This Anti-Federalist paper about presidential power from 1787 will give you goosebumps

The Blaze ^ | Feb 13, 2014 | Benjamin Weingarten

[drypowder]

In light of President Obama’s “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone” comments followed by calls for direct executive action in his State of the Union, Senator Rand Paul’s 4th Amendment suit being filed against the President over NSA surveillance, the recent controversy over perceived pay-to-play appointments of U.S. ambassadors and the President’s joke about being able to do whatever he wants to French President Francois Hollande at Monticello, we found the below excerpt particularly striking. It comes from Cato’s Letter IV of the “Anti-Federalist Papers,” dated November 8, 1787. All emphasis is courtesy of “Cato” (likely George Clinton).

[Army Air Corps]

Bookmark

[Dalberg-Acton]

George Clinton

Who you talking about?

[Dalberg-Acton]

From Barefoot's World, The Anti-Federalist Papers

[CodeToad]

Awesome threads. Posted them to my profile to keep track of them, too.

[Talisker]

Wow, I didn’t know you guys did this. What amazing work - I’m going to dig in!

BTW, ever think of putting it all together in a PDF and publishing it, at least online?

Also, i’s still hard to even find a basic AFP book in bookstores. Most people don’t even know the AFP exist, let alone that there was a fight over them by the Founders.

Personally, I lean AFP with a firm foot in the FP camp for one very real-world reason: I simply do not believe America would have survived attacks (of whatever kind) from the European powers if it had remained a Confederacy. Unified, national strength was required for that, and a compact between completely sovereign States would never have held together.

So as usual in this world, I don’t believe it was white versus black - I believe the true problem was not whether to have a federal government, but HOW to make a federal government that preserved, to the maximum extent, the freedoms of State sovereignty at the same time. And the solution of the Constitution we ended up with, though far from perfect, did plant itself firmly on the foundation of natural rights, and has proven brilliant for 225 years against literally a constant onslaught of attacks from within and without.

Of course, the Founders could not think of everything - but that doesn’t mean that what they thought of is now irrelevent. The problem is far more subtle than that, and it involves the character of the people. Even then, though, Franklin famously said, “a Republic, if you can keep it.”

[huldah1776]

4L8R

[Arlis]

Truly prophetic.

Perhaps the seeds of the fall of our nation were sown in her origins?

For there appears to be no quick and easy remedy for the other two branches of government to stop a narcissist such as we have now - especially when there are few (or no) men of such a constitution or will to truly challenge a president so well described in this article.

The Constitutional convention approach is far too complex and lengthy to have much hope - though I agree it may be one of the only hopes we have......

And to add that now we have a full half of the nation who falls into the category of “many adherents to him, and he will be surrounded by expectants and courtiers–his power of nomination and influence on all appointments”, the recipients of the freebies given (without personal cost) by our eminate “magistrate” (”His Majesty”).

[Vaquero]

Parliament-Funkadelic is not in the constitution....yet

[GeronL]

I agree. Maybe we should reduce Presidential terms to one year each, and still have two max?

[GeronL]

I agree. Maybe we should reduce Presidential terms to one year each, and still have two max?

[GeronL]

I agree. Maybe we should reduce Presidential terms to one year each, and still have two max?

[Publius]

Billthedrill and I are working on turning it into a book.

[Billthedrill]

I’m inclined the same way. When somebody asks me, “who do you think was right, the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists?” I usually answer, “Both. Unfortunately for the country.”

[MamaTexan]

It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics

The Founders relied a great deal on Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. A detailed treatise on the different forms of government.

On of my favorites:

Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing.
The Spirit of the Laws, Book VI
By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

-----

Thanks for the ping, BTW! :-)

[GeronL]

The ten miles square, which is to become the seat of government, will of course be the place of residence for the president and the great officers of state; the same observations of a great man will apply to the court of a president possessing the powers of a monarch, that is observed of that of a monarch—ambition with idleness—baseness with pride—the tirst of riches without labor—aversion to truth—flattery—treason—perfidy—violation of engagements—comtempt of civil duties—hope from the magistrate's weakness; buut above all, the perpetual ridicule of virtue—these, he remarks, are the characteristics by which the courts of all ages have been distinguished.

Spot on! They were 100% correct there.

[Kevmo]

Our ancestors would have been shooting by now.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[loveliberty2]

In connection with this discussion, please refer to this LibertyFund page. Mason's challenges and Iredell's responses are to be noted.

[tet68]

Reference Bump to #17.

Is this not where we are now?

the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment, those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt– his duration in office for four years: these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position– that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.

[Faith65]

Bookmark