There are Trillions at Stake

We can argue for or against whether saving the CIA is the right thing to do. But to start any conversation that sounds sane you have to first, right up front, acknowledge that the CIA is a corrupt organization. They tried to engineer and rig a POTUS election. If you can’t accept that then YOU ARE IN DENIAL and your opinion MEANS NOTHING.

Having worked with some folks in Langley, I can assure you the organization did not do that. It came chiefly from ONE person, with the help of some carefully selected lieutenants.

Get rid of CIA? Cool. The what becomes of our national clandestine HUMINT capability? No one seems to know the answer to that. SIGINT does NOT replace HUMINT.

The local PTA, grocery store, City Hall etc do not generally operate in secret, do not have the power to assassinate, do not have secret budgets, have not used their power and influence 6 ways to Sunday to remove sitting President(s)

That was NOT the argument. The argument was corruption.

As to the CIA writ large, it has good people and bad people. Like any other organization.

FACT: Brennan did was Brennan did because the US electorate voted Obama in TWICE.

If you vote for corruption, why in Hades does anyone expect righteousness?

Getting rid of the CIA is not the answer, as some on this forum suggested. Dealing with our moral decay and morality as a nation is: and that means coming to a personal, authentic, relationship with Jesus Christ.

No one should expect righteousness in this country absent that.

Well & sensibly said!

SecAmndmt: "At best, it is disingenuous to refer to an anti-Federalist as “anti-American”."

No, logically, citizens of the United States are known as Americans, therefore, people who oppose the United States under it's current Constitution are, logically, anti-Americans.
Of course, none of the original anti-Federalists were also anti-Americans, since they all favored the United States to continue as it had been under the old Articles of Confederation.
But once that option was gone -- after ratifications -- they remained in opposition to the Constitution, insisting on a form of "strict construction" which would have returned the USA to conditions more like those under the Articles.

Anti-Federalists of 1788 became the anti-Administration faction under President Washington and, after 1792, now lead by Jefferson & Madison, what we call Jeffersonian Democrats.
Jefferson's Democrats remained "strict constructionists" in opposition to Presidents Washington & Adams' Federalism until the election of 1800.
During that time we begin to see the first serious anti-Americanism from Jeffersonian Democrats -- Jefferson's Nullification proposal.
But it didn't last long.

Once Jefferson's Democrats took political power in 1801, "strict construction" went out the window -- so much so that a minority within the party formed their own faction, lead by John Randolph of Roanoke, VA, which called themselves "Old Republicans", or sometimes "Tertium Quids" -- a third party.

Typical of Democrats to this day, Jefferson's Democrats were rebellious when out of power, but authoritarian and expansive of government when in power.
And that "in power" then lasted almost unbroken until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
Then the Democrats latent anti-Americanism erupted in full force in the form of Fire Eaters' secession, Confederacy and declared war against the United States.

Democrats from Day One were anti-American.

SecAmndmt: "As to “internal improvements”, the Federal Reserve is not even remotely one of them... unless one considers legalized counterfeiting & theft of wealth from the middle class, followed by transfer of said wealth to the uber-wealthy as “improvement”."

I'm no expert on the Federal Reserve, but historically it fills the role first played by the First & Second National Banks.
Those banks were eventually supported by every major Founder with the notable exception of Jefferson himself.
Even Jefferson's protégé, James Madison, was persuaded to reluctantly approve the Second National Bank in 1816.
In the end, the Second National Bank was killed off by President Andrew Jackson who had his own ideas on how to manage the US economy -- beginning with: he paid-off (paid off, not just paid down) the national debt, the only President ever to do so.

Anyway, I don't know enough about the Federal Reserve to either defend or condemn it, except to notice that our current President is not afraid to criticize it from time to time.
And I do see where Founders Original Intent included a National Bank.

>>Kalamata wrote: "As usual, Joey's post is deceptive; but, in all fairness, he could simply be as dumb as a box of rocks. For example, Joey is on record claiming Alexander Hamilton was a federalist and Jefferson was anti-federalist, when the opposite is true. That is pretty dumb."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "I'm not certain if "dumb as a box of rocks" is the correct term for Kalamata, he certainly seems plenty smart enough. "Delusional" would be a kind term for him, LSS (lying sack of... stuff) probably more accurate. In this particular example, by historical definitions, Federalists & anti-Federalists were originally those who supported or opposed the 1787 Constitution."

As usual, Joey's post is deceptive; but Joey has now demonstrated he really is as dumb as a box of rocks. Federalism implies a republican form of government: a compact between regional governments by which a general government is established to handle general affairs, such as raising armies, handling postal matters, determining weights and measures, etc., while the regional governments (e.g., the States) handle all other affairs within their respective regions, such as police, education, religion, interstate commerce, etc..

Joey is probably confused because of the shenanigans of Alexander Hamilton, a nationalist, who hijacked the term "federalist," and then deceptively applied that name ("Federalist") to the British monarchial-type party of the Washington-Adams administrations. The doctrine of the anti-federalist "Federalist" Party was later incorporated into the anti-federalist Whig party, which was then incorporated into the anti-federalist "Republican" Party (e.g., the RINOs).

The true federalist party was the Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, which incorporated doctrines similar to modern-day conservative Republicans.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Federalists wrote the US Constitution and supported its ratification -- that certainly includes men like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, but not Thomas Jefferson."

Anti-Federalists, like Hamilton, attempted to write the U.S. Constitution, but their doctrine was soundly rejected in the conventions.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Anti-Federalists were those who first opposed the 1787 Constitution and later the Washington & Adams administrations. Those included such notables as Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams and, yes, Thomas Jefferson."

Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism." Patrick Henry, like Hamilton, was an anti-federalist, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Hamilton was a big-government monarchist who favored an all-powerful central government, while Henry would have been happy without even a general government. Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, opposed a strong central government in favor of a limited general government bound by the chains of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey also promotes the Hamilton-Marshall-Clay-Lincon mercantilist system of big-government crony-capitalism as both constitutional and as federalism. That is dumber than dumb! "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Again, I dont' think our Dan-child is "dumb", I think he just enjoys lying so much he can't control it, can't stop himself from doing it. In this case, he's referring to the Federalists political party of Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Marshall. These are the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, it's their opinions we refer to with the term "Founders' Original Intent"."

Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism." Neither of those three were federalists, but were nationalists (e.g., anti-federalists.) Only Hamilton, of the three, attended the Federal Convention.

Hamilton promoted a British-style financial system and national bank, which was rejected in convention. The nationalist John Adams, a strong proponent of a British-style monarchy, wasn't a participate in either the federal or state-ratifying conventions. John Marshall, who promoted the Hamiltonian nationalist view, was a participate in the Virginia convention. Later, as Chief Justice, he ruled that the national bank – the bank that the Federal Convention soundly rejected – was constitutional, after all! What a weasel!

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So our Dan-child was taught as a boy that these Federalists were the bad-people and that the good-guys were those who opposed the Constitution -- the anti-Federalists -- like Patrick Henry & Samuel Adams as later lead by Jefferson & Madison."

Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism." The Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, supported a Constitution, but feared the one that came out of the Federal Convention gave the general government way too much power, or, at least, way too many weasel words, like "general welfare," that slick lawyers could use to their advantage.

Samuel Adams, and other federalists, agreed to support the Constitution with the promise of a future Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry mocked their decisions with such sarcasm as, "You agree to bind yourselves hands and foot—For the sake of what? Of being unbound. You go into a dungeon—For what? To get out."

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Deceitful nationalists, like Joey and Hamilton, tend to misapply labels by confounding the words democrat with republican (as Freneau mentioned in Rule 5,) and anti-federalism with federalism."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Again we have to ask if Kalamata is just dumb, or deceitful? In this case the 1792 propaganda piece by Jefferson & Madison against the Pres. Washington & VP Adams administration was adopted in full by the succeeding Jefferson & Madison administrations. And when Presidents Jefferson & Madison began to expand Federal powers, they were opposed by the old Federalists like, yes, John Marshall."

John Marshall, the Hamiltonian nationalist, NEVER opposed the permanent expansion of Federal powers. He did, however, oppose practically everything his enemy Thomas Jefferson proposed.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Our Constitution is legally a federal compact (a contract) between the several states, like Jefferson and most of the framers envisioned; and is NOT a national, majority-rule, living-constitution democracy as envisioned by Hamilton, Joey, and other anti-federalist consolidators."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "As always, Kalamata is lying. Jefferson was not a Framer, he was an anti-Federalist in 1788, anti-Administration in 1789 and Democratic-Republican in 1792, opposed to the Federalists party of Washington & Adams. Jefferson opposed ratification of the original Constitution, insisting it needed a Bill of Rights."

Joey's posts are always deceptive. First, I didn't say Jefferson was a framer. Second, Jefferson was a federalist and a Republican. Third, Joey was partially correct in stating that Jefferson opposed the party of Washington and Adams, but Joey was deceitful in labeling it the "Federalist" Party, rather than the "Federalist-In-Name-Only" Party. Fourth, most federalists, like Jefferson, opposed the Constitution, as written, because it contained too many fuzzy words that the nationalists could misconstrue. If I recall correctly, both Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify until AFTER the Bill of Rights was adopted; and other State ratifying documents proposed a Bill of Rights, including the populous states of New York and Virginia.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "And, Jefferson continued to oppose the Founders who ratified the Constitution from 1788 through 1800, on grounds of "strict construction", but then abandoned "strict construction" once he became President in 1801. Then opposition Federalists became "strict constructionists".

