No, just one of the originalists left over from the Reagan revolution. Granted he did not do as much as he could have done all things considered (i.e. wiping up the last of the Cold War, an enemy created in part by Wilson's intervention in WWI), but I'd put him head and shoulders over this President.
You have no clue about proper management, do you?
Who said anything about 'proper management'? If you have any of the papers from the Framers, even the Federalist papers, I would suggest you look to them. The Framers did not intend for the Constitution to override the separate states. Instead it was merely a document outlining the limitations on the federal government.
The Constitution is not some mystic document that only the anointed can understand, it's written in plain English and quite easy to understand.
Yes, too bad Republicans and Democrats have apparently forgotten how to read. Better to just invoke a few great names, paraphrase their words out of context to argue your point and move on.
I'm not a "Hamiltonian", nor am I a "Republican"...I am a US citizen, and I understand my Constitution.
Any citizen of a respective state that considers the federal government to be supreme over all the states is indeed a Hamiltonian. What the Framers would consider a beyond ardent Federalist. Considering the centralization of power some here would gladly put in the Executive Branch, it's becoming closer to Hamilton's vision of the government than any of the other men who signed that document would have wanted.
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction on this case because it arises under the Constitution, they had jurisdiction
Well I can consider from your response you didn't read Pervear or the majority decision on it. Let me put it in words as clearly as I can for you. They rejected the idea that the 8th Amendment, or any of the Amendments for that matter applied to the states. Just as they rejected the idead in 1833 in Barron. Only after 1897 did SCOTUS 'find' any of the Amendments applied to the states.
But let's take your opinion the Bill of Rights and the whole Constitution applies to the states as fact (which it isn't). If you believe the 2nd Amendment applies to the separate and sovereign states, get a case together, take it to SCOTUS, and see what happens. Of course several local municipalities (NY comes to mind) have outlawed certain weapons within their borders. If the 2nd Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights, applies to the states, it should be easy enough to get those bans thrown out.
Now either
A) those laws are unconstitutional and have never been tested in the courts (which they have) or
B) the Constitution as a whole does not apply to the states and was never intended to
It's one or the other, there's no middle ground here.
It isn't a catch phrase...it's the Constitution.
Yes and I would suggest you read the words of the majority of the men who argued over it and eventually signed it.
If you would doubt my argument, I would suggest you would also reread the dissent by Justice Thomas in the Oregon decision.
You mean spend big, nominate O'Connor, give amnesty to illegal aliens, expand the Federal government, interventionist Reagan?
Now you claim to be a neocon?
"Instead it was merely a document outlining the limitations on the federal government."
It charges the Federal government with the protection of the Constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States, that includes protecting the rights of those citizens from being violated by the State governments.
"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
That's the original intent of the Founders. set in writing, in what is without question the Supreme Law of the Land.