Sedition Act of 1798 (Ironic Jefferson topic for Babs Babble)

Point?

What Streisand quite are you referring to???

I guess Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, and EVERYONE at the NY Slimes is glad that they didn't live in Jefferson's America. LOL!

"SEC. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter......any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against.......... the President of the United States, with intent to defame............"shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Sounds applicable to TV movies to me.

I believe this was deliberately designed to expire at the end of Adams' term, in case Jefferson got elected. Moreover, the law did not prohibit slandering the Vice President of the United States, since Jefferson held that office. So Streisand and company would be free to attack Cheney, as they do anyway.

Read Sec.4 (the last line). This Act expired in 1801.

Read the Act and ask yourself if it does not describe exactly the campaign John Kerry, Moveon.org, Michael Moore, etc waged in this Presidential Election.

Think of CBS and the NYT coverage (forged docs and Al Ka Ka) and ask yourself if this act describes exactly what they did. Ask yourself if Kerry's Senate testimony is not the very thing this act was written to criminalize.

The irony is that the Reign of Witches passed in 1801 allowing them to run the campaign that they did. The irony is that their spells did dissolve and the American people, recovering their true sight, reelected George W. Bush.

Jefferson specifically ran against this law and pardoned everyone prosecuted under it. I, like you, find it ironic that Babs would use a quote that was framed against her ideology.

It is typical of the "Big Lie" dem methodology but I am a little surprised that Babs could see it. Perhaps I've never seen her subtle "progressive" tactics before...more likely though she is just ignorantly spouting what others are saying.

I'm going to have to go with the ignorant theory.

I agree with you on the ignorant theory.

It's a good bet she has a book of quotes rather than an understanding of history; otherwise she would never have fallen for the bogus Shakespeare quote. (She is an actress, right?)

The simple fact that she picks a quote expressing a longing for the return of legally seditious behavior says it all.

She, like Jefferson, wants no punishment of sedition. She, like Jefferson, depended upon the RATmedia to destroy the government through its lies. Unfortunately for the nation in 1800 there was no internet to expose the Liars and Jefferson won.

Talk about ignorance...

Read the first amendment then tell me how the sedation act was constitutional. Why would Jefferson, being one of our founding fathers and the author of the declaration of independence, want to destroy the country he helped to build?

Of course he stopped a movement to increase federal power under Hamilton which is what must bother you. Here are some of the idea Hamilton proposed at the constitutional debates (in a 5 hour speech).

1. State governors would be appointed by the President.
2. The President and Senators would hold office for life
3. Congress would retain exclusive authority to make all the laws of the country.

No wonder you are Hamiltonian! Doesn't that sound fun?
Hamilton was hardly a devil, and his part in the federalist papers was profound, but to intimate that Jefferson wasn't on the side of the angels on this issue is blatantly un-american.

Hamilton was also one of the first people to suggest that the "general welfare clause" gave the federal government addition powers other then those already enumerated. It's no wonder you would call Jefferson a liar with the intimation that Hamilton was correct. Are you one of those people that yearns for a constitutional monarchy?

Jefferson is perhaps the most overrated President in out history and only his blundering into the Louisiana Purchase saves him from utter mediocrity wrt the presidency. (And his ludicrous constitutional understanding did not see the Purchase as being constitutional.)

His lies against the Washington administration while SecState justly earned him Washington's undying contempt which became so great that he refused to hear his name in his final years. Hamilton, on the other hand, retained Washington's admiration and regard for the rest of his life.

For your information the normal usage of the term "Founders" only applies to those at the CC which disqualifies Jefferson. Fortunately he was out of the country when it was written and ratified otherwise I am sure he would have opposed it for some cockamaymee reason or the other.

