Unfortunately, in these days, where politicians have largely replaced statesmen, the outcome of votes are largely determined prior to floor debate. Floor debate has been replaced with grandstanding for the cameras in hopes of getting some face time on the 10:00 news.
This comment in fact addresses my key substantive point, and it goes back to my comment about how operant Constitutional constraint automatically limits the number of bills, increases their criticality, and improves the quality of debate. We would thus get a different kind of legislator: statesman instead of deal-maker. Hence my effort to eliminate socialized risk management to reduce the scope of civic enterprise.
WRT Farrand, I doubt more than a dozen FReepers even know what it is, much less have read it (the web-site is wonderful). I had lucky opportunity to read it under the tutelege of William Allen while in engineering school. It was a life-changing experience.
When the SCOTUS makes decisions I want them to look at both, not just Farrand's notes, which is what your point seems to imply to me.
So do I! Yours was a selective reading of my point perhaps, but the Federalist was in effect part of the public debate prior to a secondary vote of approval and inherent to the ratification process, a vote of the States. Although that second public debate was necessarily more open than the Convention, it was clearly part of the ratification debate, as were what are now called the Anti-Federalist Papers, especially important to analyzing the Bill of Rights.
Isn't this fun?
I have two strikes against me, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, which seems to be qualification enough for some...
Off topic, do you ever wonder what this nation might be like if the real lawyers out there spent as much time digging into the Constitution and supporting documentation as you obviously have?
This comment in fact addresses my key substantive point, and it goes back to my comment about how operant Constitutional constraint automatically limits the number of bills, increases their criticality, and improves the quality of debate. We would thus get a different kind of legislator: statesman instead of deal-maker.
I agree with the theory, and agree with working back to that standard. For the here and now though I have to support what is going to get results. Maybe it is a trade off that condones the current system, but that is probably another discussion entirely.
WRT Farrand, I doubt more than a dozen FReepers even know what it is, much less have read it (the web-site is wonderful). I had lucky opportunity to read it under the tutelege of William Allen while in engineering school. It was a life-changing experience.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert by any stretch - I just seem to have the ability to retain critical, yet seldom used information - my wife calls it useless knowledge - I disagree - but of course I am usually wrong.
As odd as it may sound, to some, I find the Constitution, it's development, and the associated history fascinating. Some people spend spare time reading novels in front of a fire, I like reading this stuff, associated court opinions, etc. I might be weird, but it works for me. Plus, when I get a chance to debate these kind of topics with someone else who spent time learning about it I get a chance to test my knowledge, interpretations and understanding.
So do I!
I am getting the impression that our difference of opinion lies not in the base understanding of how our government should work...
Isn't this fun?
Absolutely!