All conservative republicans are strict constructionists, Joey, by definition.

For the record, soon after the Washington administration strayed from the strict construction of the Constitution, and began to adopt the central-planning nationalist policies of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson teamed up with the most-famous of the Founders, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution,") to oppose those usurpations. Therefore, Joey's claim that Jefferson "opposed the Founders" is sheer lunacy.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "As for an alleged "living Constitution", that terms comes from Kalamata's fellow Southern Democrat, Woodrow Wilson in 1908, in a book called "Constitutional Government in the United States".

Joey's posts are always deceptive, and he is typically confused by labels. For example, Woodrow Wilson was a central-planning, central-bank promoting Whig-Lincolnite who hijacked the "Democrat" label that was adopted by the Jacksonians about 1834. The last true "Democrat" was a strict constructionist named Grover Cleveland, who was, in reality, a Jeffersonian Republican.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Indeed, Thomas Jefferson himself had ideas on the subject: "But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors [19]"

Joey's posts are always deceptive. Jefferson most certainly expected the States to progress. But he preferred politicians follow the George Washington model of proposing an Amendment for changes to the Constitution, rather than resorting to usurpation.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Of course, that's exactly why the US Constitution provides for Amendments and Conventions of the States, but Jefferson himself felt no need for such in cases like the Louisiana Purchase or the Cumberland Road. Only when his own Old Republicans (i.e., John Randolph) insisted, did Jefferson submit a request for Amendment to authorize his proposed Internal Improvement projects (which Randolph promptly killed)."

Not exactly. Randolph was a strong supporter of the purchase:

"One of the measures of the Executive to which Mr. Randolph alludes, was a pending negotiation for the purchase of Louisiana. Mr. Livingston, our minister at Paris, had received ample instructions on this subject, and, about this time, Mr. Monroe had been dispatched as envoy extraordinary, to aid him in the negotiation. The proposition happened to have been made at a most fortunate juncture of affairs, when Bonaparte was preparing for a war with England. He wished to keep on good terms with the United States — feared that the British navy might wrest his newly acquired province from him during the coming war, and was much in need of money. These considerations induced [Randolph] to listen favorably to the proposition of the United States to purchase Louisiana for a large sum of money…"
"In all his efforts to bring this business to a successful issue, the President [Jefferson] received the hearty co-operation of the leader of the House of Representatives [Randolph.] Mr. Randolph's quick and comprehensive mind saw, at a glance, the importance of the crisis, and, as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, his aid was most prompt and efficient in getting over the difficulty… Few men did more than [Randolph] to secure the purchase of Louisiana, when once made, and then to provide for it a good and efficient government. Next to the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the present Constitution, the acquisition of Louisiana has had more influence than any other thing on the destiny of the United States."
[Hugh A. Garland, "The Life of John Randolph of Roanoke." 1874, pp.194, 195]

Jefferson did feel the need for an Amendment, and proposed one. But he was convinced by his cabinet, including Secretary of State James Madison (the Father of the Constitution,) that an amendment was unnecessary.

How so? Article II, Section 2 states:

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."

When the Constitution was adopted, a land purchase from a foreign nation was considered to be one of several common types of treaties. The Senate ratified the treaty to purchase the land by a vote of 24 to 7.

For the record, the New England states threated secession if the treaty was ratified. I don't recall anyone opposing the right of those states to secede.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Internal improvements are constitutional, Joey, provided 3/4ths of the states ratify an Amendment authorizing that power to the general government. Otherwise, their implementation by the general government would constitute tyranny."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "So let's take a few moments to look at which Founders supported and which opposed what were then called "Internal Improvements", today we say "Infrastructure projects". This table covers subjects mentioned by Kalamata and other Lost Causers as somehow being contrary to Founders Original Intentions"

Joey is still promoting the myth of the Yankee Plunderers, Pillagers and Burners, that protective tariffs and internal "improvements" are constitutional without an authorizing amendment. Frankly, it does not matter who supports them. What matters is whether or not they were approved and codified during the Federal Convention, and those two were not.

For the record, your chart is deceptive.

Jefferson and Madison, who were both federalists and republicans, do not belong in the same party as Clay and John Quincy, but rather with Randolph.

The anti-federalist Alexander Hamilton precipitated the so-called "Whiskey Rebellion" with his big-government, tax-and-spend doctrine. Hamilton wanted to hang those who took part. Washington pardoned them.

The Alien and Sedition acts by the anti-federalist John Adams was blatantly unconstitutional, and incorporated the same kind of tyranny that the anti-federalist Lincoln resorted to when he didn't get his way.

The threatened Hartford secession, under Madison, occurred during the time of war with a foreign power. This is some context:

"To be defied by the cities as well as the states of New England was more than the administration could endure. To assert federal authority in both cases, Monroe ordered the 23d and the 25th Infantry regiments into Connecticut for recruiting over the winter. Both these regiments consisted largely of New Englanders who had fought creditably in the last campaign on the Niagara Peninsula. As he did this, Monroe, on November 26, also withdrew part of Izard's army from Plattsburg back to Greenbush in New York. Greenbush was an established army camp, but its location was conveniently close to the western boundaries of both Connecticut and Massachusetts. If the administration should need to intervene in New England or to dissolve the Hartford Convention, the forces were thus near at hand."
"To the commander of the 25th Infantry regiment, Colonel Thomas Jessup, Monroe gave special instructions. The Secretary feared that while the Hartford Convention was meeting, the British forces might attack New York on two fronts—one at Buffalo and the other at Long Island. Such an attack could also be part of a prearranged campaign with the New England Federalists, whose part in it would be to raise the standard of rebellion against the United States. Jessup was therefore ordered to observe closely both the activities of the convention and the British fleet presumed to be hovering off Long Island Sound. If he suspected the slightest intention to disrupt or to invade the Union, he was to seize the federal armory at Springfield, Massachusetts, and to call on General Brown and Governor Tompkins of New York for assistance. Should it be necessary to use force, Monroe advised Jessup to employ it, if possible, only against the enemy and not against American citizens. He was also to keep in constant touch with the Republican leaders of New England, both to assure them that the administration would not allow treason to prosper and to protect them against attack."
[J. C. A. Stagg, "Mr. Madison's War: politics, diplomacy, and warfare in the early American republic, 1783-1830." Princeton University Press, 1983, pp.477-478]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I am certain many limited-government republicans opposed them, from a federal perspective; but that doesn't matter one way or the other. The only thing that matters in a republic is whether or not a power has been delegated to the general government, either by enumeration in the Constitution, or via an Amendment."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "When Federalists Presidents Washington & Adams were in charge, anti-Federalists like Jefferson opposed their Internal Improvements projects on grounds of "strict construction". When Jeffersonian Democrats like Presidents Jefferson & Madison were in charge, Federalists and Old Republicans (i.e., Randolph) opposed their Internal Improvements projects on grounds of "strict construction".

Joey is still arguing from the incredibly dumb perspective that, "If Jimmy robs a bank, then it is okay for Johnny to rob one."

Jefferson and Madison were republicans/federalists, while Adams was an anti-federalist.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Abe Lincoln was a white-supremacist and white-separatist."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Every Confederate, without exception, was more racist than Lincoln."

Don't be silly, Joey. Lincoln didn't want blacks anywhere around him, nor in his state of Illinois, not in the new territories, nor even in the United States. On the other hand, many in the South did not object to blacks being in their presence, and even attended the same Churches.

The truth is, the Northern Black Codes were far more racist than anything the South promoted. Read it from an outsider:

"Until now, wherever whites have been the most powerful, they have held Negroes in degradation or in slavery. Wherever Negroes have been the strongest, they have destroyed whites; it is the only accounting that might ever be possible between the two races.
"If I consider the United States of our day, I see clearly that in a certain part of the country the legal barrier that separates the two races is tending to fall, but not that of mores. I see slavery receding; the prejudice to which it gave birth is immovable.
"In the part of the Union where Negroes are no longer slaves, have they drawn nearer to whites? Every man who has lived in the United States will have noted that an opposite effect has been produced. [{In no part of the Union are the two races as separated as in New [England (ed.)] [v: the North].}]
"Racial prejudice seems to me stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where slavery still exists, and nowhere does it appear as intolerant as in the states where servitude has always been unknown.
"It is true that in the North of the Union the law allows Negroes and whites to contract legitimate unions; but opinion declares vile the white who joins in marriage with a Negro woman; and it would be difficult to cite an example of such a deed.
"In nearly all the states where slavery is abolished, the Negro has been given electoral rights; but if he presents himself to vote, he risks his life. Oppressed, he can make a complaint, but he finds only whites among his judges. The law opens the juror 's seat to him, but prejudice pushes him away from it. His son is excluded from the school where the descendant of the European goes to be instructed. In the theaters he cannot, even at the price of gold, buy the right to sit next to the one who was his master; in the hospitals he lies apart. The Black is allowed to beseech the same God as the whites, but not to pray to him at the same altar. He has his priests and his churches. The gates of heaven are not closed to him: but inequality scarcely stops at the edge of the other world. When the Negro is no more, his bones are thrown aside, and the difference in conditions is found again even in the equality of death.
"Thus the Negro is free, but he is not able to share either the rights or the pleasures or the labors or the pains or even the tomb of the one whose equal he has been declared to be; he cannot meet him anywhere, either in life or in death.
"[{What miserable mockery this is.}]
"In the South where slavery still exists, Negroes are less carefully kept aside; they sometimes share the labors of whites and their pleasures; to a certain point they are permitted to mix with them. Legislation is more harsh in their regard; habits are more tolerant and milder. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave up to his level, because he knows that if he wishes he will always be able to throw him back into the dust. In the North the white no longer distinctly sees the barrier that should separate him from a degraded race, and he withdraws with all the more care from the Negro because he fears that someday he will merge with him.
"With the American of the South, nature sometimes reasserts its rights and for a moment reestablishes equality between Blacks and whites. In the North pride silences even the most imperious passion of man. The American of the North would perhaps consent to make the Negro woman the temporary companion of his pleasures if the legislators had declared that she must not aspire to share his bed; but she is able to become his wife, and he withdraws from her with a kind of horror.
"This is how in the United States the prejudice that pushes Negroes away seems to increase proportionately as Negroes cease to be slaves, and how inequality becomes imprinted in the mores as it fades in the laws. But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States is as I have just shown, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the north of the Union, why do they keep it in the south, and what causes them to aggravate its rigors there?
"It is easy to answer. Slavery is being destroyed in the United States not in the interest of the Negroes, but in that of the whites."
[Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America." 2010, pp.553-556]

The "Yankees were the good guys" is one of the greatest lies ever told.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "He admitted it was a usurpation, Joey. I believe what Joey is try to say is, "Tommy Jefferson usurped the Constitution, so it is okay for Alex Hamilton to usurp it. I cannot imagine any argument more juvenile."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Except, of course, all of your own arguments here. My standard is, "Founders' Original Intent", meaning, where our Founders agreed, I'm on their side, not on yours, Dan-child."

No, Little Joey, you do not support original intent, nor do you appear to even understand it. Rather, you support the doctrine of the anti-federalist, Alexander Hamilton, who usurped the Constitution before the ink was dry in his quest to incorporate a British-style, crony-capitalist financial system to enrich the few well-connected, at the expense of the many unconnected.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey is again confounding the doctrine of the big-government Democrats/RINOs with that of the Jeffersonian republicans. Jesse Helms was well-known for his limited-general-government, states'-rights stances."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "I'm no expert on Helms but I doubt if he was as insanely anti-American as Kalamata."

If I were a Hamiltonian/Lincolnite, Joey, I would admit to being anti-American. They were.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "I notice, for example, where Helms supported President Nixon in the 1972 election, was ready to defend him against impeachment in 1974, and Nixon was far from a "strict construction" conservative. So, near as I can tell, Helms was a rational conservative, not a lunatic anti-American like Kalamata."

If I were a Hamiltonian/Lincolnite, Joey, I would admit to being anti-American. They were.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "BTW, I knew absolutely nothing about Jesse Helms until 1999 when my new Philadelphia employer touted Helms as the best thing to happen to the United States since Grover Cleveland (whom I also knew nothing about.)"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Helms was in the news a lot, for decades, usually portrayed unfairly, but as consistent a conservative as any I can think of. I never knew him to be insanely anti-American like Kalamata."

I am a strict-constructionist, Joey. One cannot get any more American than that.

You, on the other hand, are a living constitutionalist. One cannot get any more anti-American than that.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "As usual, Joey's post is deceptive; but Joey has now demonstrated he really is as dumb as a box of rocks. Federalism implies a republican form of government: a compact between regional governments by which a general government is established to handle general affairs, such as raising armies, handling postal matters, determining weights and measures, etc., while the regional governments (e.g., the States) handle all other affairs within their respective regions, such as police, education, religion, interstate commerce, etc..
Joey is probably confused because of the shenanigans of Alexander Hamilton, a nationalist, who hijacked the term "federalist," and then deceptively applied that name ("Federalist") to the British monarchial-type party of the Washington-Adams administrations.
The doctrine of the anti-federalist "Federalist" Party was later incorporated into the anti-federalist Whig party, which was then incorporated into the anti-federalist "Republican" Party (e.g., the RINOs).

The true federalist party was the Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, which incorporated doctrines similar to modern-day conservative Republicans."

It is, sadly, a core nature of Democrats like our own Dan-bo Kalamata to corrupt or redefine whatever words don't suit their own purposes.
In this case we see his full-frontal assault on the word "Federalist", intending to make it mean "anti-Federalist", so that he can then redefine history's actual Federalists (i.e., Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall) as something else entirely.

The truth is that Federalism was defined by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in 1787 in the Federalist Papers.
They were opposed, at the time, by anti-Federalists most lesser known today, but including Patrick Henry & Samuel Adams.
Summarized: Federalists believed the old Articles of Confederation were too weak and must be replaced, while anti-Federalists thought the Articles just fine and should not be replaced by a new Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson is included among 1788 anti-Federalists because he did not support ratification and did, like most anti-Federalists, insist on a Bill of Rights.

1788 Anti-Federalists:

Name	State	Positions	Party	Pen Name
Patrick Henry	Virginia	Governor	anti-Administration
Samuel Adams	Massachusetts	Governor	Jeffersonian Democrat
George Clinton	New York	Governor, US VP	Jeffersonian Democrat	"Cato"
James Monroe	Virginia	US Senator, POTUS	Jeffersonian Democrat
George Mason	Virginia	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist
Richard Henry Lee	Virginia	US Senator	anti-Administration	"Federal Farmer"?
Robert Yates	New York	1788 Delegate	anti-Federalist	"Brutus"?
Amos Singletary	Massachusetts	Mass House & Senate	anti-Federalist
Melancthon Smith	New York	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist	"Brutus"
Arthur Fermer	Rhode Island	Governor	anti-Federalist
James Winthrop	Massachusetts	scholar	anti-Federalist
Luther Martin	New Jersey	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist
Samuel Byran	Pennsylvania	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist	"Centenal"

James Madison was the most famous 1787 Federalist to later join the anti-Federalists, anti-Administration, Jeffersonian Democrats.
Nevertheless, among the signature Federalist issues, Madison continued to support protective tariffs, renewed the National Bank and favored gradual abolition, while opposing rebellion & secession such as threatened at Hartford in 1814.

Madison's views on Federalists' "internal improvements" were... complicated, meaning he both supported and opposed them on occasion, as seemed politically expedient.

Kalamata: "The true federalist party was the Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, which incorporated doctrines similar to modern-day conservative Republicans."

The truth is we call Jefferson's party "Jeffersonian Democrats", not "Republicans", because they were, in fact, far more like Democrats than Republicans, and because they themselves recognized the distinction between them and John Randolph's anti-Federalist Old Republicans.
Jeffersonian Democrats then were like all Democrats since -- rebellious and resistant when out of power (i.e., nullification & secession), authoritarian and expansive of government when in power (Louisiana Purchase, National Road, arrested Aaron Burr for treason).

Founders' Original Intent:

Founder / Early Leader	Party	On Slavery	Protective Tariffs	National Bank	Internal Improvements	On Rebellion/Secession
Pres. Geo Washington	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Whiskey Rebellion
Pres. John Adams	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Approved Alien-Sedition Acts
Alexander Hamilton	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Supported Alien-Sedition Acts
VP Thomas Jefferson	anti-Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	No	No: opposed Alien-Sedition Acts
Pres. Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	Yes	Arrested Aaron Burr for treasons
Pres. Madison	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes/No	moved army to stop Hartford secession
Henry Clay	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Alien & Sedition Acts
Pres John Q. Adams	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Muscogee Removal from GA
John Randolf	leader of Old Republicans	pro-slavery	No	No	No	Unknown

Kalamata: "Anti-Federalists, like Hamilton, attempted to write the U.S. Constitution, but their doctrine was soundly rejected in the conventions."

A total lie.
Federalists like Washington, Hamilton & Madison wrote the 1787 Constitution and got it ratified in 1788.
The did not get every provision they wanted put in the Constitution, but they did get what was necessary and that was still opposed by anti-Federalists who soon became Jefferson's anti-Administration Democrats.

Kalamata: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism."
Patrick Henry, like Hamilton, was an anti-federalist, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum.
Hamilton was a big-government monarchist who favored an all-powerful central government, while Henry would have been happy without even a general government.
Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, opposed a strong central government in favor of a limited general government bound by the chains of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights."

Again, like all Democrats our Dan-bo Kalamata is busy, busy, busy at work trying to redefine actual words to suit his own nefarious purposes.
In historical fact, the distinction between Federalists and anti-Federalists is simple & clear: Federalists like Washington, Hamilton & Madison, wrote & ratified the new 1787 Constitution because they believed in a more powerful general government.
Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams opposed the 1787 Constitution for exactly that reason -- they thought it made national government too powerful.