Hamilton's brainstorming session at the Convention does not represent anything more than his attempts to negoitiate a strong fedgov at which he was indeed successful. They are easily misconstrued as meaning things he did not intend which was the reason secrecy was place upon the participants. Sure enough his political enemies tried to use them against him afterwards. His public writings (which are voluminous) show him to be a devoted republican. His actions show him to have placed concern about the Nation far above any other consideration and earn him place as one of our greatest Patriots second to only Washington in earning our Liberty and Prosperity.

The first amendment does not allow newspapers to undermine the government and any which attempted to do so would have been closed down as late as WWII. Or do you have an example of a pro-Japanese newspaper from 1943 to show me?
In addition, you are totally wrong about Hamilton's position on the A and S Acts. He never recommended their passage in the first place quite the contrary.

But the REAL point is that the states had much more stringent laws against these acts at the time the federal laws were passed. After Jefferson took power by fanning the flames of hysteria against them his sycophants in the states proceded to use EXACTLY those state laws to prosecute federalist papers. This provided the opportunity for Hamilton to argue one of his most important cases in NY when the odious Clinton attacked a small newspaper for critisizing Jefferson.

There are no peers to Hamilton in Constitutional interpretation nor was there any doubt that there were implied powers not expressed within the document. Even Jefferson and Madison admitted that. Concern for the General Welfare is an appropriate matter under the constitution as that clause says and as the preamble says.
Once again the Hamiltonian explanation of what is constitutional and what not is definitive and totally consistent with the power within the document.

Jefferson may be an overrated president depending on what your measurement may be. His constitutional understanding however was perfectly clear when he stated that the Constitution did not allow the Louisiana Purchase. He went ahead and did it anyway, and never ever tried to bend the Constitution past its plain meaning to justify it. That alone raises him in my estimation.

I'm not aware of Jefferson's "lies" concerning Washington and I won't speak to that point unless I can find out more information concerning them.

I do know however that the rise of the republican party rest on Jefferson's and Madison's shoulders. Even Hamilton supported Jefferson over Adams (and Burr) when push came to shove. Jefferson and Hamilton were never to become friends but they had a great deal of respect for each other.

Hamilton, while in the wrong on so very many issues, was an excellent legal mind. He did however see the constitution as a hindrance to his federalist ambitions. That is why he decided that, all of a sudden, the general welfare clause conferred powers. While he was roundly derided at the time it showed a fundamentally disregard of what our country stands for. Jefferson never lacked such a understanding.

Jefferson knew that our government was created by the people of our country for the people of our country. Hamilton would certainly have agreed with that. What Hamilton wanted to disregard was the simple concept that the only powers the government were to be entrusted with were those specifically enumerated and THAT IS ALL. Americans were citizens not subjects to the new government In fact the new government was the subject of the people. If, as you suggest, there are implied powers (which you have to know is inimical to the entire concept of limited powers) then they should be made enumerated powers.

All that being said the absolute worst I would ever accuse Hamilton of was being to much of a pragmatist in his efforts while ignoring the basic ideology of the new government. As you said he did later challenge the state sedition law on the premise that truth is an absolute defense against libel. He supported the federal sedition laws because that precept was written into the law. It was a brilliant and important defense years ahead of it's time. Please note that the person in question was in fact lying but that the jury was never given the possibility to determine the truth of the libel and that was enough to (eventually) overturn the case. Regardless of all of the drama Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton found themselves on the same side of many issues after the schism in the federalist party.

On to more topical subjects...our first amendment certainly does allow newspapers to question the government and public figures.

1St Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see no qualifiers in the amendment. Of course it is subject to not infringing on the rights of others but other then that criticizing the government has always (or should always have) been protected. Hamilton and Jefferson would have agreed with me.

Questioning the government if profoundly different then advocation of overthrow. I don't think anyone is suggesting that NBC should be allowed to call for and help plan a revolution.

When all is said and done Jefferson's quote was about people like babs and her very real desire to shut down any media outlet that doesn't conform to her ideals while all time screaming as loudly as possible about free speech.

