A Thornbird's Lesson on The Federalist and Dude-lite-ism

Discussion in 'Education' started by Dante, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    1) The Federalist was an attempt to convince by reason (is that the peep of nitwitisms-Randian Objectivism I hear in the background?).

    2) The Federalist's purpose was an attempt to articulate a national consensus and to express a generalized understanding of the concerns of the populace.

    3) One cannot read into or understand the individual mind-sets of those convinced by The Federalist, by the *plain reasoning forth in The Federalist to vote for ratification.

    * thanx to M. Meyerson

    4) Thousands of people invovled in debates arguing for or against ratification arrived at their decisions through idiosyncratic thought processes in secret. Dudes cannot read the minds of people who lived hundreds of years ago, no matter how silly and convoluted their argumnents.


    just sayin'

    :cool:

    ---

    Unlike the many of scholars and historians who belittle the role The Federalist played in ratification and becuase of it's obvious lack of effect in New York and it's understood role as a partisan set of arguments, I believe The Federalist has some value and insights into the mindsets of some of the people. But it is not really meant to be one man's arguments for ratification. HAmilton tried that before and it turned many people off. His personal attacks left a bitter taste in the mouths of many---which is why the need to print The Federalist under phoney names came bout. The generalized arguments contained in The Federalist are just that---generalized argumants. Not biblical commandments or words of law.
     
  2. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The Federalist Papers were an attempt to convince the Anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution by arguing that the federal government was going to essentially be completely limited in scope. Now it's true that once the Constitution was ratified Alexander Hamilton did what he could to simply ignore it, but that doesn't take away from the original intent of the Constitution itself. Now if we drift away from original intent without amending the Constitution then we are violating the Constitution.
     
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Original intent? Of what?
     
  4. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The original intent of the Constitution.
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    ld think the only orgiginal intent of the US Constitution was to form a more perfect union. Who besides the Old South of old has been calling for a less perfect unuion?
     
  6. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    No, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and the southern confederacy was essentially the same as the northern.
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Kevin, it is my opinion that the original intent of the framers of the constitutional was to give future generations a form of government they deserve.

    What is wrong with people who hide behind the original intent of men long dead who never in their wildest imaginings would have foresaw silly arguments used in their names\?
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Nope. The framers met in secret and later asked people to ratify an agreement. There was nofedera government to limit. You have the cart before the horse. The confederacy was an abomination. They lost after having caused the slaughter of so many.
     
  9. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    The original intent of the founders was to give future generations a limited constitutional government, not one that simply did whatever it wanted as we have today.
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    kevin, let us make it simple for you:

     

Share This Page