How do you square Hamilton’s words with your own?
__________________________________________
These are not my words. They are words and ideas of thousands of legal scholars and historical experts who’ve attempted over 200 plus years to make sense of a vague and unclear notion.
To claim complete perfect knowledge either for or against the meaning and intent of NBC is blind stupid arrogance.
But these ARE your words.
There was a specific reason why the founders declined to identify and describe what exactly an NBC is. Do you know why? I do.
You deflected from answering my question re: your words versus Hamilton's words, suggesting that the NBC clause was "a vague and unclear notion." You followed that up with To claim complete perfect knowledge either for or against the meaning and intent of NBC is blind stupid arrogance."
First, I asked you to remark on Hamilton's words, and you declined, waiving it off as "vague and unclear." That's your interpretation, I don't think "thousands of scholars" have remarked on Hamilton's words in Federalist #68.
Second, you demand a high bar of "complete perfect knowledge" as if anything less is not worthy of your comment? I didn't ask for complete and perfect knowledge, only your interpetation of Hamilton. Are you not capable of drawing your own conclusions about the meaning of what Hamilton wrote?
Are you refusing to comment on Hamiltons words in Federalist #68 because you know it blows holes in your argument that the Framers left it to Congress? Hamilton didn't think so, he seemed quite proud and confident in what the "convention" had done.
-PJ