Replies

You seem to go out of your way to misinterprete and misunderstand Hamilton's role at the CC. He never submitted a plan for a constitution but what he called "a sketch of a plan" IOW talking points and historical facts for discussion. Madison misinterpreted his speech as a true "plan" though there was never a vote taken on it as there was on a true plan. M. had ONE page of notes for a 5 hour speech bet that page was comprehensive.

Much of the CC was staged managed from the various inns and taverns at which the delegates gathered after the sessions. Many of the points of discussion were established at those informal gatherings and at the convention of the Cincinnati. Hamilton worked in accord with Washington to create a strong government and the fact that the last day of debate prior to the vote on the Randolph Plan ( a true plan) was alloted to Hamilton for the longest speech of the convention was not an accident. It was done that way so that the small states would not have time to discuss and amend the NJ plan making it more acceptable.

Thus, rather than having a prospect choosing between plans of NJ vs Va. Hamilton's speech moved the scale by providing a "Stalking Horse" much more nationalistic than the Va. plan. This made it seem more reasonable to those inclined to compromise and made it much more acceptable. It was a brilliant scheme between Washington and Hamilton and worked to perfection.

Many of Hamilton's suggestions did become part of the Constitution but that is no evidence that he submitted a plan. Hamilton had a life long habit of talking out loud when he was working through problems and this speech was essentially an example of that.

Never called Federalists "John Browns" merely pointed out the inescapeable fact that the center of slavery support was in the democrat-republican party and the center of anti-slavery activity was in the federal-republican party.

Apparently you are unaware of the existence of Article I, Section 9 or of what it refers. Or that there was no power within the Constitution allowing the federal government to prohibit slavery. Trying to tar the Federalists with pro-slavery sentiments (or not anti-slavery enough for WiJG like anyone would care) is a typical dissembling stunt on your part.

Jefferson's pitiful essay on the Bank was blown to smithereens by Hamilton's brilliant essay on that subject. He doesn't get the point at all and illustrates the limited understanding of the Constitution the man had particularly compared to Hamilton. There is no question as to the legality of a National Bank since it is a means to carrying out the powers granted the government within the constitution. It is no more illegal than a Mint which is not specifically mentioned either. Jefferson actually understands this and only opposed it because it would strengthen his domestic enemies hands. He did not care what his opposition would do to damage the Nation since he never considered himself an American (unlike Hamilton) but a Virginian.

It is also absurd to claim that because some modern Leftist (or Rightist for that matter) attaches himself to some of the ideas of a great man the great man himself is a Leftist.
But this is typical of your mentality and intent to deceive.

Hamilton's insistence that the Word of the government MUST be upheld created millions in capital that was not there before. Much of the successful speculation occurred because the dumbass opposition to the funding from the d-r allowed the purchases by the speculators. Quick passage would have prevented this. Thus, their success was largely the result of lamebrained opposition to the Federalist policies. Too bad. States which had defaulted away or paid their debts were accomadated in the agreement between J, Madison and H.

Jefferson's support of the Reign of Terror removed him from any association with the Right and cemented his alignment with the Left.

There was no way that the Constitution could have been amended after passage to abolish slavery any pretense that there was on your part is sophistry at its worse. Maybe you are unaware that even a political genius like Hamilton could not have removed the requirement that an amendment has to have the votes of 3/4s of the states.

Being called "clueless" by you is high praise indeed. But it does not change the fact that the Va/Ky Resolutions (rejected by every other state) were not provoked by SC rulings or that the Court had ruled upon the constitutionality of federal laws years earlier with little controversy.

There is no answer to the sound of one hand clapping question which intrigues you so. The Court is a CREATION of the Constitution which places supreme power within the Congress. The "Exceptions Clause" gives the Congress power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction and the amendment process allows it to amend the Court away entirely. However, the Constitution is a piece of parchment with no power in itself. It becomes a power only through the actions of people.

There were no "contingent" ratifications of the Constitution accepted.

Nor would there be a Law of the Land possible with states having the power to rule Congress-passed laws unconstitional. It would be chaos and nonsense which of course would appeal to you. Jefferson and Madison pulled that idiocy out of their @sses since it ignored clear precedent in the states and the federal convention and Court action. All the other states let the "resolutions" die an embarrassing death. No wonder they were written anonymously.