Jefferson's quote was about the Federalists and was a lie thus it can be handily taken by a Liar and used for her purpose. His understanding of the Constitution was so absurd that if implimented it would have destroyed it. The Resolutions he and Madison postulated were little more than a call to prevent the Constitution from becoming the law of the Land as it was intended to be. States determining constitutionality would be utterly incompatible with the government devided by the Founders and would have destroyed the Union.

His quibbles about the LP shows the deficiency of his understanding. Purchasing that tract was constitutional if only for defensive reasons. It removed the possiblity of foreign empires setting up in it which was a great danger facing the nation. It was vital for National Defense if nothing else. But Jefferson thwarted efforts for National Defense at every opportunity; reduced the military forces so drastically that the Brits were able to burn Washington with a force of five thousand men under his successor.

The constitution was not written under the belief that every action of government could be enumerated. It is a foundation to be built upon not a complete design. Strict constructionism would not even allow the Nation to guard its borders since there is no mention of it within the document. Nor could we have an Air Force -no mention of that either. Nor could the fedgov take actions to counter an outbreak of plague.

The democrat-republican party would be better named the Anti-Hamilton party since it was created specifically to battle him and his financial program. It was sheer ignorance in action just as its descendent is today. And it is false that Hamilton made many mistakes or that he did not understand the Nation. He understood very well that it greatest danger was not from the fedgov but from the States. It was because of the disruptive acts of the States that the Constitution was written specifically to weaken them and remove that negative influence. At the time of the CC Madison not only agreed with him but actually out Hamiltoned Hamilton in calling for a complete negative on State laws by the Congress and for the total destruction of State power. Our nation owed its survival to Hamiltonian policies both at its birth and when the forces of disUnion tried to destroy it. There is no statesman who has had as long lasting and positive influence as Hamilton. Jefferson's was ultimately the ideology used by those who attempted to destroy the Union.

Fortunately we had some one like Hamilton who realized that constitutionality was determined by whether actions were consistent with the concept of sovereignty and not forbidden by the Constitution. Thus, the National Bank was an instrument which allowed exercise of the enumerated powers, such as defense and handling government funds, not forbidden and consistent with actions of a sovereign government. This meant it was entirely constitutional and after Washington read Hamilton's response to Jefferson's and Randolph's contrary opinions he signed the law immediately.

It is also false that H "ignored the basic ideology of the new government." He, as much as anyone, defined that ideology which is laid out in the Federalist of which he wrote 2/3s. That influence grew under the leadership of John Marshall whose brilliance as a legal mind was head and shoulders above all but Hamilton as he admitted.

I never denied that newspapers could question the government but in times of war that right will not be allowed free reign anymore than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is allowed as an expression of Free Speech.
At the time the A and S acts were passed there was every expectation that war with France was imminent and the Jeffersonians were allying themselves with the potential enemy. Thus, those most concerned about preservation of the Union were a tad edgy.

Hamilton's support of Jefferson vs Burr was because he believed the former to have "pretensions" of integrity while the former was another Cataline who would stop at nothing to attain power. And he supported the Louisiana Purchase but other than that agreed with Jefferson on almost nothing else.

Hamilton's thought was far ahead of its time. Jefferson's a century behind the times stuck in English Whiggery.

Let me see if I understand what your concept of our republic is. The constitution is just a piece of paper giving an outline of how to run our government. The government has no real restrictions to it's powers. The government can do anything it wants as long as it says that it's to protect "sovereignty" or something else "really really important".

Even Hamilton wouldn't agree with your concept. Compared to you Hamilton was a rabidly strict constructionist. If your idea of the constitution were real there wouldn't even be a need for the constitution. We would all be serfs to government rulers.

Hamilton's national banking program was a travesty. Not as much of a travesty as our current system but still unworkable. Not only unworkable it was unconstitutional and he knew it. That's why he came up with the idea of inferred powers. Jefferson was honest enough to admit that some of the decisions he made were unconstitutional.