The Federalist Party (Hamilton, Adams, Marshall) lasted until 1824 then became:
The National Republican Party (Adams & Clay) which lasted until 1834 then became:
The Whig Party (Clay, Webster, Harrison) which lasted until 1856, then became:
The Republican Party (Lincoln, Grant, Reagan, Trump)

In the mean time, Jefferson's anti-Federalist Democrats have remained as rebellious out of power and authoritarian in power as ever.

Kalamata: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism."
Neither of those three were federalists, but were nationalists (e.g., anti-federalists.)
Only Hamilton, of the three, attended the Federal Convention."

Our Dan-bo, typical Democrat, just cannot control his innate urges to lie about the word "Federalism".
In actual historical fact, Federalists were the people who wrote the 1787 Constitution and got it ratified in 1788.
The writers included Washington, Hamilton & Madison, while those supporting ratification included Adams & Marshall.
Those ratifiers then became the political party called Federalists opposed by anti-Federalists who became anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats.

Kalamata: "Hamilton promoted a British-style financial system and national bank, which was rejected in convention.
The nationalist John Adams, a strong proponent of a British-style monarchy, wasn't a participate in either the federal or state-ratifying conventions.
John Marshall, who promoted the Hamiltonian nationalist view, was a participate in the Virginia convention.
Later, as Chief Justice, he ruled that the national bank – the bank that the Federal Convention soundly rejected – was constitutional, after all!
What a weasel!"

Hamilton's National Bank: every Founder except Jefferson supported a National Bank.
That's why it passed Congress and was signed by President Washington.
On John Adams' alleged monarchism: Adams himself wrote to Jefferson:
Young John Marshall from Virginia supported ratification in Virginia's 1788 Convention.
So SCOTUS Chief Justice -- appointed by President Adams -- Marshall qualifies as Founders' Original Intent.

Kalamata: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism."
The Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, supported a Constitution, but feared the one that came out of the Federal Convention gave the general government way too much power, or, at least, way too many weasel words, like "general welfare," that slick lawyers could use to their advantage."

And still, our Democrat Dan-child just can't stop lying even when he himself knows the truth.
It's this: Federalist wrote the Constitution, Federalists ratified the Constitution and Federalists became the majority faction-party after 1788.
Federalists were those who supported stronger Federal government.

Anti-Federalists first weakened the Constitution in 1787, then opposed ratification in 1788, then became the anti-Administration faction under Thomas Jefferson, eventually Jeffersonian Democrats.
Democrats, then as now, were rebellious when out of power, authoritarian when in power.

Kalamata: "Samuel Adams, and other federalists, agreed to support the Constitution with the promise of a future Bill of Rights.
Patrick Henry mocked their decisions with such sarcasm as, "You agree to bind yourselves hands and foot—For the sake of what?
Of being unbound.
You go into a dungeon—For what?
To get out.""

So, as hard as he tries to lie about it, the truth eventually comes out of even our own Dan-bo Kalamata.
In 1788 Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist who lead the charge against ratification.
But Henry was also friends with Washington & Adams, didn't like Thomas Jefferson, so opposed him in 1796, supported Adams.

Kalamata: "John Marshall, the Hamiltonian nationalist, NEVER opposed the permanent expansion of Federal powers.
He did, however, oppose practically everything his enemy Thomas Jefferson proposed."

A lot of people opposed President Jefferson's expansions of Federal power.
Those included Northern Federalists opposed to his Louisiana Purchase, Old Republicans (i.e., John Randolph) opposed to Jefferson's 1808 grand Internal Improvements plan and Chief Justice John Marshall opposed to Jefferson's arrest of Aaron Burr on charges of treason, for attempted secession.

President Jefferson was a typical Democrat opposed by more conservative Federalist-Republicans.

Must stop here...

Kalamata: "Joey's posts are always deceptive."

Danny's posts are always lies.

Kalamata: "First, I didn't say Jefferson was a framer."

You posted: "...like Jefferson and most of the framers envisioned;"
Glad to see you here finally acknowledge that Jefferson was not a Framer.
The Framers were Federalists, Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, your constant lies about it notwithstanding.

Kalamata: "Second, Jefferson was a federalist and a Republican."

Jefferson was neither.
Here's what typical histories of the time say:

Federalists: "Led by Alexander Hamilton, albeit secretly at first, the Federalists were the first political party of the United States.
They supported the Constitution, and attempted to convince the States to ratify the document.
Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, anonymously published a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius." "
Anti-Federalists: "In the ratification debate, the Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution.
They complained that the new system threatened liberties, and failed to protect individual rights.
The Anti-Federalists weren't exactly a united group, but instead involved many elements.
One faction opposed the Constitution because they thought stronger government threatened the sovereignty of the states.
Others argued that a new centralized government would have all the characteristics of the despotism of Great Britain they had fought so hard to remove themselves from.
And still others feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.
During the push for ratification, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," " Centinel", and "Federal Farmer," but some famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution."

Here is an explanation of the names "Federalist" and "anti-Federalist":

"During the American Revolution and its immediate aftermath, the term federal was applied to any person who supported the colonial union and the government formed under the Articles of Confederation.
After the war, the group that felt the national government under the Articles was too weak appropriated the name Federalist for themselves.
Historian Jackson Turner Main wrote, "to them, the man of 'federal principles' approved of 'federal measures,' which meant those that increased the weight and authority or extended the influence of the Confederation Congress."[2]

"As the Federalists moved to amend the Articles, eventually leading to the Constitutional Convention, they applied the term anti-federalist to their opposition.
The term implied, correctly or not, both opposition to Congress and unpatriotic motives.
The Anti-Federalists rejected the term, arguing that they were the true Federalists.
In both their correspondence and their local groups, they tried to capture the term.
For example, an unknown anti-federalist signed his public correspondence as 'A Federal Farmer' and the New York committee opposing the Constitution was called the 'Federal Republican Committee.'
However the Federalists carried the day and the name Anti-Federalist forever stuck.[2]"

Here is another:

"In May 1792, Jefferson was alarmed at the political rivalries taking shape; he wrote to Washington, urging him to run for re-election that year as a unifying influence.[110]
He urged the president to rally the citizenry to a party that would defend democracy against the corrupting influence of banks and monied interests, as espoused by the Federalists.
Historians recognize this letter as the earliest delineation of Democratic-Republican Party principles.[111]
Jefferson, Madison, and other Democratic-Republican organizers favored states' rights and local control and opposed federal concentration of power, whereas Hamilton sought more power for the federal government.[112]"

Jefferson never claimed to be a Federalist.
His party was the Democratic-Republicans, but once President Jefferson took office it was clear that he was more Democrat (big government) than Republican and John Randolph became leader of the (small government) "Old Republicans".

Kalamata: "Third, Joey was partially correct in stating that Jefferson opposed the party of Washington and Adams, but Joey was deceitful in labeling it the "Federalist" Party, rather than the "Federalist-In-Name-Only" Party."

Here is another description of the two parties:

"By the early 1790s, newspapers started calling Hamilton supporters "Federalists" and their opponents "Democrats", "Republicans", "Jeffersonians", or—much later—"Democratic-Republicans".
Jefferson's supporters usually called themselves "Republicans" and their party the "Republican Party".[17]
The Federalist Party became popular with businessmen and New Englanders as Republicans were mostly farmers who opposed a strong central government.
Cities were usually Federalist strongholds whereas frontier regions were heavily Republican.
However, these are generalizations as there are special cases such as the Presbyterians of upland North Carolina, who had immigrated just before the Revolution and often been Tories, became Federalists.[18]***
The Congregationalists of New England and the Episcopalians in the larger cities supported the Federalists while other minority denominations tended toward the Republican camp.
Catholics in Maryland were generally Federalists.[19]"

***This is the tradition of Billy Graham and, I suspect, Jesse Helms

Kalamata: "Fourth, most federalists, like Jefferson, opposed the Constitution, as written, because it contained too many fuzzy words that the nationalists could misconstrue."

They were called Anti-Federalists at the time and ever since, because they opposed a stronger Federal government.
The term "nationalist" was never used by anyone then or since.

"The Anti-Federalists were composed of diverse elements, including

those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals;
those that saw in the proposed government a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain;[3] and
those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties.
Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient.
Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong.
Another complaint of the Anti-Federalists was that the Constitution provided for a centralized rather than federal government (and in The Federalist Papers, James Madison admits that the new Constitution has the characteristics of both a centralized and federal form of the government) and that
a truly federal form of government was a leaguing of states as under the Articles of Confederation. "

Kalamata: "If I recall correctly, both Rhode Island and North Carolina did not ratify until AFTER the Bill of Rights was adopted; and other State ratifying documents proposed a Bill of Rights, including the populous states of New York and Virginia."

Rhode Island ratified the US Constitution on May 29, 1790.
Rhode Island ratified the Bill of Rights on June 7, 1790.
The Bill of Rights was fully ratified on December 15, 1791.

Kalamata: "All conservative republicans are strict constructionists, Joey, by definition."

And so are Democrats like Jefferson, as applied to Federalists / republicans.
In other words, how you can tell a true Democrat, like Jefferson, is they apply strict construction principles to their political opponents, but not to themselves.

As is often said of Democrats: if they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
Jefferson was a Democrat.

