Replies

Hamilton never seriously advocated getting rid of states, he well understood their importance as administrative units in a federal Union.

In Hamilton's original idea of a consolidated national government the States would have been nothing more than administrative regions, not sovereign States that were members of a Federal compact. After 'nationalist' or 'consolidationist' plans like his were rejected, he supported the 'Federal' plan. But you already know this, it's been posted to you complete with hamilton's own explanations many times.

Madison NEVER considered the federal Union as "the States' agent" and carefully constructed the constitution to prevent that from ever happening...

LOL. With all due respect, you're becoming a caricature of your own caricature as you go in circles with your rant.

That is why state legislatures were not allowed to ratify the Constitution which WAS/IS the agent of the American People.

The legislatures were not to be the ratifiers because that would have made ratification a legislative decision. Here is what Madison said regarding the process of ratification:

"It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves." - James Madison, Federalist Papers # 39

That's why conventions were called and delegates chosen for the purpose.

While the powers granted the Union are limited they are still vast and the constitution was designed to limit the powers of the STATES primarily by increasing the powers of the federal government.

The federal government ONLY had power in regards to the few powers that were granted to it in limited areas. It was not to act outside those areas.

WHY ELSE WOULD THE ANTIS OPPOSE IT?

If you'd bother to read the essays you wouldn't have to ask that question, nor would you repeatedly display such a shocking lack of knowledge regarding Constitutional principles and the Founding Fathers. To answer your question, some of them didn't really want a central government of any kind, and some of them were afraid that if even a small and limited one were created, deceitful and evil men would miscontrue it until it grew into a leviathon of empirical oppression.

Inability to understand negoitiating and compromising prevents you from understanding what happened at the convention.

LOL. I really don't think you should be the one to discuss anyone else's lack of understanding regarding the convention. This thread is a testimony to your ignorance.

Hopefully, you won't have to negoitiate anything with one knowledgeable in such things or you will be left standing saying "How did I lose my pants?"

I seem to have an extra pair here...I wonder who's they were...

As you may be aware there are no written proposals by Hamilton proposing such a thing in all the 10s of thousands of pages of his writing. His comments at the Convention were meant to drive as far as possible the delegates to accept a stronger government. Thus, such proposals are similiar to the initial proposal of a labor negoitator demanding a $10 per hour increase when he knows that if he gets $5 it will be good. This really is not difficult to understand but those who want to try and smear Hamilton pretend an ignorance of such realities.

It is no secret why the State legislatures were NOT allowed to ratify the Constitution. They would have been had the idea been that the new federal Union was merely a creature of the states. Of course, the constitutional supremacy of the federal government in conflicts with the states amply proves states were not even equals with the federal government much less superior.

Yes, that is what I have been saying the authority was "from the People themselves." Glad you admit it.

It is true that the powers of the fedgov are limited however they are extensive and vast when properly considered. Even Jefferson admitted there were implied powers. Powers without which the gov could not work. It is the means to exercising the enumerated powers which produces the conflict over whether the authority to do certain things is there. However, Hamilton explained what was constitutional and what not in his essay discussing the constitutionality of the National Bank. After that there is little to be said and Marshall properly used it as the basis for major rulings which drove Jefferson nuts.

Yes, the antis were opposed to strengthening a central government that is what I have said. Most of the Anti-federalist papers are just gibberish and clearly illustrate the second rate mentality of their writers compared with Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

That extra pair of pants may be Jefferson's since he claimed Hamilton conned him wrt to funding the debt perhaps he lost his pants too. Are they knee length?