Replies

Whiffle ball anyone? George C. Detweiler wrote the article, not Mike New. Detweiler was Attorney General of Idaho. Not some Nevada rancher who got a raw deal from the fed.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m sure Hage was a fine man, and I totally agree that what happened to him should never have happened here. We have to fight to make sure that sort of thing stops. And all constructive solutions are welcome.

But holding Hage up as a paragon of constitutional interpretive skill? Not the most convincing move you could make.

Which of course give insight to why you’d buy into the sickest conspiracy theory I’ve ever seen on this forum, that the leading Founders of this country deliberately sabotaged the Constitution by planting a poison pill in the Supremacy Clause.

So I reiterate, read the Detweiler article, and get an alternative point of view on the clarity and purposeful structure of that clause:

http://mikenew.com/treaties.html

Not some Nevada rancher who got a raw deal from the fed.

You fanned on that one, because you clearly don't even know that Hage wrote Storm Over Rangelands, which is a tour deforce in historical research on the split estate in Federal landownership going back to Roman law.

But holding Hage up as a paragon of constitutional interpretive skill? Not the most convincing move you could make.

Only for the ignorant.

Now that's pathetic hyperbole.

And one last thing...

Which of course give insight to why you’d buy into the sickest conspiracy theory I’ve ever seen on this forum, that the leading Founders of this country deliberately sabotaged the Constitution by planting a poison pill in the Supremacy Clause.

Then why did Hamilton LIE about the degree of consideration of the treaty power in the Federal Convention? Eh? From an article referenced in the one you read:

Hamilton's Federalist #75 makes an attempt to paper-over the obvious contention over the means of ratification.

THE President is to have power, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur." Though this provision has been assailed, on different grounds, with no small degree of vehemence, I scruple not to declare my firm persuasion, that it is one of the best digested and most unexceptionable parts of the plan. Pure hokum. Not only did it go virtually undiscussed, but the anti-Federalists had a cow about it. this is what Henry had to say:This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

In the country from which we are descended, they have real and not imaginary responsibility; for their mal-administration has cost their heads to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever were. The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws for want of responsibility. Two thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land; they may make the most ruinous treaties; and yet there is no punishment for them. Whoever shows me a punishment provided for them will oblige me.

So, "unexceptional" or "best digested"? Bull, and Hamilton knew it. If Hamilton was such a righteous paragon as you presume, why did he proffer such a massive lie for purposes of advancing ratification of such a flagrant fault as the manner of ratification? Hell, he could have offered an amendment, but he did not.