Kalamata: "For the record, soon after the Washington administration strayed from the strict construction of the Constitution, and began to adopt the central-planning nationalist policies of Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson teamed up with the most-famous of the Founders, James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution,") to oppose those usurpations.
Therefore, Joey's claim that Jefferson "opposed the Founders" is sheer lunacy."

Jefferson did not write the Constitution.
Jefferson did not help ratify the Constitution.
Jefferson quickly went into opposition to those who did write and ratify the Constitution.
Jefferson's protégé, James Madison, was a strong Federalist who supported the full Federalist agenda until forced by anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry to flip sides and join Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans.
Nevertheless, Madison still supported the full Federalist agenda at one time or another.

Now again, must go...

>>Kalamata wrote: "Federalism implies a republican form of government: a compact between regional governments by which a general government is established to handle general affairs, such as raising armies, handling postal matters, determining weights and measures, etc., while the regional governments (e.g., the States) handle all other affairs within their respective regions, such as police, education, religion, interstate commerce, etc.. Joey is probably confused because of the shenanigans of Alexander Hamilton, a nationalist, who hijacked the term "federalist," and then deceptively applied that name ("Federalist") to the British monarchial-type party of the Washington-Adams administrations. The doctrine of the anti-federalist "Federalist" Party was later incorporated into the anti-federalist Whig party, which was then incorporated into the anti-federalist "Republican" Party (e.g., the RINOs). The true federalist party was the Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, which incorporated doctrines similar to modern-day conservative Republicans."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "It is, sadly, a core nature of Democrats like our own Dan-bo Kalamata to corrupt or redefine whatever words don't suit their own purposes. In this case we see his full-frontal assault on the word "Federalist", intending to make it mean "anti-Federalist", so that he can then redefine history's actual Federalists (i.e., Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall) as something else entirely. The truth is that Federalism was defined by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in 1787 in the Federalist Papers. They were opposed, at the time, by anti-Federalists most lesser known today, but including Patrick Henry & Samuel Adams. Summarized: Federalists believed the old Articles of Confederation were too weak and must be replaced, while anti-Federalists thought the Articles just fine and should not be replaced by a new Constitution. Thomas Jefferson is included among 1788 anti-Federalists because he did not support ratification and did, like most anti-federalists, insist on a Bill of Rights."

See what I mean? Joey is as dumb as a box of rocks! Though, in all fairness, he could very-well be so thoroughly brainwashed by modern-day progressives that he only appears to be as dumb as a box of rocks, not to imply there is an iota of difference. Madison defined federalism for all to see.

"Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
[James Madison, Federalist No. 39, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.179]

Hamilton, a consolidationalist and deceiver, only pretended to be a Federalist. Most so-called "federalists," such as Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall were consolidationalists who supported centralized, monarchial doctrines. True federalism (true republicanism) was quashed by the Lincolnites when they created a national government, and turned the states into mere puppet governments of that national government.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "James Madison was the most famous 1787 Federalist to later join the anti-Federalists, anti-Administration, Jeffersonian Democrats."

Joey is truly historically-challenged. Madison and Jefferson were true-blood representative republicans. In fact, Madison despised democracy:

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
[James Madison, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, FP No. 10, p.56]

The true democrats of those days -- the living constitutionalists -- those who believed the majority-rule of congress should replace the plain wording of the Constitution -- included Hamilton (the betrayer of the Revolution,) Marshall (the Chief Usurper,) Adams (Sedition Act and monarchist,) Henry Clay (internal "improvements," protective tariffs and banking,) Joseph Story (the second Chief Usurper,) Daniel Webster (banker's best friend and Joseph Story worshiper,) and Lincoln (who enjoyed playing god.)

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Nevertheless, among the signature Federalist issues, Madison continued to support protective tariffs, renewed the National Bank and favored gradual abolition, while opposing rebellion & secession such as threatened at Hartford in 1814. Madison's views on Federalists' "internal improvements" were... complicated, meaning he both supported and opposed them on occasion, as seemed politically expedient."

Joey rarely provides sources since they typically expose his lack of context, as well as his living-constitution political doctrine.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The true federalist party was the Republican Party of Madison and Jefferson, which incorporated doctrines similar to modern-day conservative Republicans."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is we call Jefferson's party "Jeffersonian Democrats", not "Republicans", because they were, in fact, far more like Democrats than Republicans, and because they themselves recognized the distinction between them and John Randolph's anti-Federalist Old Republicans. Jeffersonian Democrats then were like all Democrats since -- rebellious and resistant when out of power (i.e., nullification & secession), authoritarian and expansive of government when in power (Louisiana Purchase, National Road, arrested Aaron Burr for treason)."

Joey's posts are always deceptive. In this case, he relies on labels to define the early politicians, rather than doctrines. The true means of identifying a republican verses a democrat would be whether they support, as much as possible, the general government as an agent of the states and a strict-construction of the Constitution that created the general government, or whether they support a living constitution. We all know that democrats worship a living constitution, like Lincoln, who was more than annoyed that the Constitution placed restrictions on his Whig political agenda of crony-capitalism. Crony-capitalism and sectionalism, the true causes of the Civil War, could not have existed without the Hamiltonian/Marshall/Clay/Lincoln doctrine of a living constitution.

BTW, Joey's charts are always deceptive, and typically meaningless to the debate at hand.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Anti-Federalists, like Hamilton, attempted to write the U.S. Constitution, but their doctrine was soundly rejected in the conventions."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "A total lie. Federalists like Washington, Hamilton & Madison wrote the 1787 Constitution and got it ratified in 1788. The did not get every provision they wanted put in the Constitution, but they did get what was necessary and that was still opposed by anti-Federalists who soon became Jefferson's anti-Administration Democrats."

That is almost a total lie, Joey. Madison was the primary mover-and-shaker of the Constitution. Hamilton had always made it clear that that his political philosophy was monarchial. It is common knowledge that he proposed a national bank (which was rejected in Convention, but later usurped into power by John Marshall;) but how many know that Hamilton proposed a permanent, British-style king, rather than an electable executive, and a democracy?

"If government in the hands of the few, they will tyrannize over the many. If [in] the hands of the many, they will tyrannize over the few. It ought to be in the hands of both; and they should be separated. This separation must be permanent. Representation alone will not do. Demagogues will generally prevail. And if separated, they will need a mutual check. This check is a monarch. Each principle ought to exist in full force, or it will not answer its end. The democracy must be derived immediately from the people. The aristocracy ought to be entirely separated; their power should be permanent, and they should have the caritas liberorum. They should be so circumstanced that they can have no interest in a change — as to have an effectual weight in the constitution. Their duration should be the earnest of wisdom and stability. 'Tis essential there should be a permanent will in a community."
[Alexander Hamilton, June 18, 1787, in Max Farrand, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 01." Yale University Press, 1911, pp.308-309]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism." Patrick Henry, like Hamilton, was an anti-federalist, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum. Hamilton was a big-government monarchist who favored an all-powerful central government, while Henry would have been happy without even a general government. Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, opposed a strong central government in favor of a limited general government bound by the chains of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Again, like all Democrats our Dan-bo Kalamata is busy, busy, busy at work trying to redefine actual words to suit his own nefarious purposes. In historical fact, the distinction between Federalists and anti-Federalists is simple & clear: Federalists like Washington, Hamilton & Madison, wrote & ratified the new 1787 Constitution because they believed in a more powerful general government. Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams opposed the 1787 Constitution for exactly that reason -- they thought it made national government too powerful."

Wrong again, Joey. Nationalists disguised as federalists, like Hamilton, lied to the people to ensure ratification, and then proceeded on a path of usurpation that continues to this day. For example, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton explained that the power over agriculture belonged to the individual states:

"Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government."
[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 17, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.83]

But, once he obtained power as the Treasury Secretary of the Washington administration, he completely redefined that power as a general power of the general government:

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."
"The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be general, and not local; its operation extending in fact or by possibility throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."
"No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
[Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791, in Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Works of Alexander Hamilton Vol 04." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, pp.151-152]

What really amazes me is how those like Joey (and Hamilton) could lie with such ease? In Joey's case, it could simply be that he is as dumb as a box of rocks. But Hamilton's lies would put Bill Clinton to shame.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism." Neither of those three were federalists, but were nationalists (e.g., anti-federalists.) Only Hamilton, of the three, attended the Federal Convention."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Our Dan-bo, typical Democrat, just cannot control his innate urges to lie about the word "Federalism". In actual historical fact, Federalists were the people who wrote the 1787 Constitution and got it ratified in 1788. The writers included Washington, Hamilton & Madison, while those supporting ratification included Adams & Marshall. Those ratifiers then became the political party called Federalists opposed by anti-Federalists who became anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats."

Perhaps a new term is in order to identify Joey's living-constitution political philosophy, for example, it could be called Democrat-And-Don't-Know-It.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Hamilton promoted a British-style financial system and national bank, which was rejected in convention. The nationalist John Adams, a strong proponent of a British-style monarchy, wasn't a participate in either the federal or state-ratifying conventions. John Marshall, who promoted the Hamiltonian nationalist view, was a participate in the Virginia convention. Later, as Chief Justice, he ruled that the national bank – the bank that the Federal Convention soundly rejected –was constitutional, after all! What a weasel!"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Hamilton's National Bank: every Founder except Jefferson supported a National Bank. That's why it passed Congress and was signed by President Washington."

