I suspect I’ve provided more “evidence” on this thread than you’ve provided in the sum total of your FreeRepublic posts. Face it, sport: your opinions may be amusing, but they’re not “evidence”…
;>)
There was no "Hamilton Plan" submitted to the CC. All his comments were submitted as points of discussion as he clearly stated in the letter to Pickering which you ignore, Sport. Any actual submittal of a "plan" would have been voted upon…
LOL! Mr. Madison’s records of Hamilton's plan certainly suggest otherwise! Specifically:
I. The Supreme Legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two different bodies of men; the one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate who together shall form the Legislature of the United States with power to pass all laws whatsoever subject to the Negative hereafter mentioned.
II. The Assembly to consist of persons elected by the people to serve for three years.
III. The Senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour; their election to be made by electors chosen for that purpose by the people: in order to this the States to be divided into election districts. On the death, removal or resignation of any Senator his place to be filled out of the district from which he came.
IV. The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour-the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts aforesaid-The authorities & functions of the Executive to be as follows: to have a negative on all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed, to have the direction of war when authorized or begun; to have with the advice and approbation of the Senate the power of making all treaties; to have the sole appointment of the heads or chief officers of the departments of Finance, War and Foreign Affairs; to have the nomination of all other officers (Ambassadors to foreign Nations included) subject to the approbation or rejection of the Senate; to have the power of pardoning all offences except Treason; which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the Senate.
V. On the death, resignation or removal of the Governour his authorities to be exercised by the President of the Senate till a Successor be appointed.
VI. The Senate to have the sole power of declaring war, the power of advising and approving all Treaties, the power of approving or rejecting all appointments of officers except the heads or chiefs of the departments of Finance War and foreign affairs.
VII. The supreme Judicial authority to be vested in Judges to hold their offices during good behaviour with adequate and permanent salaries. This Court to have original jurisdiction in all causes of capture, and an appellative jurisdiction in all causes in which the revenues of the general Government or the Citizens of foreign Nations are concerned.
VIII. The Legislature of the United States to have power to institute Courts in each State for the determination of all matters of general concern.
IX. The Governour Senators and all officers of the United States to be liable to impeachment for mal- and corrupt conduct; and upon conviction to be removed from office, & disqualified for holding any place of trust or profit-All impeachments to be tried by a Court to consist of the Chief or Judge of the superior Court of Law of each State, provided such Judge shall hold his place during good behavior, and have a permanent salary.
X. All laws of the particular States contrary to the Constitution or laws of the United States to be utterly void; and the better to prevent such laws being passed, the Governour or president of each State shall be appointed by the General Government and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the State of which he is Governour or President.
XI. No State to have any forces land or Naval; and the Militia of all the States to be under the sole and exclusive direction of the United States, the officers of which to be appointed and commissioned by them.
On these several articles he entered into explanatory observations [FN] corresponding with the principles of his introductory reasoning.
[FN In the transcript the following footnote was inserted with reference mark after "observations":] The speech introducing the plan, as above taken down & written out was seen by Mr. Hamilton, who approved its correctness, with one or two verbal changes, which were made as he suggested. The explanatory observations which did not immediately follow, were to have been furnished by Mr. H. who did not find leisure at the time to write them out, and they were not obtained.
Of course, you refer to this “plan,” which contains detailed “articles,” as mere “points of discussion.” ‘Imaginary points of an imaginary discussion,’ without a doubt! Your mental gymnastics are most entertaining!
Thanks for pointing out the minimal action of Jefferson on slavery after his initial concerns before 1784-5. It verifies my claim. Reducing imports of slaves merely made the stocks held by slavers more valuable after 1808.
“Verifies your claim?” Which claim was that? That the Federalists were 'the John Browns of the 18th century,' while the Jeffersonian republicans were ‘slaver scum?’ I ask again (is it the third or fourth time? ;>): “Care to tell us when your supposedly ‘anti-slavery’ Federalists proposed the first constitutional amendment to abolish the ‘peculiar institution?’… Did the Federalist Party even exist when the first abolition amendment was proposed?”
