Democracy is explained in the paper, at least what is needed here. The 4 isms must destroy our government to be applied. That is the danger signal I had hoped people would see.
You are correct in remarking on Free Republic, and other sources available on the Internet.
Stay well armed and safe, old friend..................FRegards
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.