A proposal to give the general government the power to grant charters of incorporation was rejected in convention, Joey, and or course Jefferson was not present. So please list the names of "every Founder except Jefferson" that supported a National Bank.

Why are you so desperate to deceive Freepers, Joey? What is at stake for you? Are you a beneficiary of Hamiltonian crony-capitalism?

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "On John Adams' alleged monarchism: Adams himself wrote to Jefferson: "If you suppose that I have ever had a design or desire of attempting to introduce a government of King, Lords and Commons, or in other words an hereditary Executive, or an hereditary Senate, either into the government of the United States, or that of any individual state, in this country, you are wholly mistaken. There is not such a thought expressed or intimated in any public writing or private letter of mine, and I may safely challenge all of mankind to produce such a passage and quote the chapter and verse.[332]"

So, the FINO's (Federalist-In- Name-Only) were liars. Everyone with a brain knows that. This is in regard to John Adam's monarchial tendencies:

"This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to invalidate the soundness of its reasoning. As a law writer, Judge Story has been regarded as one of the ablest of his school, which was that of the straightest type of "Federalists" of the elder Adams's party. His commentaries are a good deal marred with the peculiar partisan doctrines of that school of politicians; indeed, they may be looked upon as a plea for the severe political principles which ruled the administration of President John Adams. The Alien and Sedition Laws, which have long since passed into a by-word of reproach, will still find abundant support in Judge Story's Commentaries. He perpetually insisted on construing the Constitution from the standpoint of that small and defeated party in the Federal Convention which wanted to form a government on the model of the English monarchy in everything but the name. This party was powerful in respectability and talents, but weak or few in numbers; and after it was so signally defeated in the Constitutional Convention, it still held on to its monarchical principles, and sought to invest the new government with kingly powers, notwithstanding the Constitution had been constructed upon principles entirely opposite to its doctrines."
[Abel Parker Upshur, "A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government: being a review of Judge Story's commentaries on the Constitution." John Campbell, Publisher, 1863, Intro. pp.ii-iii]

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Young John Marshall from Virginia supported ratification in Virginia's 1788 Convention. So SCOTUS Chief Justice -- appointed by President Adams -- Marshall qualifies as Founders' Original Intent."

That is really dumb, Joey. Marshall was well aware of the limitations placed on the Constitution; yet he went out of his way to circumvent them. He was a power-hungry tyrant! Live with it.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey is still confused by the term "Federalism."The Federalists, like Jefferson and Samuel Adams, supported a Constitution, but feared the one that came out of the Federal Convention gave the general government way too much power, or, at least, way too many weasel words, like "general welfare," that slick lawyers could use to their advantage."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And still, our Democrat Dan-child just can't stop lying even when he himself knows the truth. It's this: Federalist wrote the Constitution, Federalists ratified the Constitution and Federalists became the majority faction-party after 1788. Federalists were those who supported stronger Federal government."

Joey is hopelessly confused about the term "federalism."

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Anti-Federalists first weakened the Constitution in 1787, then opposed ratification in 1788, then became the anti-Administration faction under Thomas Jefferson, eventually Jeffersonian Democrats. Democrats, then as now, were rebellious when out of power, authoritarian when in power."

After the greedy snake, Alexander Hamilton, showed his ugly head, Thomas Jefferson, a republican and federalist, teamed up with James Madison, a republican and federalist, to combat the British-style monarchism that Hamilton promoted.

Ironically, the republican Thomas Jefferson served in the George Washington administration as the 1st Secretary of State of the United States:

Secretaries of State

The republican James Madison later served as the Secretary of State under Jefferson.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Samuel Adams, and other federalists, agreed to support the Constitution with the promise of a future Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry mocked their decisions with such sarcasm as, "You agree to bind yourselves hands and foot—For the sake of what? Of being unbound. You go into a dungeon—For what? To get out."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "So, as hard as he tries to lie about it, the truth eventually comes out of even our own Dan-bo Kalamata. In 1788 Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist who lead the charge against ratification. But Henry was also friends with Washington & Adams, didn't like Thomas Jefferson, so opposed him in 1796, supported Adams."

Joey's posts are always confusing. I am reasonably certain that I identified Patrick Henry as an anti-federalist, of the opposite political persuasion as the anti-federalist Alexander Hamilton. Joey is attempting to confuse my statement with irrelevant trivia.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "John Marshall, the Hamiltonian nationalist, NEVER opposed the permanent expansion of Federal powers. He did, however, oppose practically everything his enemy Thomas Jefferson proposed."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "A lot of people opposed President Jefferson's expansions of Federal power. Those included Northern Federalists opposed to his Louisiana Purchase, Old Republicans (i.e., John Randolph) opposed to Jefferson's 1808 grand Internal Improvements plan and Chief Justice John Marshall opposed to Jefferson's arrest of Aaron Burr on charges of treason, for attempted secession."

One would expect the anti-federalists to oppose the federalist Jefferson. The federalist Randolph is an unusual case.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "President Jefferson was a typical Democrat opposed by more conservative Federalist-Republicans."

Simple-minded Joey is perpetually confused by labels. Thomas Jefferson was a devout conservative republican and federalist.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "See what I mean?
Joey is as dumb as a box of rocks!
Though, in all fairness, he could very-well be so thoroughly brainwashed by modern-day progressives that he only appears to be as dumb as a box of rocks, not to imply there is an iota of difference.
Madison defined federalism for all to see... [quotes from Federalist 39]"

What we can easily see is that our Dan-child was taught to lie as a boy and now lying is all he knows how to do.
In this case he uses Madison's words in Federalist 39 to define Federalism, those words make Madison a Federalist.
Who else contributed to the Federalist Papers?
Those would be Hamilton & John Jay.
And by what power does our Dan-child declare Madison a genuine Federalist while Hamilton & Jay are not?
Only the power of Dan-child's own lies supports such claims.

Kalamata: "Hamilton, a consolidationalist and deceiver, only pretended to be a Federalist.
Most so-called "federalists," such as Hamilton, John Adams, and John Marshall were consolidationalists who supported centralized, monarchial doctrines. "

Alexander Hamilton wrote 55 Federalist Paper articles.
James Madison wrote 29 Federalist Paper articles.
John Jay wrote 5 Federalist Paper articles.
85 total articles defining US Federalism.

In 1788 Madison, Hamilton, Jay, Washington, John Adams & many others were the Federalists who wrote &/or helped ratify the new US Constitution.
They wanted stronger Federal government than the old Articles of Confederation.
They were opposed by anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams who did not want stronger Federal government, thought the old Articles of Confederation were just fine.

As for the Federalist party's alleged "centralized monarchial doctrines", that is pure fantasy, political hyperbole, the kind of cr*p our Dan-child was taught as a boy and now just can't stop repeating.
When you dig into it, turns out there were five issues on which nearly all Founders agreed:

Protective tariffs
A National Bank
"Internal Improvements"
Restrictions on slavery
Opposition to rebellion & secession.

So here again is where our Founders stood on those issues:

Founder / Early Leader	Party	On Slavery	Protective Tariffs	National Bank	Internal Improvements	On Rebellion/Secession
Pres. Geo Washington	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Whiskey Rebellion
Pres. John Adams	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Approved Alien-Sedition Acts
Alexander Hamilton	Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Supported Alien-Sedition Acts
VP Thomas Jefferson	anti-Federalist	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	No	No: opposed Alien-Sedition Acts
Pres. Jefferson	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	No	Yes	Arrested Aaron Burr for treasons
Pres. Madison	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes/No	moved army to stop Hartford secession
Henry Clay	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Alien & Sedition Acts
Pres John Q. Adams	Democratic-Republican	Gradual Abolition	Yes	Yes	Yes	Opposed Muscogee Removal from GA
John Randolf	leader of Old Republicans	pro-slavery	No	No	No	opposed standing army

Bottom line: Opposition Democratic-Republicans like Jefferson & Madison opposed Federalist actions which Presidents Jefferson & Madison later supported.

Kalamata: "True federalism (true republicanism) was quashed by the Lincolnites when they created a national government, and turned the states into mere puppet governments of that national government."

More political hyperbole since Article 6 of the US Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The US Constitution was always supreme law of the Land in matters under its control.
What the US Civil War accomplished was to expand the Constitution's control to include the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
So our Dan-child doesn't like the way the 14th has been abused by the US Supreme Court, but let's remember first, that Lincoln didn't write the 14th and second, the alleged abuse began ~100 years after Lincoln's death.

Kalamata: "Joey is truly historically-challenged.
Madison and Jefferson were true-blood representative republicans.
In fact, Madison despised democracy: [quote from Federalist 10}"

I think our Dan-child really does know the truth of this, but like any Democrat simply prefers to lie about it.
The truth is that Jefferson & Madison called their party Democratic-Republicans in opposition to Federalists Washington, John Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, etc.

Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were called "Democrats" by some, especially after the 1800 election when Presidents Jefferson & Madison became quasi-Federalists and conservatives like John Randolph took the title of "Old Republicans".

