Posted on 06/07/2011 6:54:23 PM PDT by neverdem
The tragedy is that a civil war of some substance seems likely. It is likewise a tragedy that you must distinguish “states rights republicans” from the rest, indicating that far too many republicans have turned to statism and agree with the huge majority of Democrats who have entirely turned away from liberty. With far too many political insiders the game is entirely aimed at the aggrandizement of power, and liberty takes a back seat (back seat, my aching back, liberty goes in the trunk).
Likewise, it is a mistake to refer to “states’ rights.” States don’t have “rights.” Only individuals have rights. States have powers. We cannot discuss the issues intelligently when we cannot frame the issues accurately. The powers of the states and the powers of the Federation must be separated with circumspection and discernment.
Incorrect. It sought to structure a consolidated national government. It left the states intact bowing to political reality.
His vision is found in The Federalist Papers.
Why would you think that public statements designed to sell the plan to voters would be more authoritative than private writings to his allies.
Then again, as they say, the proof is in the pudding, and the results are in.
As for slave trade and religion, those are niceties, but they are not structural. Merely social issues.
And, when I read Jefferson’s cautions against making a blank page of a document through construction, I find the outcome likewise predictable.
Brutus (and his kindred) wanted to retain all power in his own backyard, but he wanted the security afforded by all the colonies. He wanted to control the efforts of everyone for his own security without having to accept any burden on his own shoulders. That’s why I began this exchange by observing that the Anti-federalists wanted to have their cake and eat it too. We see the conduct of several of the states during the War For Independence illustrative of the point.
”You see the steady flow of results and treat them as a string of abberations. I see them as the essence of the system in practice.”
Wrong. I see the “steady flow” of results as a string of abuses. I see them as the essence of corrupt human nature in practice.
Whatever their intentions, with their incessant attacks on the Constitution the Anti-federalists have aided the big government types in the making of the document a blank page by construction.
But you think, somehow, a two thousand page document of fundamental law will not produce reams of laws? Of course, the document would not actually become a two thousand paged document. The trouble of passing all those amendments to permit each activity requiring the “express powers” for every new law would soon have become tiresome. Do you not understand that your voluminous constitution would soon fall prey to the same sort of construction that has befallen our present constitution? And probably in less time than taken with the Constitution.
Can you not see that it is not our constitution that will change the nature of men, but that it is the nature of the men who wrote it that produced our charter? Not perfect men, to be sure, but better men for the most part than the men who have followed. Certainly better than the present crop. We see some hopeful signs that that circumstance may be changing.
You mix your tenses (to your advantage, we must think). Without British protection, the Colonies must then defend their coastlines, their bays, their ports, and their frontier borders. What of the protection of colonial citizens and commerce at sea from aggressors? Primarily at the hands of the British, to be sure, but also at the hands of Barbary Coast brigands and at the hands of other potential enemies. The problem with Great Britain was a problem made worse by the distemper they suffered by their defeat at the hands of a bunch of backcountry ruffians and rustics, and from which the Brits did not completely recover until near the end of the Victorian Age (conveniently just in time to be able to count on US aid in dealing with the troubles of the Twentieth Century).
The colonies had no friends at the time of their independence, save possibly Portugal and the Netherlands. They did seem to have some who could not be counted enemies.
You scoff at the protection of this “great new government” but then I must ask you, why do you even speak of an ideal confederacy? What was the need? Why did the 13 originals not simply retain their independence and eschew any form of union? Then they could keep their freedom and not worry about coming under the thumb of some oppressive central government two hundred years later.
Incorrect, yourself. If what you claim was true, the Convention would have sought to dissolve state boundaries and reform them into more efficient provinces. We can go ‘round and ‘round endlessly on this question. Let’s not. You’ve had your shot; I’ve had my riposte.
“Why would you think that public statements designed to sell the plan to voters would be more authoritative than private writings to his allies.”
That’s an uncharitable charge. The same could be leveled at Anti-federalist efforts.
The Supreme Court finds The Federalist Papers definitive. I’ve previously asked you to cite the instances where Washington has came out in opposition to Madison’s 41 and 44, giving quotes and sources. You’ve not responded. Now I must add Madison (post debates). I hope you will respond to both.
“As for slave trade and religion, those are niceties, but they are not structural. Merely social issues.
This is the first time I’ve heard the slave trade and religion described as constitutional “niceties” or “merely” social issues. Up to now they’ve been very big deals to all the Constitution’s enemies.
Congrats. You left him speechless.
Not my objective. Rather discussion.
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.