And to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective:
1) It was written 40 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
2) It was written as private correspondence, not in a public forum.
3) It is contrary to 40 years of actual legislative history.
4) It is contrary to what is in the actual Constitution.
5) If it was indeed intended "as a negative and preventive provision", then why isn't there any language to that effect in Article I, Section 10?
I think you'll find people here are quite able to place the letter in perspective unassisted.
We're waiting....
Waiting for you to show some integrity....
Or for the sun to blow up into a red giant.
Whichever comes first.
1) It was written 40 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
Irrelevant to your promise "Nowhere does Madison say 'it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government'. You find that phrase and I'll retract my statement with an apology."
2) It was written as private correspondence, not in a public forum.
Irrelevant to your promise "Nowhere does Madison say 'it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government'. You find that phrase and I'll retract my statement with an apology."
3) It is contrary to 40 years of actual legislative history. 4) It is contrary to what is in the actual Constitution.
Irrelevant to your promise "Nowhere does Madison say 'it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government'. You find that phrase and I'll retract my statement with an apology."
5) If it was indeed intended "as a negative and preventive provision", then why isn't there any language to that effect in Article I, Section 10?
Irrelevant to your promise "Nowhere does Madison say 'it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government'. You find that phrase and I'll retract my statement with an apology."