The Federalist Papers: A Revelation!

[whitehall]

Get it right, the Federalist Papers were just letters to the editor. The Constitutional Convention was the basis for the greatest document in human history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Get it right, the Federalist Papers were just letters to the editor. The Constitutional Convention was the basis for the greatest document in human history.

One can only imagine what a threat you'd be.....


....if only you had an education.

 

[jasonnfree]

Oh really, now the roboposter PC has been reprogrammed and upgraded to lecture on the federalist papers. If it had children like it said it did, those children would be diving in dumpsters looking for food (thanks rush) while mom posts away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh really, now the roboposter PC has been reprogrammed and upgraded to lecture on the federalist papers. If it had children like it said it did, those children would be diving in dumpsters looking for food (thanks rush) while mom posts away.

What a new and novel way IQ-free has of re-writing the time worn Leftist doctrine: "always try to silence opposing voices."


The corollary to that (should I wait while you find a dictionary?) is "Never engage in a debate with a conservative....they'll eat your lunch!"

And, sure enough....not a word about the thread itself by IQ-free!




Hey, IQ-free....bet each and every day you wish your SAT's got into three digits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Federalist Papers were the argument for a stronger central government. The Anti-federalist Papers, less known, were the arguments against it.

The former won the argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Federalist Papers were the argument for a stronger central government. The Anti-federalist Papers, less known, were the arguments against it.

The former won the argument.

I realize how far over your head this is.....Waiting for a think tank to begin forming around you would be like waiting for a string of Jenny Craig's to open in Ethiopia

...but the question is exactly what kind of government the Federalists were suggesting would be in effect.




I actually find it difficult dumbing down discussions for you Leftists....but I'll try: the purpose of 'the Papers' was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution, giving it's improvements over the Articles of Confederation....

...while promising the states that they would not lose what they had under the Articles.
Do you know what they had under the Article?

I'm certain that an astute answer will come from you just as Amelia Earhart is circling overhead....




Clearly too nuanced for you....but see if that sixth grader can work with you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Federalist Papers were the argument for a stronger central government. The Anti-federalist Papers, less known, were the arguments against it.

The former won the argument.

I realize how far over your head this is.....Waiting for a think tank to begin forming around you would be like waiting for a string of Jenny Craig's to open in Ethiopia

...but the question is exactly what kind of government the Federalists were suggesting would be in effect.




I actually find it difficult dumbing down discussions for you Leftists....but I'll try: the purpose of 'the Papers' was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution, giving it's improvements over the Articles of Confederation....

...while promising the states that they would not lose what they had under the Articles.
Do you know what they had under the Article?

I'm certain that an astute answer will come from you just as Amelia Earhart is circling overhead....




Clearly too nuanced for you....but see if that sixth grader can work with you.

It never promises they wouldn't lose what they had under the Articles. The whole point of the Constitution was to roll back state's rights in favor of a more powerful central government.

Why do you think there's a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution? Why do you think there's a Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Federalist Papers were the argument for a stronger central government. The Anti-federalist Papers, less known, were the arguments against it.

The former won the argument.

I realize how far over your head this is.....Waiting for a think tank to begin forming around you would be like waiting for a string of Jenny Craig's to open in Ethiopia

...but the question is exactly what kind of government the Federalists were suggesting would be in effect.




I actually find it difficult dumbing down discussions for you Leftists....but I'll try: the purpose of 'the Papers' was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution, giving it's improvements over the Articles of Confederation....

...while promising the states that they would not lose what they had under the Articles.
Do you know what they had under the Article?

I'm certain that an astute answer will come from you just as Amelia Earhart is circling overhead....




Clearly too nuanced for you....but see if that sixth grader can work with you.

It never promises they wouldn't lose what they had under the Articles. The whole point of the Constitution was to roll back state's rights in favor of a more powerful central government.

Why do you think there's a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution? Why do you think there's a Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution?

You've got that down pat!

Combining just the right amount of stupidity with fabrication!

So that's what government schooling is all about!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I realize how far over your head this is.....Waiting for a think tank to begin forming around you would be like waiting for a string of Jenny Craig's to open in Ethiopia

...but the question is exactly what kind of government the Federalists were suggesting would be in effect.




