Replies

This thought cuts MUCH deeper than that.

I'm contemplating an idea I call "Neo Federalism" which is based largely on the idea that because of Amendments like the 14th Amendment there are actually two types of Federalism at work within our Constitution and that both of these must be accommodated as best as it is possible. To say that I was pleasantly surprised when I finally took a look at the Slaughterhouse opinion AND I realized that Justice Miller was making the exact same distinction (though not under that name) in the first major test of the 14th Amendment WHILE the authors of said amendment were alive and their debates still fresh in the Justice's mind would be an understatement.

Truth be told, I was giddy with delight.

This is the idea: That original intent exist with those who are framers of the Constitution with respect to what they contribute to it. So the original intent of the "First Framers" is absolutely necessary and correct.

But when someone amends the Constitution they become with respect to the Amendment thus authored, and only THAT Amendment, "Latter Framers" of the Constitution.

Thus they too have a place at the table of honor: even if a lesser place (their intent by NO means overrules that of the genuine Framers unless their Amendment specifically replaces some earlier portion of the Constitution).

Now the Federalism espoused by our Constitution and the first 12 Amendments (the 13th, parts of the 14th and the 15th arguably being "neutral") was a mixture of actual Federalism and Anti-Federalism. One way I've tried to express the difference is this couplet:

Jefferson's Republican Democrats held to a model of federal power like the relationship between a master and his slave: any power taken from the Master (the several States and the People) and granted to the Slave (the federal) so that it could achieve its functions was just that ... power taken away. So it was desirable that the absolute minimum of necessary power be invested in the Federal.

By contrast, the Federalist seem to have had a model of States Rights (and make NO mistake, they were for states rights) that appears close to the marriage relationship. The husband (the several States and the People) who has the final authority has a uniquely capable helper (the federal) able to do things which he is unable or unwise to perform. Thus under Hamilton's Federalism, the Federal Government is not supreme ... but she is honorable and honored.

Jumping forward a few decades and we find the rise of the Republicans who espouse a similar yet opposite vision of who is the husband and who is the wife in this relationship ... in many ways, Republicanism is the mirror image of Hamilton's Federalism.

And it is Republicanism that is embodied in parts of the 14th Amendment, as well as the 16th, 17th, 18th and 21st Amendments. I would argue that the crowning achievement of Republicanism is the 17th (direct election of Senators) ... an accomplishment before which all else pales.

Still, there is another form of "federalism" at work in our Constitution which must be respected even as the original federalism of the Constitution must be respected.

I would point to the Slaughterhouse opinion as a sure sign of how this may be achieved.

So in that I'm different from the Constitutional Party, which seems to seek to hold only to the intent of the Framers of the unamended Constitution to the exclusion of any other posers AND I'm very, very different from those who hold fast to the idea that now we have amended the Constitution and have built our little bridge of speculation to nowhere in particular that original intent––ANY original intent––no longer matters.

And this is where we find the Democratic Party. If the Republicans were and are a mirror image of Hamilton's Federalist then the constitutional abomination that calls itself the Democratic Party is the mirror image of Jefferson's own Republican Democrats.

They are the Super Republicans, simply put. The very living embodiment of every slur and slander and putative diatribe of rhetoric penned or spoken of by the Party of Jefferson and Jackson against any hapless Federalist or Whig ... or even Republican.

That they put Jefferson's likeness up in their events would likely make the old leader want to puke. Jackson would be more eloquent in action and likely pistol whip them out of Washington before setting fire to their offices.