Kalamata: "The true democrats of those days -- the living constitutionalists -- those who believed the majority-rule of congress should replace the plain wording of the Constitution -- included Hamilton (the betrayer of the Revolution,) Marshall (the Chief Usurper,) Adams (Sedition Act and monarchist,) Henry Clay (internal "improvements," protective tariffs and banking,) Joseph Story (the second Chief Usurper,) Daniel Webster (banker's best friend and Joseph Story worshiper,) and Lincoln (who enjoyed playing god.)"

That is pure fantasy, the rantings of an insane lunatic... or natural-born Democrat, but I repeat myself.

The real truth here is that the Federalist agenda of Presidents Washington & Adams was adopted 100% by "Democratic-Republican" Presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe.

Kalamata on Madison's long-term Federalism: "Joey rarely provides sources since they typically expose his lack of context, as well as his living-constitution political doctrine."

As usual, our Dan-child hopes to lie his way out of the truth.
In this case Madison's Federalism is well documented, no matter how "reluctant" he may have wished to be seen.

As for alleged "living-constitution", my standard is Founders' Original Intent, a far cry from "living" in the sense that Kalamata's own Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson first intended it.

Kalamata: "Joey's posts are always deceptive. "

Our Dan-child always lies.

Kalamata: "In this case, he relies on labels to define the early politicians, rather than doctrines. "

In this case Dan-bo simply removes the capital letters from Federalist & Democratic-Republican (making them federalist & democrat) so that he can redefine their actual historical meaning to better suit his own insane fantasies.

Kalamata: "The true means of identifying a republican verses a democrat would be whether they support, as much as possible, the general government as an agent of the states and a strict-construction of the Constitution that created the general government, or whether they support a living constitution.
We all know that democrats worship a living constitution, like Lincoln, who was more than annoyed that the Constitution placed restrictions on his Whig political agenda of crony-capitalism.
Crony-capitalism and sectionalism, the true causes of the Civil War, could not have existed without the Hamiltonian/Marshall/Clay/Lincoln doctrine of a living constitution."

That term, "living constitution" was coined by our Dan-child's favorite Southern Progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
Before Wilson, nobody imagined such a thing.

The Federalist agenda of Washington, Hamilton & Adams was opposed by Democratic-Republicans Jefferson & Madison until the election of 1800, after which Democratic-Republicans adopted it, in whole, and the old Federalists became opposition "strict constructionists".

Our Dan-child's claims here that "Crony-capitalism and sectionalism, the true causes of the Civil War" are pure infantile insanity, the kind of nonsense Democrat parents taught their children years ago, and now some just can't say anything different.

Kalamata: "BTW, Joey's charts are always deceptive, and typically meaningless to the debate at hand."

BTW, our Dan-child always lies when faced with the truth which is that those charts tell the real story his own insane lies are intended to obscure.

Kalamata: "That is almost a total lie, Joey.
Madison was the primary mover-and-shaker of the Constitution.
Hamilton had always made it clear that that his political philosophy was monarchial.
It is common knowledge that he proposed a national bank (which was rejected in Convention, but later usurped into power by John Marshall;) but how many know that Hamilton proposed a permanent, British-style king, rather than an electable executive, and a democracy?"

Several points are needed here:

Hamilton was George Washington's right-hand-man and since Washington himself said nothing at the convention, Hamilton can be thought of as speaking for him.
Hamilton's original idea was an elected president (Washington) for life, who could be impeached for cause.
So Hamilton himself denied the charge of "monarchism".
Life-time office holding was rejected for the President, but accepted as appropriate for Supreme Court justices.
Hamilton's role at the convention was relatively small because New York sent two anti-Federalists who voted against him on every issue and they eventually opposed ratification at New York's 1788 convention.
Hamilton was hugely influential, through his Federalist Papers, in getting the new Constitution understood & ratified.
Both Hamilton and Madison proposed constitutional powers for Federal government which the convention itself rejected, but later became part of the Federalist agenda -- Founders' Original Intent

Kalamata: "Wrong again, Joey.
Nationalists disguised as federalists, like Hamilton, lied to the people to ensure ratification, and then proceeded on a path of usurpation that continues to this day. "

And there it is again -- the pure political insanity our Dan-child learned as a boy and now cannot think any other way.
The truth is that Federalists like Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were of one mind regarding the Constitution in 1788.
They shared the Federalists political agenda which included protective tariffs, a national bank and "internal improvements".
They were opposed by anti-Federalists who wanted none of that and instead wanted to keep the old Articles of Confederation.
The Federalists won ratification, but anti-Federalists were soon joined by Jefferson & Madison to defeat some of the Federalists' agenda, until the 1800 election at which point Democrats themselves adopted the Federalists agenda in whole or part.

Founders' Original Intent was demonstrated when anti-Federalists in office after 1800 adopted the Federalists' agenda they had opposed before 1800.
That left John Randolph's Old Republicans plus a few Federalists to block Presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe's quasi-Federalism wherever they could.

That's all for now...

Seems Kalamata wants to change the historical meaning of federalist and anti-federalist, which just muddies the water. Even if you don't agree with the labels the historical truth is that Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton were federalists who wanted the constitution ratified and Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, etc were labeled anti-federalist and did not want the constitution ratified.

Patrick Henry did not want it ratified because he saw it would do exactly what the neo-confederates on this site say it didn't do. Make the state governments subservient to the federal government. Here is Patrick Henry's own words on this.

I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?

Awesome post, one of the best I have ever seen in over 22 years on FR

If you read Conservative Treehouse you will be treated to awesome analysis several times a day.

OIFVeteran: "Seems Kalamata wants to change the historical meaning of federalist and anti-federalist, which just muddies the water."

Right, and Democrat educators today teach our children that Americans are the bad-people, America is the Evil Empire, and the good-guys are anyone opposed to American... [you name it]… imperialism, oppression, tyranny, racism, sexism, homophobia, capitalism... what else?

What a lot of people don't realize is that many years ago Democrat educators taught young children like Danny Kalamata much the same things, only from the perspectives of pro-Confederate Lost Causers.
Today's educators teach young children that our Founders were evil-slaveholders, but in Danny's day children learned most Founders were evil-monarchists.
Both then and now children learned that our Founders' evil caused endless other evils, most especially the Civil War.

The idea that our Founders were really good-people who did a great job defeating the Brits, framing a Constitution (actually two) and forming governments based on it, that idea can never be taught by Democrats because Democrats have always been opposed to the Federalists-Whigs-Republicans on whom the United States always relied, especially in its toughest times against anti-Federalist-Democrats determined to destroy it.
Like now. Like 1861. Like 1788.

OIFVeteran: "Patrick Henry did not want it ratified because he saw it would do exactly what the neo-confederates on this site say it didn't do.
Make the state governments subservient to the federal government.
Here is Patrick Henry's own words on this."

Right, Democrat propaganda has never needed to be consistent or even truthful, it only needs to teach young children who to hate, and then many, many decades later those same children will scour the internet for quotes to support the lies they were taught so long ago, never realizing that such quotes, if accurate & in context, more truthfully support a very different historical narrative, one that loves, not hates, its own country.

Kalamata: "Wrong again, Joey.
Nationalists disguised as federalists, like Hamilton, lied to the people to ensure ratification, and then proceeded on a path of usurpation that continues to this day.
For example, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton explained that the power over agriculture belonged to the individual states:"

"...The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction ..."

Kalamata: "But, once he obtained power as the Treasury Secretary of the Washington administration, he completely redefined that power as a general power of the general government:"

"And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."

Here our Kalamata-child claims to see an inconsistency, indeed, not just "inconsistent" but outright lying by Alexander Hamilton, regarding the role of "general government" in, for example, agriculture.
In fact, there's no inconsistency, certainly no lies, except by Kalamata, of course.
What Hamilton did, instead, is distinguish between local and general interests and tell us that local matters (i.e., supervision of agriculture) should be the realm of local governments while general matters (relating to business or agriculture) should be the authority of national government.

What "general interests" was Hamilton talking about?
Anything which would make agriculture, manufacturing or commerce in general more profitable, meaning in Hamilton's time: national projects like harbors, roads, canals, lighthouses & military forts to protect farmers & manufacturers, reducing their costs to move & sell products, tariffs to increase profit margins.

Neither Hamilton nor any other Founder proposed to "supervise agriculture", that was strictly a local function, but general help to all producers & commerce was something Hamilton and every other Founder believed within the scope of Federal government.

Kalamata: "What really amazes me is how those like Joey (and Hamilton) could lie with such ease?
In Joey's case, it could simply be that he is as dumb as a box of rocks.
But Hamilton's lies would put Bill Clinton to shame."

Our Dan-child learned a pack of lies when he was a boy, and now just can't stop repeating them, or looking for quotes to support them.
Fortunately, no such legitimate quotes exist, even if our Dan-child is still not quite bright enough to figure that out.

Kalamata: "Perhaps a new term is in order to identify Joey's living-constitution political philosophy, for example, it could be called Democrat-And-Don't-Know-It."