Jefferson thwarted the idea of a standing army. He knew as well as anyone in those times what a standing army meant. Open support for a standing army at that time was tantamount to treason. It was one of the basic principles of our founding that a neutral country with no ambition for rule would have no need of a standing army.

Speaking of neutrality there was no real threat of war with France except for the federalists trying to become chummy with England again. It was our failure to stay neutral that France began interfering with our shipping. That is what "Jeffersonians" were writing about that got them prosecuted under the sedition acts.

There is a reason that Federalists began to be called Tories again you know.

Anyway...I know I'm railing against the inevitable. Hamiltonians rule the day...we have a government that is totally out of control in it powers. It basically does whatever it wants rarely bothering to come up with some specious constitutional theory to justify it. Sometimes it's for the right reasons but mostly it's not. Who needed that silly piece of paper anyway right?

But hey at least you're cool with it.

No the government is limited to doing those things which " are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, are not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society." Hamilton's Opinion on the Constitutionality of the National Bank explains it very well and should be read by any concerned with this issue.

He recognized that IN ITSELF the Constitution is nothing but paper and ink utterly dependent upon the men interpreting and operating under it. Soviet Russia had a great sounding constitution but it was never taken seriously by the tyrants who controlled the country. A Constitution is a FOUNDATION document and like the foundation of a house only functions well when things are built upon it which it can support. Those things which are not supported by the constitution fall into ruin like a house built without concern that the foundation will support it.

Not only did the National Bank work marvelously well and allow the nation to start on a firm capitalist basis but even its enemies had to recognize its utility and recharter it. War could not be funded without it as the War of 1812 showed and the economic disaster which followed. Jackson threw the Nation into its worst depression when he pulled the plug on it. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the economic history of the US and prefer to rely on ideological opinions.

The opposition to a standing army was foolishness at best and outright idiocy at worst. Jefferson was not alone in that idiocy. Hamilton and the more far sighted understood that the nation had nothing to fear from it and our history has proven him correct. To equate a standing army of British soldiers while a colony to that of American soldiers under a government freely elected shows and utter lack of understanding and logic.

In fact, we were neutral during the European Wars. There was no cosying up to England which was also raiding our shipping. Jeffersonians had been trying to create and alliance against Britain for years before the A and S acts were passed. French actions wrt our negoitiators enflamed public opinion remember "Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute."

Federalists were called Tories (and monarchists) by their enemies and they responded by calling them "Jacobian" both were wild exaggerations particularly the former.

Hamilton represented the best in American political thought and his alliance with Washington clear evidence that his highest regard was to strengthen the Union. He devoted his life to it at great personal sacrifice. He would not support the caricature you present as the existent government which has grown out of proportion precisely because the democritization of Jefferson proceeded until the masses can control the treasury something Hamilton opposed at every opportunity.

Your disdain is not the result of Hamiltonianism being implemented but the expansion of the electorate so that those with no resources vote to plunder the treasury. With reasonable property restrictions on the sufferage the vast government would be shrunk to half its size or less.

Your argument is not with Hamilton but with the American people who have demanded the government they have. Every demand for a new right increases its size and appetite for tax revenues.

If you believe that our Constitution, which explicitly delineates the responsibilities of government, is instead an outline for a government that "are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, are not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society." then you believe that we are ruled by a government with no real limits to it's powers.

You made a good point in an earlier post stating that certain things could not be done if one were to take a strict constructionist view. You were correct. Those things that absolutely had to be done should have been incorporated into the constitution rather then using some intellectually dishonest concept of "implied powers". That Hamilton did not see the constitution as a specific contract ceding certain limited responsibilities to a governmental body and instead a stepping stone to unlimited power intimates that either he was a monarchist in sheep's clothing, or a very intelligent man who did what he thought was best and made excuses for it despite what he knew the Constitution represented. I, and I suspect you do as well, think that Hamilton was an honorable man. I would prefer to think the best of his motivations.

I don't share your respect for the soviet constitution. I think it was ill conceived and poorly written in comparison to ours. Ironically however you make the very point that I have been making...if the people in power are not held to the limits of the Constitution the you end up with exactly what happened in soviet russia.