;>)
There were NO Official notes. I will amend my comment about Madison and say that rather than mistaken he just doesn't make it clear that the comments of Hamilton were NOT a plan.
I don’t believe I ever claimed Mr. Madison’s records were “official.” They are simply the “standard authority for the proceedings of the Convention” - despite your pitiful attempts to rationalize them out of existence. And Mr. Madison’s notes do indeed suggest that Mr. Hamilton’s comments represented a "plan" of government.
I have said nothing about Jefferson that is baseless.
You really are disconnected from reality! Your absolute and unsustainable claim that Mr. Jefferson had “nothing in common with Republicans” is indeed baseless – as I have shown repeatedly. Your idiotic argument collapses on the 2nd Amendment issue alone. That is a simple fact - get used to it...
Attempts to dispell the baseless adulation of the man are long overdue since he has been the darling of the Left for over 200 yrs.
Actually, Mr. Hamilton currently seems to be “the darling” of many Leftists. As I noted previously, you really should read Lind’s Hamilton’s Republic: the “Leftist” reference to the Republican Party of the 1990’s as ‘Jeffersonian yahoos’ is particularly entertaining, as is the reference to FDR & LBJ as the two greatest Hamiltonian presidents of the 20th century…
;>)
Where does "It seemed to be admitted..." mean that such a statement reflected H's wishes or even hopes?
LOL! Did he suggest otherwise in his own remarks that day?
There are no contradictions between J's sabotaging building a strong military…
“Sabotage?” Looks like you are painting Mr. Jefferson as a traitor – another wild@ss claim you can not & will not ever substantiate.
Jefferson opposed strong military…
Actually, I believe he opposed a strong ‘standing’ military, as did many of the Founders (perhaps you should read The Federalist Papers some day – after you locate a copy of the Constitution ;>). Under your lunatic ‘standard,’ a great many of the Founders ‘sabotaged building a strong military.’
…strong central government …
LOL! Perhaps you should review the records of the constitutional convention. A “central government” stronger than the one adopted was repeatedly debated, and repeatedly rejected. And guess what, sport? Mr. Jefferson wasn’t there for you to blame! By your ridiculous ‘standard,’ a majority of the convention delegates must have been “scum” and ‘saboteurs.’
By the way: which of our current parties (Republican or Democrat) generally advocates a stronger central government?
… a central bank…
I refer you to Mr. Jefferson's “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” (1791):
The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.[1]
3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands, and so far is against the laws of Alienage.
4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.
5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat, and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.
6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line and so far is against the laws of Distribution.
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.
8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed.
I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.
The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.
1. They are not among the powers specially enumerated: for these are: 1st A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United States; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, its origination in the Senate would condemn it by the Constitution.
2. "To borrow money." But this bill neither borrows money nor ensures the borrowing it. The proprietors of the bank will be just as free as any other money holders, to lend or not to lend their money to the public. The operation proposed in the bill first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.
3. To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `' productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations.
II. Nor are they within either of the general phrases, which are the two following:
1. To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare." For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.
2. The second general phrase is, "to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers." But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.
If has been urged that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes, Suppose this were true: yet the Constitution allows only the means which are "necessary," not those which are merely "convenient" for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to everyone, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without which the grant of power would be nugatory.
But let us examine this convenience and see what it is. The report on this subject, page 3, states the only general convenience to be, the preventing the transportation and re-transportation of money between the States and the treasury, (for I pass over the increase of circulating medium, ascribed to it as a want, and which, according to my ideas of paper money, is clearly a demerit.) Every State will have to pay a sum of tax money into the treasury; and the treasury will have to pay, in every State, a part of the interest on the public debt, and salaries to the officers of government resident in that State. In most of the States there will still be a surplus of tax money to come up to the seat of government for the officers residing there. The payments of interest and salary in each State may he made by treasury orders on the State collector. This will take up the greater part of the money he has collected in his State, and consequently prevent the great mass of it from being drawn out of the State. If there be a balance of commerce in favor of that State against the one in which the government resides, the surplus of taxes will be remitted by the bills of exchange drawn for that commercial balance. And so it must be if there was a bank. But if there be no balance of commerce, either direct or circuitous, all the banks in the world could not bring up the surplus of taxes, but in the form of money. Treasury orders then, and bills of exchange may prevent the displacement of the main mass of the money collected, without the aid of any bank; and where these fail, it cannot be prevented even with that aid.
