FRiend, I made no "more perfect union argument", even though that was key to Lincoln's understanding.
I merely pointed out that the Articles' "perpetual union" was replaced by the Constitution's "more perfect union".
Unequivocally, the new Constitution was a stronger union than the old one.
achilles2000: "You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it."
In fact, there is no argument against lawful secession -- none, zero, nada.
And all of this has been posted before, but your lack of reading comprehension makes it necessary to repeat, and repeat.
Our Founders' original intent regarding disunion was consistently expressed (or implied) as requiring mutual consent, or some material breech of contract such as "oppression", "injury" or "usurpations", which would make mutual consent unnecessary.
But none of these conditions existed in November 1860, when the Slave Power Fire Eaters first began organizing for declarations of secession.
Instead, there was only one significant change -- the 100% constitutional election of "Black Republican" Abraham Lincoln.
So the Deep South began to declare its secessions under conditions which James Madison explained were not constitutional: secession at pleasure.
Still, these declarations did not cause Civil War, a fact with which, if you had any reading comprehension, you'd be thoroughly familiar.
Had the Confederacy patiently avoided war, they could easily have succeeded.
achilles2000: "As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist?
He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking."
FRiend, 100% of the actual Founders of the Constitution of the United States were Federalists -- all of them.
Anti-Federalists were Anti-Constitution, and were NOT Founders, period.
So, by definition, when we are speaking of the Founders' original intent we are speaking of the Federalists' original intent, and those certainly included Federalist Papers' authors, Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
So your beloved anti-Federalists are of no account in discussions of original intent -- because they opposed the Constitution from Day One.
achilles2000: "Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted."
Rubbish. The Federal Government Hamilton helped found remained essentially unchanged until about 100 years ago, with passage of "progressive" 16th & 17th Amendments.
Those provided the money and political power for unlimited Federal expansion.
achilles2000: "By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state."
What, your reading comprehension is so poor you can't even remember what you yourself posted? Amazing.
In post #278 I quoted your references to a leviathan state, the first allegedly proposed by Hamiltion.
achilles2000: "Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it?
How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?"
First remember, when the Alien & Sedition acts were proposed, they were not originally opposed by Vice President Jefferson, because, at that moment at least, they were considered necessary preparations for war with France.
So our Founders, including Jefferson, fully understood that war-time required special actions to protect the republic.
Later, as the threat of war disappeared, the Acts became unnecessary and politics dictated Jefferson's opposition as a readily available "wedge issue" against John Adams' Federalists.
In terms of policy, Jefferson was right of course, but Jefferson himself used the Sedition Act to prosecute some of his own political enemies, before the act expired.
What it all proves is that our Founders were A) realists and B) politicians.
By the way, neither act was ever appealed to the Supreme Court, and "the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21–24."
It remains part of our Founders' original intent.
achilles2000: "For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments."
More rubbish displaying your lack of reading comprehension.
The Tenth Amendment is not in dispute on Free Republic, except as it is used by pro-Confederates to justify unilateral declarations of secession, at pleasure.
The basic problem with your argument is that no Founder ever expressed it -- explicitly or implicitly.
Indeed, just the opposite, every Founder who addressed the subject said "disunion" should be by mutual consent or by some material breech-of-contract, such as "oppression" or "injury".
And none of these conditions existed in November 1860.
achilles2000: "The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini."
You forget, don't you, that Federalist John Marshall was a Founding Father who, along with Madison & Randolf led the fight for ratifying the Constitution in Virginia's Convention.
Marshall was John Adams' Secretary of State and was appointed by Adams to the Supreme Court.
Marshall's opinions therefore qualify as "original intent" of our Founders.
So Marshall did not, in your word, "poison" the Constitution, he helped define it -- for better or worse.
achilles2000: "I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it.
After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off."
Unlike pro-Confederates such as yourself, I don't mark the moment when our republic went off the rails as being Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, but rather as "Progressive" victory 100 years ago in passing the 16th & 17th Amendments, giving Federal government unlimited money & power over states.
And by-the-way, both amendments were strongly supported by former Confederate states -- so this is not, repeat not, a North-South thang.
Repealing those two amendments alone would go a long way towards restoring the relationship between Federal & State intended by Founders.
As for all those checks you seem sooo worried about -- there's no reason why states or private companies couldn't do the job, not just as well, but far better.
You are long on assertions that simply are wrong.
1. The Constitution was a compromise. Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it.
2. “Federalists” were a political party that died an early death. Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a “Federalist”. If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”. As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI.
3. Your secession mechanism is your invention. The Constitution gives the federal government no powers except those that are enumerated, and those don’t include forcing states to remain in the Union. The Constitution does reserve the states individual rights and does not subject them to “Perpetual Union” as the Articles did. Odd that you support succession from the Articles in spite of the language of the Articles, and oppose it under the Constitution despite the language of the Constitution.
4.Your use of “war” and “realism” gives away the game. It doesn’t matter that the Alien & Sedition Act was lawless and unconstitutional, just as you don’t care that Lincoln did a number of things that were lawless and unconstitutional. All you need to do to amend the Constitution is to claim that some lawful action is “unrealistic”, and so the government can ignore the Constitution. As I have said, you really suppoort a “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, not original intent.
5. The Republic didn’t remain unchanged for 100+ years. The Civil War completely transformed the nature of American government. The Lincoln regime forced an unlawful income tax and fiat money on the country, for example. These toxic policies laid the groundwork for what was cemented into place less than 50 years later. Of course, the changes were more far reaching that just those two examples.
6. Hamilton got very little language into the Constitution. One provision he did get was the federal assumption of the war debt. Yet, there is nothing that permits a central bank or (federal)paper money, for example, both of which Hamilton favored.
7. Marshall seized something that no one gave the courts. You apparently believe that anyone who was what you call a “founder” isn’t bound by the document NEGOTIATED and ratified (by the states, the true founders).