Publius1787
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2011
- 6,211
- 676
- 190
Supporting limitations on government since 1920 ACLU
Madison and Hamilton .. New York State .. Federalists versus Anti-Federalists
Hamilton did not support everything he ends up defending in the Federalist.
Compromise. Men compromised for a greater good. They later had quarrels over exactly what they meant when they said........
and then Madison was asked what the Framers meant on something and in a letter he wrote to a friend to look not to what the framers thought they meant or understood, but look to what the ratifiers thought and understood they were ratifying because it was not the clerks who gave the document authority and power...it was the ratifiers...the people.
The US Constitution was written behind closed doors. No official minutes were kept except some record of the proceedings. A compromise was reached. The document was sent out to state conventions elected by the people, not to the State governments/legislatures. They got to choose an up or down vote.
Not very democratic in the popular sense. Representative democracy in a republic.
So what's your point? That the argument for the constitution as displayed in the federalist papers were written in ill faith and meant to deceive, and therefore, not an accurate portrayal despite heavy use to this day by the Supreme Court?
The Federalist were an argument. They are not law. The Constitution was written by an agreed upon process by both Federalists and anti Federalists. It came out of a committee as a compromise.
Heavy use when and in what cases? Please, first you have the audacity to say "No government limitation ever got a liberal excited." when that is patently untrue (see: ACLU ) and now you hump the back of Federalist 41 as if that were the word of god. Well it's not. It was written as an argument to convince the good people of NY to vote for ratification.
Citing an organization founded by communists doesent help your case. The left naturally places the collective before the rights of the individual, and therefore, the property we have in our rights, our lives, and our physical property are compromised. Ergo, there is no power that a liberal does not beleive the federal government falls short of. Can you name one?