Perhaps, indeed, bank bills may be a more convenient vehicle than treasury orders. But a little difference in the degree of convenience cannot constitute the necessity which the Constitution makes the ground for assuming any non-enumerated power.
Besides, the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank. That of Philadelphia I believe, now does this business, by their post-notes, which, by an arrangement with the treasury, are paid by any State collector to whom they are presented. This expedient alone suffices to prevent the existence of that necessity which may justify the assumption of a non-enumerated power as a means for carrying into effect an enumerated one. The thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this assumption, therefore it does not stand on that degree of necessity which can honestly justify it.
It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all over the world. But it does not follow from this superior conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.
Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence. Will Congress be too strait-laced to carry the Constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience of theirs?
The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection.
It must be added, however, that unless the President's mind on a view of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is unauthorized by the Constitution; if the pro and the con hang so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of the President.
In short, the “central bank” was of doubtful legality – unless one believes the Constitution is ‘meaningless,’as you apparently do…
…funding government debt (rather than defaulting as J. urged)…
LOL! Are you referring to Mr. Hamilton’s 1790 proposal (Report on Public Credit ) to redeem - at face value, no less! - the millions of dollars in nearly worthless paper securities issued by the government formed under the Articles of Confederation? A proposal that provided a government-funded ‘windfall’ to currency speculators (many of whom apparently resided in the Federalist-leaning northern States)? ‘Redeeming worthless paper merely made the notes held by Federalist speculators more valuable after 1790’…
Or are you referring to Mr. Hamilton’s suggestion that the federal government assume the outstanding war debts of the individual States – knowing full well that some States (including Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia ;>) had already levied high taxes to pay off their war debts, and would therefore be ‘doubly taxed’ to retire debts not even their own?
Mr. Hamilton's proposals sound positively "DemocRATic!"
…economic development not based upon agriculture…
Mr. Hamilton’s tariff proposal (Report on Manufactures of 1791) was too much even for the Federalists – who rejected it, apparently recognizing that it would have been disastrous for trade.
…all key elements of the GOP history.
Another ‘straw man argument’ – we are not comparing Mr. Jefferson to “GOP history.” These are the statements that prompted your 'delusional posting binge:'
1) Mr. Jefferson's views were quite similar to those of many modern conservatives and Republicans - and indeed, Mr. Jefferson referred to himself as a "republican;" and
2) Mr. Hamilton would be much more at home with modern liberals and Democrats...
;>)
88 posted on 01/21/2004 4:00:30 PM PST by Who is John Galt?
The comparison is, and always has been, to “modern conservatives and Republicans.” You really should learn to read if you are going to continue to post here…
Selecting a few policies of overlap is insufficient proof of J's GOPishness, sport.
And another phony argument! You stated that Mr. Jefferson “had nothing in common with Republicans;” “GOPishness” (whatever the heck that is ;>) seems to be a more recent invention of your fevered mind (maybe you should remove that orange stocking cap and let your brain cool off ;>). But thanks for buttressing my argument: those “policies of overlap” you are now admitting exist simply support my contention that “Mr. Jefferson's views were quite similar to those of many modern conservatives and Republicans.”
;>)
Membership in a Manumission Society is relevent only to refute your baseless and inane argument.
Sorry, but I have not offered any “baseless” and/or “inane” arguments. To what, specifically, are you referring?