We could argue that the National Bank worked or not, and we could argue that the concept was good but it was abused by people other then Hamilton. I made derogatory statements concerning it, but I will concede a couple points. A well run Nation Bank would be superior to the current system, assuming it was incorporated constitutionally, and its powers strictly delineated and limited.

On to standing armies... An army's entire purpose is force or threat of force. Equating the army of an English tyrant to that of army made of free men, directed by a government of their choosing, may seem absurd. Once you realize that an army can be used by those with evil intent as well as those with good, determining the intentions or the philosophical underpinnings of the leaders in charge of it became a mute point. The founders thought that a standing army would be a temptation to even the most patriotic of leaders, and an unnecessary expense if neutrality was the goal of foreign policy. It was Washington who warned us of foreign entanglements. Regardless of the thought process then times have obviously changed and the needs of a standing army outweighs the risks. The current military structure should be rationalized, debated, and then incorporated into the constitution.

The federalists were cozying up to the english. The english very much wanted us in their war with france. The french wanted us on their side or at least neutral. The Republicans could have been said to side with the french or with neutrality. Both the English and the French, typical of european war mongers, used piracy as means of negotiation. If it weren't for the republican press and scathing commentary to balance the pro-english federalists it is very conceivable we could have ended up in that war. The Tory-Jacobin name calling was typical rhetoric of the time but it wasn't limited to the republican side. Federalists had so convinced a number of citizens that the "Jacobin's" were on the edge of an armed insurrection that these citizens left their homes to defend the president (Adams at the time).

I have no real doubt that Hamilton would be dismayed at the state of our government. I also have no doubt that he would have felt a little niggling guilt at setting precedents for naked grabs of power. There is a profound difference between an honorable person doing what he feels to be the necessary action and modern politicians doing whatever they want based on what constituent gave them the most in "campaign contributions", but the rational is the same for both. Without a constitution to carefully delineate and limit the powers of government it will always be a problem. The move to more a more "democratic" nation is disturbing. To blame this on Jefferson though doesn't make a lot of sense. The biggest blow came in 1913 with the 16th and 17th amendment. Let's conveniently ignore the dubious ratification of the 16th. The 17th blatantly broke the rules of the constitution. How could anyone hold to the standard of the constitution when for more then 100 years politicians had been playing fast and loose with it? Most founders realized the dangers of democracy which is why they created a Constitutional Republic.

I suppose you could blame the American people for this. It is our government after all that we have duly elected. The problem of course is that the constitution isn't taught or it's deliberately taught incorrectly. Or the people vote for a person who pledges to do X and then gets in office and does Y. Now that we have a fully functional nanny state (unconstitutionally) there are voting blocks that will vote for whoever promises the most "free" stuff. Ignore that it in effect makes slaves of the tax payer. What changes to suffrage do you think would help at this point. The government has virtually unlimited powers already. What person can we elect, who only ran for political office for power, will willingly give it up power?

No we as Americans have not ended up with the government we have demanded. We have ended up with the government that has been marketed and sold to us by people who lust for power. Americans don't see the constitution as a contract anymore and why should they. It has been abused since the ink was dry. We have people who purport to be "democrats" that taut the marxist line. We have "religious" leaders that preach socialism. We have "conservatives" that praise what amounts to totalitarianism. A growing number of Americans and in fact people globally are forgetting history. They embrace ridiculous philosophies and theologies because they don't like what they have but are to ignorant to realize they are rebelling against the wrong thing. Some Americans are angry not even realizing that our bloated supra-constitutional travesty of a government has been warped and twisted beyond what was intended. "Progressives" point to flaws of our system and shrilly claims that capitalism doesn't work, ignoring the positives, but even worse, failing to see that the flaws are caused by the lack of capitalism. State governments change the regulations in some system, call it deregulation, and when their stupid plans fail they say "See deregulation doesn't work". The whole time Americans are deafened by the shrilly ignorant, subjected to increasingly lurid displays in movies, and numbed by sheer stupidity of modern television. It becomes hard to ignore calm words of the demagogues who claim they will fix all of the problems if you just give them some more power.

