the other reason--a foundation for other rights--is right on target. An enumeration of rights could not but eventually be interpreted as a granting of rights, and if government grants these rights, why not more?

Plus the "Bill of Rights" has been for about sixty years or so the number one excuse for centralizing all power in the Federal Government--specifically the US Supreme Court, allowing it to sit in judgment on ever local ordinance in the country. And conservatives are at fault as well as liberals (though not so egregiously). But if a high school principal is "violating the First Amendment" by censoring the "f-word" out of a student newspaper, of course universities are "violating the First Amendment" by enacting speech codes. In other words, only the Federal Government can violate the "Bill of Rights." Conservatives who want to apply them to universities are as wrong as liberals who want to apply them to high school football prayers.

We'd have been much better off without a "Bill of Rights."

[Loud Mime]

My take on Hamilton’s writings (and Madison) is that they understood the balances of the initial Constitution. As it was originally designed it worked well and preserved rights and liberties.

But when the first serious challenge of limited government was debated (the Cod Fisheries Act) Madison rose and challenged the proposal for all he was worth.

We now have no such member of Congress. Heck, they do not even understand the Constitution. How else could they take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and then nominate and confirm a character such as Sotomayor?

The pressure continues to build......

[Loud Mime]

Good video. Keep passing it on and stand up and say the same when the moment arises.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Your knowledge of the early Federal period far exceeds my own, but my understanding is that Hamilton and Madison eventually parted ways, Hamilton opting for federal supremacy and implied powers, and Madison adopting (or perhaps retaining) a more “Jeffersonian” position.