I have no beef with Luther Martin's (if that is whom you are referencing) anti-slavery views and actions rather commend him for them.
Sorry, but I don’t believe I’ve ever cited Luther Martin…
;>)
By the time the Constitution allowed anti-slavery legislation the Federalists were dead as an effective political force.
Wrong! The Constitution could have been amended immediately upon adoption to abolish slavery - the Bill of Rights is the product of exactly that process. The Federalists dominated federal politics for a decade, and never offered such an amendment to the States.
You really should read the Constitution some time…
;>)
Stating that the laws of States were operative on keeping slaves enslaved does not mean it "protected" slavery only that it acknowledged that state law was supreme in this area since there could be no contrary federal action until 1808.
What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the ‘runaway slave’ clause was inoperative after 1808? In fact, it continued in effect until ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865…
Slavery was not made unconstitutional so what is your point, spurt?
The "point?" The Federalists didn’t even attempt to amend the Constitution to make slavery unconstitutional, so your comic-book version of history obviously comes up 'just a bit short.' (Simple enough for you? ;>)
You could just as validly claim that the Constitution protected prostitution too since it did not outlaw it.
LOL! Wrong again – the Constitution failed to include a ‘runaway prostitute’ clause. At least my copy contains no such language – maybe your 'comic-book' copy shoe-horned it in, next to the ‘Congress can establish a Clinton monarchy’ clause…
;>)
[Hamilton’s] deadly enemy, Jefferson, called him a "Collosus."
But you’ve implied that Mr. Jefferson was a traitor, and “scum” – why on earth would you quote him, sport? Perhaps you should have quoted Mr. Lincoln – you seem to respect Mr. Lincoln:
“I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson.”
Abraham Lincoln
Springfield, Illinois
July 17, 1858
According to you, apparently, the Mr. Lincoln was 'sustained by scum.'
;>)
Without Hamilton the democrat-republicans would have seized and held power almost immediately upon foundation of the United States of America even you can't deny THAT.
Wow – and I thought that Mr. Washington was elected on his own merits. According to you, he had Mr. Hamilton to thank for his office.
As for Jeffersonian republicans ‘seizing’ power – they were in fact lawfully elected only a few years later, in reaction to the Federalist Party’s notoriously unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts. Speaking of which…
What a silly and totally rhetorical question: Constitution vs SC. It was a political whine from Jeffersonians unhappy because they could not bend the Court to the popular will and away from the Founders' intentions, snert.
You’re nothing if not entertaining! Sure you won’t answer? ‘Is the Constitution supreme over the court, or is the court supreme over the Constitution?’
(You must believe the latter, or you wouldn’t have suggested that a Clinton monarchy would be constitutional! ;>)
And what is it that you think "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made...." means if the Court has no power to void laws contrary to the Constitution?
Wrong again! The language you cite nowhere indicates that judicial review (a mere subset of what has been referred to as ‘constitutional review’) is either exclusive, or final. You claim both – obviously without grounds.
Actually, there was no real dispute about this until Marshall's rulings started to go against Jefferson's wishes... This was not a controversial issue.
More fairy tales from queenhillaryscourtjester! When exactly do you think Mr. Marshall started issuing his “rulings,” sport? 1788? That was the year Mr. Hamilton's own State ratified the Constitution – reserving to the people thereof "every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the [federal] Government" (and as anyone who has actually read the Constitution knows, the exclusive and final power to 'say what the Constitution means' is nowhere "clearly delegated" to the federal high court ;>). Was it 1790, when Rhode Island ratified with the same reservation of rights? 1798, perhaps? That was the year James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (respectively) - claiming a right of final constitutional review for the States (not the federal court). Was it 1800? Madison’s Report of 1800 is quite clear, and Madison's logic is irrefutable: the States retained the right of final constitutional review. By the way: Mr. Justice Marshall wasn’t even sworn in until February 4, 1801. "No real dispute... until Marshall's rulings?" As usual, you got things 'bass-ackwards'...
You really are clueless.
;>)