Posted on 05/27/2010 8:04:01 AM PDT by Publius
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22
In other words, we must not have a federal system, but a national one.
"It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; .... Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made [the Bill of Rights].Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats."Elbridge Gerry
IMHO Hamilton was already thinking outside bounds of the Constitution before there was one! He and some others never wanted a republic in the first place and never stopped in their efforts to undermine that result.
He would probably have welcomed it.
Reading through this I realize the only education most schools (from grade to collegiate level) receive these days is about multicultural and Marxist thought--which separate us and tears apart the threads of our country's founding principles. It is all mindless dribble. These papers are thought provoking and red meat for the heart, mind, and soul of the American spirit.
The fruit falls very, very far from the tree of the original destiny of our country and it is time to take it back.
Your contributions help in for and guide in this direction. Thank you.
IMO Hamilton understood the Constitution probably better than anyone. He knew it was a Trojan Horse--if you happened to be under the misguided notion that the Constitution contained "few and defined" powers. He knew it would provide the massive centralization of power he favored. He knew it would obliterate the state governments' power (he despised them anyway.) In the first years under the system, he ran circles around Madison and Jefferson. They look like utter fools next to Hamilton. For all the talk of Madison and Jefferson, it's Hamilton who truly left his mark on this nation. Madison and Jefferson are monuments to what never was.
.
Hell, Scalia recently used Wickard in his opinion upholding the war on marijuana, to the delight of the majority of "conservatives." The modern "conservative" movement is for the most part Hamiltonian, which is to say, big government nationalist. They only seem to be for limited government because the opposition is the socialist party.
Your contributions help in for inform and guide in this direction.
When the federal government itself becomes the SOLE judge of the limits of it’s power there are no longer any limits!
If the limits are ever to be restored we the people are going to have to restore them!
True. It's an inherent flaw in the system---unless you're a Hamiltonian. And let's not get into another Article 3 dustup. We've done enough of that.
If the limits are ever to be restored we the people are going to have to restore them!
Impossible. "Restoring the limits" is like a baseball team that's losing 9-0 advocating "restoring the score" to its original limits. The system was set up and operated. 200 years of accrued power and precedent will not be undone without revolution or collapse. And when/if that happens, it would be extreme folly to keep the same bad system that got us here in the first place.
I don't disagree with you at all but that does not change the intent of the founders one whit nor does it change the plain words written in the Constitution. Hamilton, Marshal and their friends accomplished a lot to be sure but they never lived to see their dream to fruition! That only came after Lincoln and his war ripped the country apart and reformed it to their liking. .
Sure it does. It's a fallacy to lump the framers all together. And it's impossible to know with certainty what their "intent" was. I actually agree with Scalia on that one---that intent is meaningless. The meaning of the words is what matters.
Hamilton was one of the original framers. Hell, you might say he is THE original framer. He and Madison (who I can only assume was Hamilton's dupe at that point) hatched the whole plan of a consolidated government. They laid the groundwork at Annapolis. They had drafts ready before they even got to Philly. And this was a surprise to the other delegates, who understood their purpose to be improvements to the Articles--not a change in FORM of government.
Washington was with Hamilton all the way. So don't give me this stuff about "intent of the founders." It doesn't wash. Marshall was a delegate and signer of the Constitution as well.
As for Lincoln, I don't blame him. I think he was correct. Lincoln wasn't the problem. The Constitution was the problem. Lincoln was upholding the supreme national government he swore an oath to uphold. Hell, Washington and Hamilton personally marched into Pennsylvania with troops to put down a simple whiskey tax rebellion.
I'm really sorry you see it that way. I don't! I agree with James Wilson:
"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)
And when your Constitution is as full of holes as ours, you get what you get.
With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."
And unfortunately, the "people" who created and ratified our constitution gave way too much power to the national government.
It’s impossible for a very practical reason as well-—the “people” of America are stone-cold ignorant.
I would recommend Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, by Forrest McDonald. His theme is Hamilton the Lawgiver.
Perhaps you are right. My personal distaste for Hamilton gets in the way of my objectivity sometimes I’m afraid.
I appreciate the recommendation, plus the States Rights’ book by the same author. I’m taking a little time off in a few weeks. I think I’m gonna try and order these books for beach reading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.