Posted on 05/24/2010 7:56:22 AM PDT by Publius
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
7 Nov 1787, Federalist #4
10 Nov 1787, Federalist #5
14 Nov 1787, Federalist #6
15 Nov 1787, Federalist #7
20 Nov 1787, Federalist #8
21 Nov 1787, Federalist #9
23 Nov 1787, Federalist #10
24 Nov 1787, Federalist #11
27 Nov 1787, Federalist #12
27 Nov 1787, Cato #5
28 Nov 1787, Federalist #13
29 Nov 1787, Brutus #4
30 Nov 1787, Federalist #14
1 Dec 1787, Federalist #15
4 Dec 1787, Federalist #16
5 Dec 1787, Federalist #17
7 Dec 1787, Federalist #18
8 Dec 1787, Federalist #19
11 Dec 1787, Federalist #20
12 Dec 1787, Federalist #21
Bump for later reading.
Thanks you for posting.
Are you the author of the commentary following the text of the original document?
Another subtle point not covered in any US history I've been subjected to.
Good points about the meaning of “the people” and the ratification, parties to the compact, etc. “We the People” is lauded as a great achievement, but it really was the death knell of limited gubmint.
Billthedrill is the author of the “critiques”, and I am the author of the occasional vignettes that follow the text.
It is very interesting writing to attempt, mainly for the pace. Certain commentators have stated that this sort of barrage in the New York newspapers on the part of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay would have been impossible to answer. We're finding out what that might have been like, because the pace we're attempting is not far off that of the original publication. It turns out to be very demanding writing.
We have the advantages of rapid computer-based research as well as hours in a library that would have made any of the authors green with envy, not to mention that we're using turbocharged word processors where these guys had quill pens. I honestly don't know how they managed it.
Publius sees my small contribution a few days before he posts our joint effort here, (and thank God for that - he's cleaned up an awful lot of embarrassing stuff), and is probably tapping his foot in impatience while I try to wrap my head around the 20,000-odd words of the Pennsylvania Minority Report - it's comin', Pub', it's comin' - wherein Samuel Bryan will get a chance to blast back at Hamilton, who's had the field pretty much to himself the last couple of weeks. What order we do this in is a strategic Publius decision. I wish him luck with that... ;-)
I would suggest Forrest McDonald's States' Rights and the Union, which is without a doubt the best book on the subject. FReepers who wish to participate in threads on the topic of federalism and the 10th Amendment need to read this book. It's definitive.
Is there a separate website where all of this is published?
Has Gibbs commented on your efforts (just kidding)?
I'm not completely sure that's true. The states had the tools to maintain limited government, and they were not afraid of using them -- until it led to disunion.
One lesson I took away from Forrest McDonald's States' Rights and the Union was that once Andrew Jackson's particular flavor of federalism became the norm, disunion was inevitable. If it didn't happen over slavery, it would have happened over tax policy (tariffs) or central banking. Finding the balance in federalism was the main argument during the period between the ratification of the Constitution and the War Between the States. Once that war ended, federalism as created by the Framers was finished, and the new argument was how to use that all-powerful central government. Thus Progressivism.
The 14th Amendment inserted Roman Law into a document based on English Common Law, and the 16th and 17th Amendments were the logical outcomes of a consolidated union.
What I find intruiging today is that the 10th Amendment has taken on a new life, and issues that were supposedly decided in 1865 have been reopened for discussion.
That book has been in the hands of our agent since September, and we're waiting for him to find a publisher.
It's all talk---and foolish talk at that. The 10th does exactly nothing to define the limits of the national gubmint.
I think you’d have to help Gibbsie with the hard words. You could start with “freedom.” ;-)
Good point, but I think I’d start with Liberty.
Look familiar, kinda like the 10th Amendment? It should. It is Article II of your Articles of Confederation. Is it “all talk . . . and foolish talk?”
expressly delegated
The Constitution contains "implied powers". The Articles had expressed powers only. Huge difference.
How would you have modified the Articles?
Bookmark
No it doesn't.
LS, have you ever checked in on any of these Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers threads that Billthedrill and I have been posting since February?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.