Do you honestly think people demanding more rights caused this? What rights do you and I have? You won't find them listed on a piece of paper sir, because unlike government's power, our rights are not limited to those listed in the constitution. We are free sovereign citizens of Constitutional Republic. So far...

Those restrictions, if followed, would limit the fedgov quite nicely.

A blueprint is not the same as the whole building and neither is the Constitution the same as the government which grows from it. Nor were any powers "ceded" since the Constitution was the work of the People the powers it wielded came from them. And they rearranged the political power within the political establishments. Hamilton understood that only the People can limit a government or frustrate its drive to absolute power and that even the most well-crafted document cannot do it alone.

I had no "respect" for the Soviet Constitution merely referred to it "sounding good."

One cannot create effective policies based on the worst case senario and the question of a standing army cannot be answered by saying it could be misused. History shows the clear need for one if a nation cares to remain sovereign. Washington's warning of foreign entanglements was directed at a specific historical situation and was in no way a proclamation of eternal isolationism. He was speaking of involvement in the European wars as a great danger to the Union because the Jeffersonians were speaking of a possible Civil War. Actually the Farewell Address was directed at the sentiments for disunion and was a warning to the People not to follow the siren song of the democrats. It was written by Hamilton.

If you review Hamilton's career at Treasury and his advice in foreign policy you will find that there was zero intention of getting involved in ANY war except those forced upon us. There was no way he would have suggested an alliance with Britain if it were to mean war. War was the greatest danger to the new republic. Washington felt the same way and in fact, H's later attacks on Adams were specifically because he feared him getting us into a war because of his inconsistent policy wrt France veering from pacifism to belligerence.

French agents were overtly and covertly working inside the democrat party to bring war against the English. Even official French agents were agitating the democrats to oppose Washington. There were riots in several of the major cities including Philadelphia sparked by democrat agitators.

I also disgree that politicians have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution behind the backs of the People.
There is no automatically corrective to misunderstandings of what the document says. Thus, when Jackson interpreted it one way he was not being devious but expressed his (and millons of other citizens) understanding of what it meant. Now it is hard to believe Jefferson actually believed what he claimed to believe but Madison did and Monroe maybe. While each sentence within the body of the document may be very clear by itself it is not so clear when the rest of the document must be considered. And even the legal genius of Hamilton, Madison and Marshall still must be brought through mortal men capable of error. Two hundred years is a short time in the historical context and the development of the nation is still working out the meaning of the Constitution.

So I do blame the People for what has happened to our society. It has allowed the degeneration of education, corruption of morals, disappearance of religious influence and the erection of the Liberal orthodoxy we must confront on a daily basis. Only by the barest of margins will it even fight to defend itself from deadly enemies rather than elect phoney War Hero Traitors as Commmander in Chief.

Much of our citizenry believes we have a right to health care, a right not to go hungry, a right to affordable housing, a right to have their fellows support them in comfort, a right to not be called names or have their feelings hurt or be leered at suggestively or told jokes they don't want to hear or not to be offended by pinup calendars. The list goes on and on.

Hamilton was that rarest of men, a true statesman, and never sought political power through the electorate thus he was uniquely honest and uniquely influential. However, I do not believe he opened the way for unlimited governmental power through the doctrine of implied powers. It was not a foreign concept to his fellow Founders and was accepted as a reality by all but the most staunch anti-federalists. As Hamilton pointed out the idea that the fedgov did not have the power to create a corporation to enable it to fulfill those duties explicitly specified is inconsistent with the idea of a sovereign government. There is every evidence that the democrats opposition was strictly partisian and, when honest, based on obsolete political theory inapplicable to the era.

Just like their descendents around us.