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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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'



---

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Original intent? Of what?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Original intent? Of what?

The original intent of the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Original intent? Of what?

The original intent of the Constitution.

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?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Original intent? Of what?

The original intent of the Constitution.

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?

No, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and the southern confederacy was essentially the same as the northern.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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\?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The original intent of the Constitution.

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?

No, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and the southern confederacy was essentially the same as the northern.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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\?

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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

kevin, let us make it simple for you:

What is the purpose of the US Constitution?
In: History Politics and Society, Founding Fathers, United States History [Edit categories]

[Edit]
Purpose of US Constitution
Read the preamble, that says it better than anything else ever could.


The Constitution is the document that created the present government of the United States. It was written in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. It establishes the three branches of the U.S. government, which are THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (headed by the president), THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (the Congress), and THE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT (and other federal courts). THE BILL OF RIGHTS: explain the basic rights of all American citizens. You can find the Constitution on-line at: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm


To provide a framework for all future laws to allow 13 very different colonies succesfully knit into a single country.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

No, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and the southern confederacy was essentially the same as the northern.

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.

They created the federal government and intended that it should remain a limited federal government, as their writings clearly show.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

kevin, let us make it simple for you:

What is the purpose of the US Constitution?
In: History Politics and Society, Founding Fathers, United States History [Edit categories]

[Edit]
Purpose of US Constitution
Read the preamble, that says it better than anything else ever could.


The Constitution is the document that created the present government of the United States. It was written in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. It establishes the three branches of the U.S. government, which are THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (headed by the president), THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (the Congress), and THE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT (and other federal courts). THE BILL OF RIGHTS: explain the basic rights of all American citizens. You can find the Constitution on-line at: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm


To provide a framework for all future laws to allow 13 very different colonies succesfully knit into a single country.

Yes, they created the specific branches of the government and gave them all specific powers, which means they were meant to be limited to just those powers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government, and the southern confederacy was essentially the same as the northern.

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.

They created the federal government and intended that it should remain a limited federal government, as their writings clearly show.

These writings are before the document was signed/ratified? Sorry bubba, but we were handed an ability to amend the constitution. This is NOT Honduras.

An ability to amend leaves open all possibilities.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

kevin, let us make it simple for you:

What is the purpose of the US Constitution?
In: History Politics and Society, Founding Fathers, United States History [Edit categories]

[Edit]
Purpose of US Constitution
Read the preamble, that says it better than anything else ever could.


The Constitution is the document that created the present government of the United States. It was written in 1787 and went into effect in 1789. It establishes the three branches of the U.S. government, which are THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (headed by the president), THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH (the Congress), and THE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT (and other federal courts). THE BILL OF RIGHTS: explain the basic rights of all American citizens. You can find the Constitution on-line at: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm


To provide a framework for all future laws to allow 13 very different colonies succesfully knit into a single country.

Yes, they created the specific branches of the government and gave them all specific powers, which means they were meant to be limited to just those powers.

The powers of the branches of government are limited---to what we allow them. We can change any of it. Nothing is set in stone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

kevin, you cannot substitute your readings of the constitution for Supreme Court opinion. ThAT IS DEFINITELY WHAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But here is a simple lesson for you:

Separation of Powers

Why is it important to not concentrate too much power in one branch of government? Give examples of what might happen if there were too much power in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch. Give examples of when it might be necessary for one branch to exercise more power than another branch.

In a parliamentary system, like England's, the executive and legislative powers are often closely interconnected. In a presidential system, like the United States', these powers are separated. What are some of the pros and cons of each system?

Some have suggested that having a closer working relationship between the branches of government would end "gridlock" and lead to a more efficient government. Others have argued that the separation of powers was specifically created to "slow down" the pace of government to ensure cool deliberation and not emotional reactions.

What is your opinion?

Does the separation of powers result in reasonable deliberation, or excessive delay?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

kevin, let us make it simple for you:

Yes, they created the specific branches of the government and gave them all specific powers, which means they were meant to be limited to just those powers.

The powers of the branches of government are limited---to what we allow them. We can change any of it. Nothing is set in stone.

They are limited by the Constitution. We can only change the Constitution through the amendment process.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

kevin, you cannot substitute your readings of the constitution for Supreme Court opinion. ThAT IS DEFINITELY WHAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND.

They did intend for the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But here is a simple lesson for you:

Separation of Powers

Why is it important to not concentrate too much power in one branch of government? Give examples of what might happen if there were too much power in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch. Give examples of when it might be necessary for one branch to exercise more power than another branch.

In a parliamentary system, like England's, the executive and legislative powers are often closely interconnected. In a presidential system, like the United States', these powers are separated. What are some of the pros and cons of each system?

Some have suggested that having a closer working relationship between the branches of government would end "gridlock" and lead to a more efficient government. Others have argued that the separation of powers was specifically created to "slow down" the pace of government to ensure cool deliberation and not emotional reactions.

What is your opinion?

Does the separation of powers result in reasonable deliberation, or excessive delay?

More important than the so-called "checks and balances" was the system of federalism which allowed the states to protect their rights from an overreaching federal government. Since the Civil War essentially ended states rights we've seen the rapid expansion of the federal government which simple checks and balances hasn't stopped one bit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

kevin, you cannot substitute your readings of the constitution for Supreme Court opinion. ThAT IS DEFINITELY WHAT THE FRAMERS DID NOT INTEND.

They did intend for the Supreme Court to follow the Constitution, however.

It has always been my opinion that they do---even when I disagree with a ruluing. Democracy is messy.