Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Federalist’

Secessionist or Federalist–which reclaims the Providential wisdom of America’s founding?

November 15, 2012 1 comment

By Alan Keyes

Among those still enthralled by the GOP, I guess that a majority would say they still respect America’s Revolutionary founders. And among those who do, some would even profess to adhere to the principles of the Revolution the founders made. Of course, that Revolution was not completed when the representatives of the people in their respective states moved to declare their independence on July 2, 1776.

United States political activist and former di...

United States political activist and former diplomat, Dr. Alan Keyes (en) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nor was it completed once they had supported the declaration made on July 4th by successful battle. But the aim they fought for was provisionally achieved once they united to ordain and establish the Constitution of a general government that respected the Revolution’s principles.

I frequently consult the famous articles on the Constitution produced by some of the American revolutionaries as part of the effort to persuade the people of the respective states to ratify the Constitution. In its compiled and edited form, their commentary has come to be known as “The Federalist.” In Federalist 10, Madison wrote: “In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.”

Read more…

DEVVY’s EMAIL ALERTS: Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare is insane… (“Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress”)

June 28, 2012 23 comments

Links are generally posted at my web site

http://devvy.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/r/alerts/578108374387/
______________

Obamacare upheld.

Not under the commerce clause, but under the taxing power of the Outlaw Congress.

Read more…

There Ought To Be a Law Against Making So Many Laws

June 14, 2012 2 comments

There Ought To Be a Law Against Making So Many Laws

The Aspen Times ^ | June 14, 2012 | Charlie Leonard

Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:38:58 AM by Aspenhuskerette

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

Read more…

(“Clyde Wilson [send him mail] is a recovering professor. Now that he is no longer a professor of history he can at last be a real historian.”) ~ The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution by Clyde Wilson

January 27, 2012 3 comments

…..James Madison is reputed by those who don’t know any better to be the “Father of the Constitution.” In fact, Madison lost more votes than he won at Philadelphia, although he did more maneuvering and scribbling than any other delegate.

Secretary of State James Madison, who won Marb...

Image via Wikipedia

In his almost half-century of post-ratification life Madison was all over the place, contradicting himself numerous times on constitutional interpretation.

But Madison himself in one of his more lucid moments tells us where we should look for the meaning of the Constitution.

The meaning of the Constitution, he avowed, is to be found in the understanding of those who ratified it, who alone gave what was merely a proposal all the authority it possesses.

So we must look for understanding at the discussions that preceded the ratification conventions and at the conventions themselves. McClanahan knows this ground thoroughly and tells us in convincing chapter and verse on each article what those who ratified the Constitution intended and, perhaps more importantly, what they did not intend.

The opponents of the Constitution feared that the document would prove an instrument for the incremental establishment of a centralized dictatorship over the people.

They were right. But, as McClanahan makes clear, the proponents of the Constitution swore point by point that the powers granted were limited and no cause for alarm. These assurances persuaded some of the doubtful.

Ratification would never have passed otherwise, and, as it was, it only passed with assurances that amendments would be swiftly adopted and with several States making it clear that their ratification was revocable.So in interpretation we ought to be guided by what the proponents of the Constitution plainly said it intended. This is what McClanahan elucidates point by point. If we accept what its proponents said, then those who ratified it believed that it established a limited federal power.

Third-string “political philosophers” and “Constitutional scholars,” and even learned jurists, have made an icon out of The Federalist, but it is only one of many discussions of the Constitution. It was a partisan document designed to overcome the objections of New York, and was not very convincing to its audience since ratification passed in New York by the narrowest possible margin Furthermore, it discusses the Constitution as it was merely a proposal under consideration and not the Constitution as ratified by the people of the States, who made their intentions clear in the undisputable language of the 10th Amendment.

The authors – Madison, Hamilton, and Jay – were all disappointed that the Constitution did not centralize power as much as they would have liked, yet realized what they had to say to win over the majority. On the part of Alexander Hamilton, contributions to The Federalist were outright dishonest, because once he got into power he worked to do all sorts of things that he claimed the Constitution did not authorize.The Federalist, which we see cited all the time as the key to the Constitution is speculation and was never ratified by anybody.

Read more…

(“Republicaism Wasn’t Always Rotten”) ~ Reflections Upon Republicanism: From Jefferson to Van Buren by Charles A. Burris

January 23, 2012 2 comments

Out of the American Revolution emerged a unique political ideology or system of belief – republicanism.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peal...

Image via Wikipedia

Whether Anti-Federalist or Federalist, Democratic-Republican or Federalist, Democratic-Republican or National-Republican, Democrat or Whig, this vision lay at the center of Americans’ beliefs. It remains today the root of what we as a people believe. Political debate then, as now, centers upon who has remained most true to this vision.

Republicanism was a political outlook centering upon the themes of liberty versus power and civic virtue versus political corruption. The main lesson of republicanism was that a virtuous citizenry preserved its freedom by keeping government within strict constitutional bounds. Corruption and big government went hand in hand, for only government could rig the market in favor of an artificial aristocracy. Revolutionary republicanism was nurtured in the early republic by such Virginians as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Randolph of Roanoke, and John Taylor of Caroline.

Read more…

Understanding Why the Constitution Was and Remains a Detriment to Individual Liberty | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

December 20, 2011 11 comments

The opposition to this approach was the Democratic Republican Party and Thomas Jefferson, who opposed the Constitution along with other stalwarts of the revolution, namely James Madison.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peal...

Image via Wikipedia

These men feared that the Federalists desired a corrupted version of England’s monarchist approach, which would include a standing army, high taxes and government-subsidized monopolies. It only takes but a brief minute to fast forward and see through time that exactly that has occurred.

Read more…

The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act ~ “It was not Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry that led the effort to call the Constitutional Convention, which neither even attended. It was Hamilton and his Federalists that wanted it” « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

October 12, 2011 3 comments

…The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act ~ “It was not Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry that led the effort to call the Constitutional Convention, which neither even attended. It was Hamilton and his Federalists that wanted it”

By 1787, there were two dominant parties in America. Unlike the two dominant parties today, the Federalists and what would later become the Democratic-Republicans of that time really were diametrically opposed on fundamental issues.

Led by Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists sought a much more powerful central government with a central bank, a standing army, and an alliance with big business that would control the economy.

In opposition to them were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and their followers that believed that the central government’s powers should be limited, and that power should be concentrated locally (and mistrusted generally). They opposed a central bank and a standing army and supported a truly free market.

It was not Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry that…..

EXCERPT…..

*****

via The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act ~ “It was not Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry that led the effort to call the Constitutional Convention, which neither even attended. It was Hamilton and his Federalists that wanted it” « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,253 other followers