Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sunny48

It would if it were actually written in law...but it was a part of the Federalist papers where Hamilton and others were explaining things. It’s not written that directly into the constitution. Would that it were because it is obvious that was their intent.


50 posted on 12/03/2009 6:29:27 AM PST by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Head
It would if it were actually written in law...but it was a part of the Federalist papers where Hamilton and others were explaining things.

Selling things is more like it. Hamilton was one of the original big gubmint elitists. Hell, if he'd had his way, senators, presidents and judges would ALL have been appointed for life. Hamilton hated states' rights, and mocked and heaped scorn upon those who defended states' rights and resisted consolidation of power. He referred to the antifederalists derisively as "The most bigoted idolizers of State authority ". And for what reason? They resisted the supreme powers being given to the federal judiciary.

The Federalist Papers are a catalog of things that aren't true. The national government's powers are "few and defined"? What a joke. What kind of sucker could say that with a straight face, and worse yet, who would believe him? Especially when the truth was out there. See Antifederalist 78-84 and Antifederalist 39. Also see Patrick Henry's June 5, 1788 speech to the Virginia Convention. Hamilton deserves scorn, not praise. His words ring hollow and are obviously untrue. But his aim was to crush state power and create a centralized, supreme, consolidated government. Hamilton--one of America's founding LIBERALS.

63 posted on 12/03/2009 7:11:07 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution--a big government boondoggle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; .... Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made [the Bill of Rights]. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.

Elbridge Gerry

66 posted on 12/03/2009 7:27:45 AM PST by Huck (The Constitution--a big government boondoggle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head; Robert Spencer; All

Jeff, check out this list...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/11/dc-watson-jihadists-in-america-their-inner-struggle-goes-on.html

Thanks for all of your work.

Thanks to Robert Spencer and D.C. Watson, outstanding poster at jihadwatch.


75 posted on 12/03/2009 7:52:56 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson