the federalist papers, the documents which kill all the right wing memes

evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers



Federalist Papers


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search






Title page of the first printing of the Federalist Papers (1788)
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October of 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1] The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
Click to expand...

The ratification of the Constitution is a simplification of what “federalism” actually was. Support for the Constitution was strongest among the federalist but it didn’t contain a “Bill Of Rights.” Madison supported ratifying the Constitution because he thought it was the best deal he could get at the time and he had authored much of what was originally ratified. The Republicans at the time wanted a Bill Of Rights included, while the Federalist like Hamilton and Adams thought America’s executive should be a monarch. They favored even the importation of an appointed British Prince to rule as the life-long executive and establishing an Aristocracy rather than establishing an elected President. The Republicans won the debate to establish an elected President but compromised by not forcing a Bill Of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill Of Rights, i. e. the first ten amendments was added and ratified two years later.

Original federalism favored a strong federal government even a monarchy. Republicanism originated by Jefferson and Madison favored a limited federal government and strong States Rights. After the Adams Presidency republicanism won the Presidency, Jefferson), and Congress and held it even through the John Quincy Adams era who became a republican, i. e. known then as a “democratic” republican party. John Adams was the only “federalist” to ever be President and the federalist party died out. The Democratic Republican Party later became known as the “Democrat” Party under Andrew Jackson but it had little to no resemblance to the Socialist Democrat Party of today. The old Democrat Party was a strong States Rights limited Federal Government Party. The Democrat Party began evolving into the Socialist Nanny State BIG Federal Government Party under the leadership of the progressives Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
 
evince said:
Jefferson called them the greatest tutorial on government ever written.


they were in part written by peolle like Madison.

the father of the consitution.

they are about HOW an WHY the constitution says what it says by the very people who wrote it.



You FEAR what the say huh?
Click to expand...

Jefferson only supported the Constitution after the Bill Of Rights was added. He was very, very disappointed in the original version. In case you never noticed the 10th amendment to the Bill Of rights limits the powers of the federal government and reserves most powers to the States and the people. That of course is totally contrary to what the Leftist Socialist Nanny State Democrat Party stands for today.

Regarding the federalist Hamilton, he was a BIG federal government wonk who along with John Adams favored a huge all powerful federal government and even promoted the idea of it being ruled over by an imported British Prince to be crowned King Of America having he and his offspring serving in that capacity for life. He also opposed the Bill Of Rights.

The other federalist John Adams concurred with Hamilton and also opposed the Bill Of Rights and favored a British Monarch Aristocracy for America. Adams also authored through Congress the “Alien and Sedation Act” that imposed jail terms on folks exercising their free speech when it was opposed to him or the federalist ideology. Federalism died a fast and unsympathetic death when the republican Jefferson defeated Adams for the Presidency. Even his son John Quincy Adams became a “democratic republican” and abandoned many of the federalist ideas.
 
Threedee said:
One interesting point the antifederalists made was that Article III would effectively end the long established common law practice of juries interpreting the letter and intent of the law. Jury nullification was quite common practice back then.
Click to expand...


very interesting.

can you site the anti federalist paper that is discussed in .

I would love to read some more about it from the very source.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then you need to post your cite please
Click to expand...



fto9rt.jpg



This book will tell you everything you need to know about the father of central planning and big government in America - Hamilton.

Every leading progressive .. from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt .. to Woodrow Wilson .. to Franklin Roosevelt .. to George Bush .. to Barrack Obama received inspiration from Hamilton who's ideas were asserted into American government much more so unfortunately than did Jefferson's and today Hamilton's ideas and his visions can be affirmed by the size and scope of America's leviathan central authority.
 
evince said:
want to discuss the federalist papers?



we can start right with number one and work our way through.


The right will be seen for what they are.


You people on the right take the side of the antifederalists and NOT the good ones.
Click to expand...

Instead of defending my politically conservative beliefs against the hydras and dragons of your imagined "right wing memes", I would like to hear you make the case that any tenet argued for by the Federalists in support of ratification is represented in the "values" of the modern left in the United States.

I find your OP puzzling because I have never encountered anyone on the left embracing Federalist ideals of conferred powers and retained rights (negative liberty) or really, any of the fundamental philosophies of the founding / framing period. Liberal / progressive "values" (e.g., 20th Century second and third generation rights) are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the US Constitution.

All I ever hear is chastisement from the left when I quote from the Federalist Papers. Not because they stand in any kind of opposition to what I support BUT that they are of zero consequence today. I am told that the Federalist Papers are not to be held as offering any illumination on the Constitution, they are to be dismissed as operational in our modern, enlightened condition and should be abandoned as legitimate foundational political commentary (mostly because they are tainted by old-dead-white-guy-syndrome).

