Are you suggesting that “lifetime appointments” are more conducive of small government?
Veto of state laws may actually reduce the layers of government but has nothing to do with the size of the fedgov.
“Nothing?” Feel free to back up that claim as well.
So his "plan" of government hardly "speaks for itself."
On the contrary, Mr. Hamilton’s plan does indeed “speak for itself.” Have you missed the discussions here at FreeRepublic regarding the supposedly imminent retirement of just one of our Federal “lifetime” appointees? Hmm? Many Americans are waiting in ‘breathless anticipation’ for a rare event indeed: a change of personnel on the Supreme Court. Now apply that to the presidency and the entire senate. Heck, Mr. Truman would have been President of the United States until December 1972! Who do you think would have won the first presidential election in 40 years, if the ‘New Deal’ Democrats had had four decades to consolidate their political power? Or do you believe they would have had a change of heart, and spent most of the time downsizing government? By all means, please enlighten us!
;>)
Other errors in your post include attributing to me a preference for life-time appointments to a "central government bureaucracy" whatever THAT is.
LOL! You really should work on your reading skills: you obviously missed the word “apparent.” The “error” is on your part...
And THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context, something that rarely accompanies his critics comments.
Which is why, of course, you dismiss “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention” – including, apparently, his ‘plan of government’ (which was described “second hand” by James Madison while “at the Constitutional Convention ;>). Speaking of which, I have yet to see a ‘Hamilton groupie’ post the gentleman’s ‘plan of government,’ the details of which are invariably provided by “his critics.”
Hamilton referenced Madison's observation that man is "a compromising animal" as the determinate of his strategy at the convention and that his goal was to pitch the government as "high" as possible meaning as strong or "energetic" as possible.
So, Mr. Hamilton may reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ but when his critics reference ‘Madison’s observations,’ you claim they “don’t count,” because they are “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention.” Your hypocrisy is showing...
;>)
This is no secret and virtually all students of Hamilton (including his enemies) recognize it as true.
Please prove your claims. We’ll use your standard: “[d]iscussions reported second hand, and out of context at the Constitutional Convention don't count”...
... I was referring more to the land given the settlers of the trans-Mississippi West in the 19th century.
Obviously. Many of your friends also seem to ignore the nation’s early history...
To return to Hamilton's "plan", the constitution of the United States can be said to be as much Hamilton's "plan" for government as much as it was any man's.
Utter nonsense. Mr. Hamilton proposed a national government modeled on that of Britain. You may be unaware of the fact, but the idea of a “national” government was explicitly rejected by the constitutional convention, and a "federal" model approved in its place. The Constitution established what Madison called a compound republic, a confederacy of individual states.
Some nebulous and /or hypothetical "plan" of Hamilton means little when compared to the REAL Hamilton plan which begins " We the People of the United States...."
“Nebulous and /or hypothetical?” What happened to your claim that “THIS admirer of Hamilton does not try and avoid any statement he ever made however, I do insist on accuracy and context”? Are you suggesting that Mr. Hamilton’s plan did not include a chief executive, senators, and judges serving lifetime terms? Hmm? There’s nothing “nebulous” or “hypothetical” about it: it’s described at length in the records of the Constitutional Convention that you seem so eager to dismiss...
;>)