FEDERALIST #10 IS A MONUMENT TO STUPIDITY

Can you take one essay in isolation from the rest in order to rebut it? For instance, didn't Madison elaborate on his thinking regarding the federal use of standing armies vs. local state militias in Federalist 29? Wouldn't you have to reach into 29 to expand on Madison's thinking in 10 before rebutting his points?

-PJ

61 posted on 10/14/2009 12:46:51 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Comprehensive congressional reform legislation only yields incomprehensible bills that nobody reads.)

By the way, I am by no means an authority on the Federalist Papers. I just happen to know about 29 from reading up on 2nd amendment discussions.

-PJ

62 posted on 10/14/2009 12:48:04 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Comprehensive congressional reform legislation only yields incomprehensible bills that nobody reads.)

Without re-writing the Constitution, and obliterating two centuries of federal jurisprudence, there is no way to fix the problems.

Rewriting the document will do you no good if people don't want to listen to it so, your solution is no solution. We can't even trust anyone to write a simple history book without unbelievable controversy and you expect people today to write a new constitution? I can't even imagine a document like the U.S. Constitution attempting to be written today. It would turn into such a farce and disaster.

The people of this country are going to have to be physically beaten over the head with tyranny and oppression before we get serious.

63 posted on 10/14/2009 12:48:34 PM PDT by frogjerk (Obama Administration: Security thru Absurdity)

What percentage of the population was in favor of a reset in 1776? IIRC, it was about 1/3

Unfortunately, we are going to have a greater number today. I don't believe we even have 1/3 of the population that can drag themselves away from American Idol to even care about what we are talking about here.

64 posted on 10/14/2009 12:51:24 PM PDT by frogjerk (Obama Administration: Security thru Absurdity)

(1) The US as a confederation would not have survived long into the 19th Century. We would have split into various affiliated groups of states, facilitated by foreign intrigue, trade conflicts, and slavery. There would almost certainly have been several civil wars.

(2) Eventually, there would have been a unification movement similar to those that convulsed Germany and Italy in the 19th Century. We would have created a national government for compelling, practical necessity. There is no reason to think that the result would be better than what we have now.

(3) The Anti-Federalists did not have a unified philosophy but instead picked up arguments against the Constitution as necessary to their purposes. Notably, the passage and enactment of a Bill of Rights in the first Congress greatly pleased George Mason and satisfied the issue that resonated most with the public.

(3) The United States has the oldest constitutional government, is the oldest modern nation, is the envy of the world, and has been for generations. That is not a bad record.

(4) Do not despair as to the size of the federal government. Over the next several decades, the impossibly large generational deficit will lead to an unwinding of the federal welfare state and a sharp reduction in the size, power, and influence of the federal government. We will not go back to knee breeches and tricorn hats, but the Founders’ vision of limited federal power will gain new potency.

65 posted on 10/14/2009 1:36:43 PM PDT by Rockingham

66 posted on 10/14/2009 2:04:07 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)

The people of this country are going to have to be physically beaten over the head with tyranny and oppression before we get serious.

I agree. I just hope if we ever get a chance to try again, we abandon the several errors in the Constitution.

67 posted on 10/14/2009 3:24:31 PM PDT by Huck ("He that lives on hope will die fasting"- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794