Antifederalist No. 32: FEDERAL TAXATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS

http://www.iahushua.com/ ^ | December 13, 1787 | Brutus

[Talisker]

I'm so sick of all this talk of the framers' intent. Intentions and a dollar get you a cup of coffee. Look at what they created. And don't tell me "if only it had been followed." Look at the criticisms from the time it was adopted. It was all out there.

I'm sure you've hear that Franklin replied "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it," in response to a query about the type of government that had just been formed. I don't believe any of the Founders were naive about the threats to the stability of the tripartite form, and yes, the judiciary was the obvious first suspect. But what about a corrupt legislature? What about an Executive that declared administrative jurisdiction over the entire country?

Without a federal judiciary, with or without a supreme court, how would you have disputes between States decided? How would legal challenges to federal laws be made? How would there be any appeals possible against an excessive Executive Administration?

But, given the necessity for a federal judiciary, how would you reign it in differently than the way it was done? I'll say it again - I side with Franklin's basic concept: you cannot madate morality. If a people want to undermine their own government, they will find a way to do it. And if other people don't fight back - through education and Constitutionally-enabled means, then the destruction is unavoidable, and an amok judiciary is only part of that problem.

[Moby Grape]

“I’m so sick of all this talk of the framers’ intent. Intentions and a dollar get you a cup of coffee. Look at what they created. And don’t tell me “if only it had been followed.” Look at the criticisms from the time it was adopted. It was all out there.”

I believe you sickness of talk of intent is terribly misguided...it is CRUCIAL to understand exactly what the Constitution means AND that it is followed.

Obama says that the Constitution is FLAWED...(it didn’t address redistrubution of wealth he says)...Knowing the intent of the framers is critical to offering intelligent resistance to those, like Obama, who wish to make it say what they WANT it to say.

[Talisker]

...it is CRUCIAL to understand exactly what the Constitution means AND that it is followed. ...Knowing the intent of the framers is critical to offering intelligent resistance to those, like Obama, who wish to make it say what they WANT it to say.

Well, I've been trying to say I agree with this.

But also, I don't believe the Constitution is tragically flawed, because there is no way to forsee all the ways it would have been attacked. And I think it provides enough means to protect itself that, if more people wanted to, they could do so - and make it's protections stronger as awareness of attack strategies became known.

But the freedom the original Constitution offered was radical, and appeals only to maturity. Those wanting adolescent-level freedom-lite have been mercilessly courted by those who offer the illusion of security, from which they intend to remove all freedom whatsoever.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Chief Justice John Marshall was appointed in 1801 by President John Adams, over a year after Washington's death.

Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist while the Constitution was being debated, but became a Federalist (federal supremacy, implied powers) after it was adopted.

[Huck]

I haven't gotten to what I would do instead of Article 3. It's a fair question, and one I hope to have an answer for at some point.

I don't disagree with your premise re: Franklin and morality. However, I don't think that means there couldn't be a better system than the one created by the Constitution. I daresay if we could bring the framers back to life, they would view the data, and propose changes. As to what that system might look like, again, I haven't gotten there yet.

[Huck]

Chief Justice John Marshall was appointed in 1801 by President John Adams, over a year after Washington's death.

Thank you for the correction.

Patrick Henry was an Anti-Federalist while the Constitution was being debated, but became a Federalist (federal supremacy, implied powers) after it was adopted.

I'll be studying this further when I have time. I'm not sure why so many framers/founders changed their tune once in power. Madison as a presiden was a lot different than Madison as a framer, or as a Congressman.

So far, the arguments of the anti-federalists appear to have been more sound than those of the federalists, regardless of what they decided to do in office.

[Moby Grape]

“But the freedom the original Constitution offered was radical, and appeals only to maturity. Those wanting adolescent-level freedom-lite have been mercilessly courted by those who offer the illusion of security, from which they intend to remove all freedom whatsoever.”

Well said.