Our FRiend Dan-bo Kalamata was raised a Democrat, taught all the Democrat lies as a child, learned to hate all the people Democrats hated, and then at some point in his life, like so many others, flipped his name-tag from "D" to "R", but made no other changes in his beliefs or attitudes.
Today he fantasizes he is somehow, magically a Republican, even though he hates Republicans with a passion that only a true Democrat could sustain, and even though he still believes every lie he was taught as a child.

Kalamata: "A proposal to give the general government the power to grant charters of incorporation was rejected in convention, Joey, and or course Jefferson was not present.
So please list the names of "every Founder except Jefferson" that supported a National Bank."

The National Bank is listed in the table I've now posted several times, most recently in #51 above.

Kalamata: "Why are you so desperate to deceive Freepers, Joey?
What is at stake for you?
Are you a beneficiary of Hamiltonian crony-capitalism?"

Total nonsense.
The fact is that you are just repeating a pack of Democrat lies that have been around a long time, but were never true and cannot gain in truthfulness by your constant repetition.
They identify you, Dan-child, as a Democrat, anti-American and most important, a liar, probably born liar.

Kalamata: "So, the FINO's (Federalist-In- Name-Only) were liars.
Everyone with a brain knows that.
This is in regard to John Adam's monarchial tendencies:"

Kalamata quoting from: "Abel Parker Upshur, "A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of our Federal Government: being a review of Judge Story's commentaries on the Constitution."
John Campbell, Publisher, 1863, Intro. pp.ii-iii]"

And what is this book?
It's a partisan Democrat political screed:

The political philosophy that would later guide the Confederacy

reprinted in 1863 by Northern Democrats

ABEL PARKER UPSHUR [1791-1844], a Virginia judge, politician and spokesman for states-rights and pro-slavery southern conservative ideology, served as secretary of the navy and secretary of state under President Tyler."

Kalamata: "That is really dumb, Joey.
Marshall was well aware of the limitations placed on the Constitution; yet he went out of his way to circumvent them.
He was a power-hungry tyrant!
Live with it."

John Marshall was a Founder whose opinions of Founders Original Intent are worth infinitely more than opinions of anti-Founders, anti-Americans, pro-Confederates who declared and waged existential war against the United States.
Live with that, child.

Kalamata: "Joey is hopelessly confused about the term "federalism.""

Our Dan-child is not in the least confused, but he loves to lie so much he can't control it, can't stop, no matter how ridiculous he sounds.

Kalamata: "After the greedy snake, Alexander Hamilton, showed his ugly head, Thomas Jefferson, a republican and federalist, teamed up with James Madison, a republican and federalist, to combat the British-style monarchism that Hamilton promoted.
Ironically, the republican Thomas Jefferson served in the George Washington administration as the 1st Secretary of State of the United States:"

All this cr*p from Kalamata is intended to obscure a basic fact: Hamilton was George Washington's right-hand man, spoke for Washington and acted on Washington's behalf.
When push came to shove between Jefferson & Hamilton, Washington sided with Hamilton and basically fired Jefferson.
So all the nonsense we hear about say, Hamilton or John Adams being "monarchists" was actually aimed at Washington himself, and was considered by Washington to be not just disloyal, but outright treasonous.

So Washington grew to hate Jefferson with a passion so strong that Martha Washington considered a courtesy visit by Jefferson to be the second worst day of her life -- second only to the day of George Washington's death!
Sadly, Washington's hatred of Jefferson rubbed off too on Jefferson's Virginia allies, Madison & Monroe.

The bottom line is that Jefferson's assaults on Washington, Adams & Hamilton had nothing to do with high principles and everything to do with highly partisan and regional politics.

Kalamata: "Joey's posts are always confusing.
I am reasonably certain that I identified Patrick Henry as an anti-federalist, of the opposite political persuasion as the anti-federalist Alexander Hamilton.
Joey is attempting to confuse my statement with irrelevant trivia."

Our Dan-child is only "confused" because he keeps lying about the facts of history and can't always keep his lies straight.
The fact is that anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry opposed the US Constitution because they believed it made Federal government too powerful.
But Federalists like Washington, Hamilton and Madison wrote the Constitution and got it ratified over anti-Federalists' objections.

Now our Dan-child wishes us to believe that historical anti-Federalists were the "true federalists" and the historical Federalists were just lying monarchists.
Such claims are old enough to have originated with anti-Federalists like Thomas Jefferson, but they were then and remain today nothing more than highly partisan political nonsense.

Kalamata: "One would expect the anti-federalists to oppose the federalist Jefferson.
The federalist Randolph is an unusual case."

And here Kalamata's relentless lying turns his words into incomprehensible mishmash.
The fact is that Jeffersonian Democrats eventually adopted the entire Federalist Party agenda after they came to power in 1801.
Those Big Government Democrats (Presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe) were then opposed by "Old Republicans" like John Randolph, "strict constructionist" Northern Federalists and even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall.

Kalamata: "Simple-minded Joey is perpetually confused by labels.
Thomas Jefferson was a devout conservative republican and federalist."

Jefferson was many things, including a highly partisan political operative who weaponized "strict construction" to beat up on Federalists like John Adams before 1801, then adopted the Federalist agenda, and more, after being elected President Jefferson.
In that sense Jefferson as a 100% typical Democrat.

In the Founders' time, federalists were people who wanted the country to be more than a loose alliance or league or confederacy of independent states. They wanted a stronger central government than the Articles of Confederation provided. In Europe, where central governments were much stronger and provinces always under the control of the central government, "federalist" came to refer to those who wanted regional or provincial assemblies with more power. During the French Revolution, Fédérés were people from all parts of the country who came together to support the country's revolution. Ninety years later, in 1871, Fédérés were people who opposed the unitary state and wanted more autonomy for Paris and other localities.

The idea that the Federalists of Washington, Adams and Hamilton stole the word or deceived people was something that grew up over time as the meaning of the word evolved. When you have a strong central government, federalists are people who demand more local autonomy, but when you have a weak or loose alliance or league or confederacy, federalists are those who favor a stronger national government. They didn't steal the word and Jefferson didn't have a greater claim on the label than the men who actually wrote the Constitution.

The Federalists wanted a "stronger federal government" than the Jeffersonians, but they weren't "consolidationists." None of them wanted to abolish the states, and they weren't trying to take away the powers the state exercised in their own sphere. But they did want a more active role for the federal government within its own sphere of activity. I certainly wouldn't say that Jefferson was the "true" Federalist, since he tended to oppose measures that could be regarded as legitimate and constitutional exercises of federal authority, but Jefferson and Madison were quite inconsistent, advocating policies when they were in power that they opposed when they were out of power. Indeed, Jefferson and Madison didn't agree with each other when they were each in the White House. The deep division that people see between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians was more theoretical than real.

I don't really see where the measures Hamilton would have supported to encourage agriculture differed from the measures Jefferson supported. Neither was going to micromanage farming in the states, but they would both support surveying and selling new lands and encourage better agricultural techniques to the degree that the federal government could undertake such action at the time.

x: "I don't really see where the measures Hamilton would have supported to encourage agriculture differed from the measures Jefferson supported.
Neither was going to micromanage farming in the states, but they would both support surveying and selling new lands and encourage better agricultural techniques to the degree that the federal government could undertake such action at the time."

Thanks for a great post.
In post #51 above (and elsewhere) I put together a table showing where each of the major Founders & leaders stood on key issues that I'm calling the Federalist agenda.
These are the actual items Kalamata accuses of "tyranny", "deception", "consolidation", "crony capitalism" and "living constitution".
The table shows that Federalists like Washington, Adams & Hamilton supported the agenda 100%, but even anti-Federalists like Jefferson and his flipped ally Madison also supported it, in whole or in part.

On protective tariffs: In 1789 Congressman Madison introduced the first protective tariff bill which was passed & signed by President Washington.
We are not told if Secretary of State Jefferson opposed the protective tariffs, but President Jefferson never abolished them.
All of that post-1800 doubling of rates was under Democratic-Republican Presidents Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
On a national bank: The National Bank was Hamilton's proposal and it passed over Secretary of State Jefferson's objections, signed by President Washington.
Still, President Jefferson never moved to abolish the bank and President Madison supported (however reluctantly) its renewal in 1816.
Under President Monroe there was a major bank scandal which lead many to call for its abolition, but Monroe simply appointed new leadership to root out corruption.
The National Bank was finally killed off by President Jackson, whose idea was: if we pay-off the national debt, we won't need a d*mn bank, so that's what he did.
On "Internal Improvements": Every Founder, without exception, wanted what we call "infrastructure" and they called "internal improvements", the question was: who should pay for them?
All agreed the Constitution allowed for postal roads and military structures, but what about canals?
Federalists said "yes" to canals, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans said "no" to Federalist canals, but then under President Jefferson supported the full Gallatin Plan for a national network of canals & roads.
President Madison first supported then vetoed Senator Calhoun's Bonus Bill for internal improvements.
President Monroe first opposed then signed the bill which broke the back of anti-improvers in Congress.
From then on, Congress was in the Internal Improvements business to stay.

Anyway, while our FRiend Kalamata babbles incoherently about "tyranny", "deception", "consolidation", "crony capitalism" and "living constitution" (he's against those), the fact is that all Founders wanted and eventually accomplished what I'm calling the Federalist agenda = Founders Original Intent.