Skip to comments.Federalist 84 – Hamilton Opposes a Bill of Rights for Good Reason
Posted on 07/30/2009 5:02:27 AM PDT by Loud Mime
click here to read article
The Second Amendment is a good example.
Could you explain?
You are too kind. My studies continue in these areas and are dwarfed by the knowledge of others such as “Publius” a freeper of tremendous knowledge. We have many others who contribute to these threads with tremendous comments. I am honored to post the initial essay and then watch the comments grow.
Madison and Hamilton are an interesting pair. After the Constitution was ratified they had different roles. Hamilton focused on banking and the industrial revolution. Madison went to the House of Representatives and held great power. Madison was suspicious of Hamilton’s constant dealings.
Hamilton seemed to run wild with his political comments; that, along with his being a poor shot, led to his death.
Darn, I would love to see that sort of stuff in today’s politics! Patrick Leahy and Miguel Estrada come to mind...
The Bill of rights is not all rights, some of the amendments are limitations of federal power. The word "right" appears in Amendments II, IV, VII and to some point IX. These are recognized by government and its enforcement mechanisms.
There was. They didn't get paid. Congress critters were supposed to serve two years and Senators six. It was never intended for the them to become perpetual lords.
Hamilton was right on many points. He was wrong on some too. There has yet to be a man since Jesus who was always right.
Oh gosh and golly. (blush blush)
Once our FReeper Book Club on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is finished, Billthedrill and I are looking at a project where we would take the "Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" in strict chronological order in an interleaved manner so as to follow the point and counterpoint of the debate over the Consitution. We would intersperse this with commentary about what was happening in the state ratifying conventions during the period.
Bill and I are debating about reformating the papers. He thinks that the "process and logic of the quill pen" should be kept intact, while I want to reformat each sentence into Structured English with separate lines and indentations for clauses so as to permit easier comprehension by modern readers not used to extremely long sentences and paragraphs that take up several pages.
There is also another problem with the "Anti-Federalist Papers". They are not as organized as the "Federalist Papers" and are not as easily avaiable in complete form, but mostly as fragments. Someone believed that if there are 85 "Federalist Papers", there must logically be 85 "Anti-Federalist Papers", so he cut and pasted the "Anti-federalist Papers" to form 85 cogent documents. I question that move.
...along with his being a poor shot, led to his death...Darn, I would love to see that sort of stuff in todays politics! Patrick Leahy and Miguel Estrada come to mind...
The site where Burr shot Hamilton is now a New Jersey state park in Weehauken. I have long believed that it should be established as our national dueling grounds with the duels covered by ABC Sports. (What a shame Howard Cosell is gone!)
My own first choice was for Zell Miller to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel over his dishonorable and ungentlemanly treatment of Michelle Malkin on his show.
Then we see things alike, but may be describing differing shades of the same color.
My point has been that the political parties have replaced the States in the Senate’s influence mechanisms.
Next on the dueling fantasy list:
Howard Liman v. Oliver North (too late, I know)
George W. Bush v. Keith Olbermann
Sarah Palin v. Jeoffrey Dunn
Sarah Palin v. Stephen Branchflower
Sarah Palin v. David Kernell
then she can take a few days off....
This is only true if the governors accede to the premise that the government is "under God"; for, if it is not, the authority of the government is absolute and all rights derive from it.
As I've said before, don't you think any one interested in limited government would exclude phrases like "general welfare", "necessary and proper", "interstate commerce"? A new constitution would chain them down even further. This one, in my view, is beyond repair. Much of it could be kept in a new one, but it's too screwed up to be fixed by amendment. Like the founders who decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation altogether (without authorization), a totally fresh start would be the only way to try to get it right. And of course, no liberals could be involved in it. They are the disease.
Seriously, no government design can withstand the continued assaults of those who change the meaning of words and laws. No matter what the Constitution reads, the foundations of the language and the constitution’s intent may be redefined into anything a rebel groups wishes.
I consider the ratification of the Constitution as the proper authorization for the AOC’s demise. Even New York, who withdrew its delegation (save Hamilton) from the Convention, believed in the change. In the long run, the new Constitution was a necessity.
But it fell victim to, dare I say, CHANGE. The interstate commerce issue was redefined to include incredible federal powers....who would have thought that Abortion would fall under interstate commerce? Can you imagine the Founders faces if they heard of this in person?
That’s what CHANGE does.