I would welcome any explanation you could offer showing Federalist thought being supportive of liberal / progressive ideals . . .

Failing that I guess I'd settle for an explanation of why you think the Federalist Papers stand in opposition of what you think "right wing memes" are.
 
Last edited:
The Federalist Papers are irrelevant.....try reading the US Constitution....thats the law of the land.
 
NOVA said:
Cool.....then we can start on

The Communist Manifesto
and
Chairman Mao's Little Red Book

and the left will be seen for what they are.
Click to expand...

So true.

Much of the left's position on the Federalist or any record of original intent is rooted in the need to scrub those principles from the American consciousness and overwhelm the electorate with people who are completely ignorant of them. For the left to succeed, 20th century communitarian ideals must be misrepresented as being in agreement with fundamental constitutional principles.

The modern left's agenda on the Constitution is to destroy the roadblocks to their agenda and if people can be led to believe Marx and Engels were founding fathers, all the better!
 
NOVA said:
The Federalist Papers are irrelevant.....try reading the US Constitution....thats the law of the land.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has no issue with examining the Federalist for instruction on establishing what the Constitution says. That was after all their purpose; to explain to the people what the scope of each power conferred to the federal government was, and to what operations over state authority those powers extended.

The Federalist Papers were/are the primer for understanding the Constitution.
 
evince said:
very interesting.

can you site the anti federalist paper that is discussed in .

I would love to read some more about it from the very source.
Click to expand...

I don't have the original sources, but The Teaching Company put out a great lecture series on the debates surrounding ratification, and the issue of juries and the common law tradition came up during the course. If you want to check it out, here's the link.

http://reviews.teach12.com/3456/4878/reviews.htm?page=2
 
evince said:
Jefferson called them the greatest tutorial on government ever written.


they were in part written by peolle like Madison.

the father of the consitution.

they are about HOW an WHY the constitution says what it says by the very people who wrote it.



You FEAR what the say huh?
Click to expand...

You do realize that both Jefferson and Madison were Republicans, don't you?
 
Abatis said:
Instead of defending my politically conservative beliefs against the hydras and dragons of your imagined "right wing memes", I would like to hear you make the case that any tenet argued for by the Federalists in support of ratification is represented in the "values" of the modern left in the United States.

I find your OP puzzling because I have never encountered anyone on the left embracing Federalist ideals of conferred powers and retained rights (negative liberty) or really, any of the fundamental philosophies of the founding / framing period. Liberal / progressive "values" (e.g., 20th Century second and third generation rights) are incompatible with the fundamental principles of the US Constitution.

All I ever hear is chastisement from the left when I quote from the Federalist Papers. Not because they stand in any kind of opposition to what I support BUT that they are of zero consequence today. I am told that the Federalist Papers are not to be held as offering any illumination on the Constitution, they are to be dismissed as operational in our modern, enlightened condition and should be abandoned as legitimate foundational political commentary (mostly because they are tainted by old-dead-white-guy-syndrome).

I would welcome any explanation you could offer showing Federalist thought being supportive of liberal / progressive ideals . . .

Failing that I guess I'd settle for an explanation of why you think the Federalist Papers stand in opposition of what you think "right wing memes" are.
Click to expand...

She needs to have someone explain your post to her
 
Abatis said:
So true.

Much of the left's position on the Federalist or any record of original intent is rooted in the need to scrub those principles from the American consciousness and overwhelm the electorate with people who are completely ignorant of them. For the left to succeed, 20th century communitarian ideals must be misrepresented as being in agreement with fundamental constitutional principles.

The modern left's agenda on the Constitution is to destroy the roadblocks to their agenda and if people can be led to believe Marx and Engels were founding fathers, all the better!
Click to expand...

Hey... that's not the liberals, that's us. It'd be nice if the left's opponents didn't get credit for our ideas.

In any event, the CM is a much more important document than the US constitution. One preaches a doctrine of absolute liberation, the other legalizes sustained oppression.
 
According to Adrienne Koch, Jefferson and Madison: the Great Collaboration (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950), they wee Republicans.

An example, Jefferson to Paine:

"Would you believe it possible that in this country there should be high & important characters who need your lessons in republicanism, & who do not heed them? It is but too true that we have a sect [Federalists, notably Alexander Hamilton] preaching up & pouting after an English constitution of king, lords, & commons, & whose heads are itching for crowns, coronets & mitres. But our people, my good friend, are firm and unanimous in their principles of republicanism & there is no better proof of it than that they love what you write and read it with delight."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top