[justshutupandtakeit]

Madison was reflecting on Hamilton's comments apparently, not quoting them. While the quote is unclear it is not apparent that Hamilton is doing anything other than discussing the nature of the Executive, not calling for a Monarch.

Isn't he comparing two proposals? Is "he" Hamilton or Madison presuming to answer objections?

No, England's government was composed of inherited powers in the House of Lords and the Monarchy. But that was part of Hamilton's point in examining the meaning of the term Monarch. By his writings he distinguished a Republic from other forms of government precisely because such offices were NOT inheritable and were to be held only in good behavior even with the life term version.

Hamilton pushed for a strong government and one of the ways he achieved it was to propose one even stronger than what he knew would be acceptable. Like a negoitiator asking for a pay raise far higher than he knew he could get.

[billbears]

Yep you're right. It's the meaning of what 'monarch' really is.....I'm sure there was a Democrat a few years back that parsed words like that...

I know this is going to come as a shock to you sunshine, but if you elect someone for life, what's going to happen? Sooner or later they start playing fast and loose with the document that binds them. Or are you suggesting that some of the landmark decisions that have come from the judicial system as of late really good for us? Inherited or elected, you put someone there for life the only types of people that are going to be drawn to the job are money and power hungry fools. Of course since the destruction of the Republic, the same could be said about a majority of the people that sit in Washington on both sides of the aisle

[AnalogReigns]

It should be noted that Hamilton's "big government" proposals envisioned a USA nowhere near the strength of our current federal government. That government's power has been largely developed by the creeping socialism promulgated by FDR & fellow Democrats, and corrupted courts through judicial activism. 13 nearly independent countries--the case at the time of the Constitutional Convention--s simply not tenable, no matter how one loves "state's rights."

Besides, in our lifetimes, the very term "state's rights" has clearly been used nearly always to mean "state's rights to be racist," another Democrat pushed value.