Posted on 10/26/2006 12:56:04 PM PDT by forest
You are correct in remarking on Free Republic, and other sources available on the Internet.
Stay well armed and safe, old friend..................FRegards
now, don't go getting all fired up
I 'really do' appreciate your work, just a tad longer than something I usually see here and on other forums I visit
you done well, and I hope you keep it up
You might be surprised at what governments and countries and individuals of all stripes are capable of. It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax, and Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it.
One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders.
This is the language you cited from an 1821 Supreme Court decision:
The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 264, 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.
It is obiter dictum.
The judge who wrote the opinion clearly thought highly of the Federalist Papers, and said so. Jolly good.
This is not law. It's opinion.
The only law in this decision is the holding in the case, which the above-cited language is not.
The Supreme Court has never incorporated the Federalist Papers into the Constitution of the United States. Nor has it ever held that the Constitution is properly interpreted through the Federalist papers. A judge sitting on the Supreme Court in 1821 said laudatory things about the Federalist Papers, and said they were persuasive authority (persuasive to him, and to the court of his time).
That's interesting.
But it's an editorial opinion.
It's not an incorporation of The Federalist into the Constitution.
That's never happened.
Please copy the sentence containing the error and reply so that I can correct any mistakes.
The statement of the problem is less than two pages. But without the backup, it is all hot air.
That was in reference to an error in my own post.
It's always a balancing act. No net either!
;^)
Thanks for the kind words. And your advice is well taken and in effect.
Well said. Thanks.
Understood. Thanks for the explanation.
Good explanation.
Well put.
Sorry, but while this article may have some good points to make, it is a confusing and poorly organized and formatted mess (and looong).
"A lot of what you object to is the result of the nature of human beings and governments."
Fed Ps 10: The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.
It was the Republicans who helped give us the income tax..."
FDR gave us withholding tax.
"... Kuehnelt-Leddihn's beloved Austrian monarchy that did so much to give us the First World War and all that came with it."
Kuehnelt-Leddihn move to America and became a US citizen.
"One of the starting points of totalitarianism is that it did to a country's own population what governments had long been doing to foreigners and outsiders."
See Fed Ps 10
By your own posting, a Scocus judge respects and refers to the Fed Ps. That is the important point in my paper. The Scotus justices check out the Fed Ps, and can be expected to continue doing so.
I can not point to any decision wherein the Fed Ps are integrated with Cotus, but IN PRACTICE they are. And "in practice" is what counts, not what you can not find. Future justices will be referring to the Fed Ps, so expect the Fed Ps to retain power in the interpretation of Cotus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.