Replies

Your more “perfect union” argument is ridiculous. You could argue with as much reason that “a more perfect union” is one that a state can leave. You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it.

As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist? He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking. As a “conservative” I suppose you are in favor of those? Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted.

By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state. Still, your quaint view of the Founders does seem to omit facts that are inconvenient. Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it? How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?

For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments. Moreover, as a legal matter, the most relevant, and ultimately dispositive, intent was that of the ratifying conventions.

The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini. I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it. After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off.

achilles2000: "Your more “perfect union” argument is ridiculous.
You could argue with as much reason that “a more perfect union” is one that a state can leave."

FRiend, I made no "more perfect union argument", even though that was key to Lincoln's understanding.
I merely pointed out that the Articles' "perpetual union" was replaced by the Constitution's "more perfect union".
Unequivocally, the new Constitution was a stronger union than the old one.

achilles2000: "You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it."

In fact, there is no argument against lawful secession -- none, zero, nada.
And all of this has been posted before, but your lack of reading comprehension makes it necessary to repeat, and repeat.

Our Founders' original intent regarding disunion was consistently expressed (or implied) as requiring mutual consent, or some material breech of contract such as "oppression", "injury" or "usurpations", which would make mutual consent unnecessary.
But none of these conditions existed in November 1860, when the Slave Power Fire Eaters first began organizing for declarations of secession.
Instead, there was only one significant change -- the 100% constitutional election of "Black Republican" Abraham Lincoln.

So the Deep South began to declare its secessions under conditions which James Madison explained were not constitutional: secession at pleasure.
Still, these declarations did not cause Civil War, a fact with which, if you had any reading comprehension, you'd be thoroughly familiar.
Had the Confederacy patiently avoided war, they could easily have succeeded.

achilles2000: "As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist?
He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking."

FRiend, 100% of the actual Founders of the Constitution of the United States were Federalists -- all of them.
Anti-Federalists were Anti-Constitution, and were NOT Founders, period.

So, by definition, when we are speaking of the Founders' original intent we are speaking of the Federalists' original intent, and those certainly included Federalist Papers' authors, Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
So your beloved anti-Federalists are of no account in discussions of original intent -- because they opposed the Constitution from Day One.

achilles2000: "Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted."

Rubbish. The Federal Government Hamilton helped found remained essentially unchanged until about 100 years ago, with passage of "progressive" 16th & 17th Amendments.
Those provided the money and political power for unlimited Federal expansion.

achilles2000: "By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state."

What, your reading comprehension is so poor you can't even remember what you yourself posted? Amazing.
In post #278 I quoted your references to a leviathan state, the first allegedly proposed by Hamiltion.

achilles2000: "Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it?
How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?"

First remember, when the Alien & Sedition acts were proposed, they were not originally opposed by Vice President Jefferson, because, at that moment at least, they were considered necessary preparations for war with France.
So our Founders, including Jefferson, fully understood that war-time required special actions to protect the republic.
Later, as the threat of war disappeared, the Acts became unnecessary and politics dictated Jefferson's opposition as a readily available "wedge issue" against John Adams' Federalists.
In terms of policy, Jefferson was right of course, but Jefferson himself used the Sedition Act to prosecute some of his own political enemies, before the act expired.
What it all proves is that our Founders were A) realists and B) politicians.

By the way, neither act was ever appealed to the Supreme Court, and "the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today as 50 USC Sections 21–24."
It remains part of our Founders' original intent.

achilles2000: "For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments."

More rubbish displaying your lack of reading comprehension.
The Tenth Amendment is not in dispute on Free Republic, except as it is used by pro-Confederates to justify unilateral declarations of secession, at pleasure.
The basic problem with your argument is that no Founder ever expressed it -- explicitly or implicitly.
Indeed, just the opposite, every Founder who addressed the subject said "disunion" should be by mutual consent or by some material breech-of-contract, such as "oppression" or "injury".
And none of these conditions existed in November 1860.

achilles2000: "The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini."

You forget, don't you, that Federalist John Marshall was a Founding Father who, along with Madison & Randolf led the fight for ratifying the Constitution in Virginia's Convention.
Marshall was John Adams' Secretary of State and was appointed by Adams to the Supreme Court.
Marshall's opinions therefore qualify as "original intent" of our Founders.

So Marshall did not, in your word, "poison" the Constitution, he helped define it -- for better or worse.

achilles2000: "I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it.
After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off."

Unlike pro-Confederates such as yourself, I don't mark the moment when our republic went off the rails as being Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, but rather as "Progressive" victory 100 years ago in passing the 16th & 17th Amendments, giving Federal government unlimited money & power over states.
And by-the-way, both amendments were strongly supported by former Confederate states -- so this is not, repeat not, a North-South thang.

Repealing those two amendments alone would go a long way towards restoring the relationship between Federal & State intended by Founders.
As for all those checks you seem sooo worried about -- there's no reason why states or private companies couldn't do the job, not just as well, but far better.