[Publius]

Ping! The thread has been posted.

This thread would normally have been posted on Monday, 31 May. Due to the holiday weekend and the length of this piece, we’re posting it two days early. This will give people a chance to read it at their leisure over the weekend, take notes and debate.

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
14 Dec 1787, Federalist #22
18 Dec 1787, Federalist #23

[Huck]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil powers.

The language regarding the right to bear arms is infinitely superior to the 2nd amendment. Notice how it clearly avoids the ambiguities we have faced with the 2nd amendment.

[Billthedrill]

A BTT for the afternoon crowd.

(56)- That, therefore, as there is no line of distinction drawn between the general and state governments, as the sphere of their jurisdiction is undefined, it would be contrary to the nature of things that both should exist together...

"Contrary to the nature of things" is an interesting usage. Hamilton employs it as well. To the analytical reader accustomed to historical or philosophical citation in these men's arguments it appears impossibly vague - "contrary to what nature of what things?" is the obvious rejoinder.

It is, as near as I can tell with admittedly faulty early 21st-century sensibilities, a concession on the part of the debaters that the real world is, in fact, quite a bit more complex than theory, an acknowledgment of an observation of a fact that may or may not fit the theoretical model but cannot be denied. One wishes more contemporary political philosophers would be this humble.