Replies

In his post #597 Kalamata lights into SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall (from 1801 to 1835), claiming:

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "...an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising.
Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people.
Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power."

Setting aside Kalamata's use of the N-word (Nazi), let's focus on his main point: Marshall the devil.
This is extraordinarily important for everyone to grasp, because it clearly, unequivocally identifies just who our new FRiend Kalamata is.
So let's start with: who was Chief Justice Marshall?

As a young man John Marshall served in the Revolutionary War and the Virginia legislature where, in 1788, he allied with James Madison in helping ratify the new US Constitution.
After ratification, Marshall allied with Hamilton and other Federalists, was appointed to positions by both Presidents Washington and Adams, eventually as Adams' Secretary of State before confirmation as SCOTUS Chief Justice.

In short, John Marshall well qualifies as a Federalist, ally of other Federalists, pro-Constitution Founding Father.
As such Marshall's ideas & opinions help us define the term, "Founders' Original Intent", from which all truly conservative ideas develop.

And now that we know who Marshall was, we also know, exactly, who is Kalamata.
Kalamata is on the opposite side, the opposition to the 1787 Constitution, the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders who became (under President Washington) the anti-Administration faction and eventually our Jeffersonian Democrats.
Democrats, originally opposed to the Constitution have, ever since, looked for ways to confound & defeat it, most recently in the absurdly ridiculous impeachment trial of Republican President Trump.

Oh, sure, just like Kalamata, Democrats talk the talk, especially when they're out of power, hoping to weaponize the Constitution against their opponents.
But as President Jefferson was the first to illustrate, once in power, they ignore as much of the Constitution as doesn't suit them.
That's our FRiend Kalamata:

Opposing the Constitution since Day One.
Misinterpreting, confounding & confusing the Constitution from the beginning -- i.e., nullification, secession & now impeachment.
Weaponizing their own version of the Constitution against political opponents.
Ignoring the Constitution when they are in power.

Of course, Kalamata claims to be a conservative, indeed a super-conservative, a real conservative, the only true conservative in a sea of Hamiltonian central-planning "crony capitalist" sharks!
But what, exactly, does he wish to conserve?
Not the Constitution of our true Founders, like Madison, Hamilton & John Marshall, but rather the ideas of anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist anti-Founders, in short, Jeffersonian Democrats.

Kalamata on Charles Pinckney: "Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King.
They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight.
Lincoln realized that, so he was for war."

Well, first, the 1860 election of Lincoln had nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with the power-hungry corruption of Democrats, then as now.

And second, the truth is, in 1787 Americans were far more scared by their too-weak Articles of Confederation government, it's inability to deal with Shay's Rebellion, or honor our Revolutionary War debts, or standardize taxes, or make "internal improvements," etc.
Of course they wanted no king, but they did want a government more adequate for its responsibilities and so they ratified their new Constitution against opposition from Kalamata's heroes, the anti-Federalist anti-Founders, who became Democrats.

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In his post #597 Kalamata lights into SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall (from 1801 to 1835), claiming:"
>>Kalamata identified Marshall as: "...an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising. Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people. Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Setting aside Kalamata's use of the N-word (Nazi), let's focus on his main point: Marshall the devil. This is extraordinarily important for everyone to grasp, because it clearly, unequivocally identifies just who our new FRiend Kalamata is."

I am a friend of the Constitution and a free republic, Joey. That is why I despise the tyranny of John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln (and all other central-planning crony capitalists.)

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So let's start with: who was Chief Justice Marshall? As a young man John Marshall served in the Revolutionary War and the Virginia legislature where, in 1788, he allied with James Madison in helping ratify the new US Constitution. After ratification, Marshall allied with Hamilton and other Federalists, was appointed to positions by both Presidents Washington and Adams, eventually as Adams' Secretary of State before confirmation as SCOTUS Chief Justice."

Benedict Arnold was a war hero, before he became a traitor.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In short, John Marshall well qualifies as a Federalist, ally of other Federalists, pro-Constitution Founding Father. As such Marshall's ideas & opinions help us define the term, "Founders' Original Intent", from which all truly conservative ideas develop."

Marshall was an anti-Constitution, Hamiltonian mercantilist, who routinely attempted to usurp power from the people. Sometimes he got away with it; other times he didn't, such as the time when Jackson ignored his corrupt ruling that stipulated a National Bank was constitutional, even though it can be found nowhere in the Constitution. Jackson essentially told Marshall to pound sand.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "And now that we know who Marshall was, we also know, exactly, who is Kalamata."

True. John Marshall was a living-constitutionalist -- a "good" little progressive; while Kalamata is a strict constructionist -- a conservative republican.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Kalamata is on the opposite side, the opposition to the 1787 Constitution, the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders who became (under President Washington) the anti-Administration faction and eventually our Jeffersonian Democrats."

If I am to wear any label other than a conservative republican, it would be a Jeffersonian Republican.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Democrats, originally opposed to the Constitution have, ever since, looked for ways to confound & defeat it, most recently in the absurdly ridiculous impeachment trial of Republican President Trump."

Keep in mind that Joey is always deceptive. Look at the policies, not the labels. This is how the parties' names transformed over time:

There were two major political parties at the beginning of our nation: the Federalists, which elected the first two presidents, Washington and John Adams; and the Jeffersonian Republicans, which was formed in opposition to Federalist principles.