I actually find it difficult dumbing down discussions for you Leftists....but I'll try: the purpose of 'the Papers' was to encourage ratification of the new US Constitution, giving it's improvements over the Articles of Confederation....

...while promising the states that they would not lose what they had under the Articles.
Do you know what they had under the Article?

I'm certain that an astute answer will come from you just as Amelia Earhart is circling overhead....




Clearly too nuanced for you....but see if that sixth grader can work with you.

It never promises they wouldn't lose what they had under the Articles. The whole point of the Constitution was to roll back state's rights in favor of a more powerful central government.

Why do you think there's a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution? Why do you think there's a Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution?

You've got that down pat!

Combining just the right amount of stupidity with fabrication!

So that's what government schooling is all about!

If the states didn't lose any powers or rights they had under the Articles, how did the Federal Government get the power to tax under the Constitution?

They didn't have it under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It never promises they wouldn't lose what they had under the Articles. The whole point of the Constitution was to roll back state's rights in favor of a more powerful central government.

Why do you think there's a Supremacy Clause in the Constitution? Why do you think there's a Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution?

You've got that down pat!

Combining just the right amount of stupidity with fabrication!

So that's what government schooling is all about!

If the states didn't lose any powers or rights they had under the Articles, how did the Federal Government get the power to tax under the Constitution?

They didn't have it under the Articles of Confederation.

One more reason to get rid of government schools.

There is no contention that the states did not agree to allow certain powers to the federal government, as it would be assuming certain duties.


Federalist #32:
"I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states] would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."



....duties on imports and exports....

 

[NYcarbineer]

You've got that down pat!

Combining just the right amount of stupidity with fabrication!

So that's what government schooling is all about!

If the states didn't lose any powers or rights they had under the Articles, how did the Federal Government get the power to tax under the Constitution?

They didn't have it under the Articles of Confederation.

One more reason to get rid of government schools.

There is no contention that the states did not agree to allow certain powers to the federal government, as it would be assuming certain duties.


Federalist #32:
"I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states] would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."



....duties on imports and exports....

So that word salad is meant to concede that the states did in fact give up much sovereignty in ratifying the Constitution, contrary to your previous claim?

lol, there are easier ways to say so, you know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the states didn't lose any powers or rights they had under the Articles, how did the Federal Government get the power to tax under the Constitution?

They didn't have it under the Articles of Confederation.

One more reason to get rid of government schools.

There is no contention that the states did not agree to allow certain powers to the federal government, as it would be assuming certain duties.


Federalist #32:
"I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they [the states] would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."



....duties on imports and exports....

So that word salad is meant to concede that the states did in fact give up much sovereignty in ratifying the Constitution, contrary to your previous claim?

lol, there are easier ways to say so, you know.

Amazing the extent you liars will go to....

If it says black, you say it says white....


You alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving one with the impression of a dope on a bungee cord.

 

[Unkotare]

The question: what was the purpose of the Federalist Papers?

Debate-prep crib notes for those who would argue on behalf of ratification.

 

[Unkotare]

Did I get here too late? Has the discussion fizzled already?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



4. Although called 'The Federalist,' implying the desire to have a government in which the states retain most sovereignty, and play a major role, the authors were those favoring a strong nation government, nationalists, and a monarchist, Hamilton, who was opposed to strong state sovereignty.

See, there is where you go wrong. 'Federalism' was not the argument of the times for a government where the states retained relatively more power;

that was 'Anti-Federalism'.

The argument was not between federalism and nationalism/monarchism. The argument was between federalism and anti-federalism,

the latter being the case for the states to retain much more sovereignty more towards where the Articles of Confederation were.

 

[Unkotare]

Generally speaking: The first 14 of the Federalist Papers talk about why a strong union is necessary. The next 8 examine the problems with the Articles of Confederation. From there up to #35 they discuss the powers that a new, proposed federal government would have that would make it "energetic." From 36 to 50 they address the political philosophy of Republican government and the actual structure of the proposed new government. From there, they look in detail at of each of the three branches of government (but the last two depart from this general form).