Of course, I never stated that Mr. Hamilton had a “desire to create a King.” Still a ‘straw man argument’ on your part – the only kind you have any hope of winning.
;>)
He had no tendencies toward monarchism or aristocracy those were rank lies spread by the Jefferson/Callender/Bache/Beckley stream of protoRAT scum. And parroted by moderns who wish to blacken Hamilton's name with malicious falsehoods.
LOL! Mr. Hamilton’s comments at the constitutional convention speak for themselves – which is no doubt why you consistently ignore them!
He saw his desire for a strong government with balanced powers come true when the Constitution created three branches with the Senate role emulating that of the House of Lords. They were to serve the permanent national interest and be outside democratic control.
ROTFLMAO! Mr. Hamilton’s plan of government was rejected by the convention, and you claim the Constitution represents his “desire...come true?” Oh, you betcha! Mr. Hamilton’s plan was for a ‘national government;’ the plan that was actually adopted established a ‘federal government.’ For example, why don't you tell us how Mr. Hamilton proposed that the members of the senate be selected? Was it by “electors” – or by the legislatures of the States?
... Washington resembled a King more than George the III did.
Are you always this delusional?
There was no "admiration for the Crown" expressed. The House of Lords is not a monarchical institution, it is Aristocratic...
Wrong again. Mr. Hamilton observed that “[a]s to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles…The English model was the only good one on this subject.” He was referring to the “executive” (the Crown in “the English model”), not the House of Lords. Of course, you insist that labeling "the English model...the only good one" expresses no "admiration." It is always entertaining to watch you ‘Hamilton groupies’ attempt to dance around the man's own words. But by all means, please keep it up!
;>)
Tax cuts are not uniquely Republican so you offer a false analogy wrt J's cuts.
I never suggested that “tax cuts are...uniquely Republican.” I stated that “Thomas Jefferson’s First Annual Message was teeming with Republican principles: tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments.” The entire ‘package’ resembles traditional Republican priorities – despite your claims to the contrary.
There is no creditible argument that Jefferson's party was more like the GOP than the Federalist just the attitude towards slavery alone refutes any attempt.
The ‘slavery card:’ how predictable - and how futile. It may be news to you, but the Federalists advocated ratification of the Constitution, and the Constitution certainly did not prohibit slavery until it was amended approximately 75 years later. As for Mr. Jefferson, perhaps you can tell us who drafted the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in the territories? Hmm? Did Mr. Hamilton draft the Northwest Ordinance – or did Thomas Jefferson? Answer up, sport.
And while Mr. Jefferson was successfully prohibiting slavery in the Northwest territories, what was Mr. Hamilton doing in the New York legislature? In 1787, was Mr. Hamilton abolishing slavery in New York? Or did his State wait a bit (like 40 years ;>)?
;>)
Since any appointment of Queen Hillary would run afoul of the Constitution and the Court would say so immediately that little red herring has no bearing on anything other than the immediate context it was within.
Then let’s review the context:
WIJG: What are you suggesting - that no law can be unconstitutional unless the high court rules it to be so?
j... : Of course it cannot.
WIJG: So, if the Democrats capture both houses of Congress, pass a law (by a veto-proof margin ;>) declaring Hillary ‘Queen for Life,’ and the high court refuses to consider the case, you would insist that the law (and the Clinton monarchy it established ;>) was constitutional?
j... : Until the Court has ruled on a law it is constitutional by default whether you or I like it or not.
So, even though the Constitution nowhere delegates to Congress the power to dispose of the constitutionally-elected federal government and replace it with a monarchy (or even to amend the Constitution to make such an action possible), you insist that such an act would be "constitutional by default” unless five (possibly D@mocrat ;>) political appointees decide otherwise.
You no doubt are unaware of the fact, but your point of view bears a remarkable resemblance to the “Nuremberg defense”...
;>)
It is like using a quote within a quote within a quote and never specifying just who was saying what and why.
That’s rather entertaining, given that I quote source documents, and you offer nothing but unsubstantiated opinion...
;>)
I don't equate the GOP with militarists as you falsely imply, the equation is GOP strong national security. Nor is a strong national security concern the equivalent to an aggressive policy of conquest like Hitler so don't even try with that.
“[T]he equation is GOP strong national security.” Thank you for proving my point. It is you, not I, who has attempted to adopt an untenable ‘single standard’ of Republican virtue – “strong national security.” You apparently believe that Mr. Jefferson’s call for “tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments” can all – ALL – be dismissed solely because you do not believe he promoted “strong national security.” It is your ridiculous ‘single standard’ that would promote comparisons such as Moveon.org recently attempted. Congratulations!
;>)