In general, the Federalists supported policies that favored the few (the politically-connected,) over the many, primarily at the instigation of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, whom author Ron Chernow labeled as an elitist who kept his distance from the common people:

"Jefferson cultivated rapport with the common people, while Hamilton stuck with his dated, paternalistic view of politics. The Federalists found themselves on the wrong side of a historical divide, associated with well-bred gentlemen, while Republicans appealed to a more democratic, rambunctious populace." [Ron Chernow, "Alexander Hamilton." Penguin Books, 2004, p.657]

More to the point:

"Few figures in American history have aroused such visceral love or loathing as Alexander Hamilton. To this day, he seems trapped in a crude historical cartoon that pits "Jeffersonian democracy" against "Hamiltonian aristocracy." For Jefferson and his followers, wedded to their vision of an agrarian Eden, Hamilton was the American Mephistopheles, the proponent of such devilish contrivances as banks, factories, and stock exchanges. They demonized him as a slavish pawn of the British Crown, a closet monarchist, a Machiavellian intriguer, a would-be Caesar. Noah Webster contended that Hamilton's "ambition, pride, and overbearing temper" had destined him "to be the evil genius of this country." Hamilton's powerful vision of American nationalism, with states subordinate to a strong central government and led by a vigorous executive branch, aroused fears of a reversion to royal British ways. His seeming solicitude for the rich caused critics to portray him as a snobbish tool of plutocrats who was contemptuous of the masses. For another group of naysayers, Hamilton's unswerving faith in a professional military converted him into a potential despot. "From the first to the last words he wrote," concluded historian Henry Adams, "I read always the same Napoleonic kind of adventuredom." Even some Hamilton admirers have been unsettled by a faint tincture of something foreign in this West Indian transplant; Woodrow Wilson grudgingly praised Hamilton as "a very great man, but not a great American." [Ibid. p.3]

The migration of the political party names is as follows:

The Hamiltonian Federalists became the National Republicans, then the Whigs, and then the Lincoln Republicans.

The Jeffersonian Republicans, also known as the Democrat-Republican Party, eventually became the Democrat Party during the 1830's Jacksonian era (e.g., the "Jacksonian Democrats,") but was still generally known for limited government and opposition to corruption.

During and after the Lincoln Revolution, the Democrat Party was virtually destroyed. The party did not elect another president for 20 years, at which time Grover "Mr. Honest" Cleveland took office. Cleveland brought forward the Jeffersonian doctrine of limited government and opposition to political corruption. He was elected twice in non-consecutive terms.

The next Democrat to be elected president was Woodrow Wilson, who was in reality a Hamiltonian-Lincolnite in disguise, since he adopted the big-government, mercantilist, central-banking, progressive policies of Hamilton and Lincoln. From that point forward, the Democrats became the true Party of Lincoln.

Over time, many of the progressive republicans switched to the Democrat Party. That led to a "secession" of limited-government conservatives from the Democrat Party to the Republicans, the most notable of which was Jesse Helms.

And that explains how the big-government Party of Lincoln became the big-government Democrat Party of today; and how the limited-government Jeffersonian Democrats are now known as limited-government conservative Republicans. . . in a nutshell.

Mr. Kalamata

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Of course, Kalamata claims to be a conservative, indeed a super-conservative, a real conservative, the only true conservative in a sea of Hamiltonian central-planning "crony capitalist" sharks! But what, exactly, does he wish to conserve? Not the Constitution of our true Founders, like Madison, Hamilton & John Marshall, but rather the ideas of anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist anti-Founders, in short, Jeffersonian Democrats."

Even James Madison abandoned the corrupt Hamiltonian-Federalist Party, Joey, before it had barely gotten off the ground; while the crony-capitalists' Clay, Webster and Lincoln embraced it, despite its history of corruption.

Madison and Jefferson formed the National Gazette newspaper in 1791 to help fight against the Federalist gangsters. I have previously quoted several times from one of their editorials. This is Madison promoting his limited-government doctrine in the Congress:

"If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
"The language held in various discussions of this House, is a proof that the doctrine in question was never entertained by this body. Arguments, wherever the subject would permit, have constantly been drawn from the peculiar nature of this Government, as limited to certain enumerated powers, instead of extending, like other Governments, to all cases not particularly excepted..."
"In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider."
[James Madison, House of Representatives, February 6, 1792, in John C. Rives, "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 Vol I." D. Appleton & Company, 1857, p.363]

As you can see, James Madison was a Jeffersonian Democrat, not a Lincoln Democrat.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Oh, sure, just like Kalamata, Democrats talk the talk, especially when they're out of power, hoping to weaponize the Constitution against their opponents. But as President Jefferson was the first to illustrate, once in power, they ignore as much of the Constitution as doesn't suit them."

As explained previously, Joey is always deceptive; in this case comparing apples to oranges. Jefferson's rare usurpation was always for the benefit of the nation; unlike Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln, whose corruption and usurpations were always for the benefit of themselves, and their crony friends.

****************

>>Kalamata on Charles Pinckney: "Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King. They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight. Lincoln realized that, so he was for war."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Well, first, the 1860 election of Lincoln had nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with the power-hungry corruption of Democrats, then as now."

Nope. Everyone in those days understood that dishonest Abe Lincoln was Alexander Hamilton on steroids. That is why the Southern states scrambled before he even took office.

****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "And second, the truth is, in 1787 Americans were far more scared by their too-weak Articles of Confederation government, it's inability to deal with Shay's Rebellion, or honor our Revolutionary War debts, or standardize taxes, or make "internal improvements," etc.. Of course they wanted no king, but they did want a government more adequate for its responsibilities and so they ratified their new Constitution against opposition from Kalamata's heroes, the anti-Federalist anti-Founders, who became Democrats."

Are you referring to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson? If so, count me in.

Mr. Kalamata