No matter how many ways you try and put words into my mouth, I will maintain that a federal veto does not mean big government and CAN even reduce government.
Hamilton made many suggestions which wound up in the constitution before and during the convention as his "plan" as listed by Madison illustrates.
He never formally submitted a plan to the CC. His suggestions, discussions and analysis was not a plan. They were talking points, brainstorming, discussions etc. Not a plan. I never claimed anything to the contrary.
Any normal discussion of "bureaucracy" is not referring to the elected officials of the US. That would be the Civil Service and HIRED personnel. Congressmen are not part of a bureaucracy nor is the president though he controls it. Bureaucrats are NOT ELECTED. Geez, what is so obscure about that obvious point?
You have never supported one of your points with a relevent or valid quote from the CC though you have tried to slip through various falsehoods and distortions.
He never submitted a plan. There were only two plans submitted NJ and Virginia. The the compromise coming out was all H. ever hoped for and incorporated elements he had proposed as early as 1780 when he made the first call for a CC. After its passage IT BECAME HIS PLAN. All objections or reservations were silenced on his part.
Using quotation marks merely stresses the putative nature of his plan which was never proposed thus could not be a plan.
The Revisionist view is exactly what is supported by you and the rest of the D.S. brigade.
More falsities- you can not point to any statement by a founder supporting secession only a horror of the concept. Nor was the creation of the new government a "secession" except in the minds of the deluded. I know this is a favorite pretense of the D.S. but no one other than you revisionists views it that way. The Resolutions (while destructive of Union and ridiculous in every respect) where not secessionist documents.
Blackstone was no expert on the constitution and was English to boot thus, one would expect it to further a falsehood which would weaken the United States.
Are you referring to statements J made towards the end of his life which so encouraged his most idiotic followers to start foaming about secession until Madison wrote him to tell him to knock it off (and he did.) Post what you think proves that he was advocating secession and compare it to his inaugural address in 1801.
Since an ability to secede means the destruction of the constitution there is no need to put in writing such a "right" not one word was spoken at the CC about any right to secede. All recognized such a right would be the end of the constitution which would be as powerless as its successor. The 10th amendment only refers to powers over state and local issues IT CANNOT REFER TO ANYTHING WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE UNION AS A WHOLE as secession certainly would. If there is such a thing as the Law of the Land no state can pass a law negating it. This is so trivial that any thinking should bring that conclusion to the fore.
What would you know about the constitution? I have seen no indication of anything but the willingness to ignore or distort it into an unrecognizable form and support those who would destroy it from you.
Sorry for the delay in posting a reply: I've been busy with more urgent matters.
Let's cut to the chase. Michael Lind notes in Hamilton's Republic (1997) that "[t]here was not a single element of the Jeffersonian program - states' rights, agrarianism, strict construction of the federal constitution - that Lincoln, as a Whig and then as a Republican politician, did not reject with passion." You are correct that Lincoln's political philosophy was Hamiltonian in nature. You are incorrect to suggest that today's Republican Party is essentially Hamiltonian. Consider the above mentioned elements "of the Jeffersonian program - states' rights, agrarianism, strict construction of the federal constitution." Which of these, precisely, do the present-day Democrats advocate? States' rights? No. Strict construction of the Constitution. Most certainly not - constitutional literalists such as Mr. Justice Scalia are the Democrats worst nightmare. Agrarianism, perhaps? Not on your life - just take a look at a map of the results of the last presidential election. Our 'agrarian' districts are Republican strongholds (known to the Democrats as 'flyover country' ;>).
In fact, Mr. Lind notes that the two most prominent Hamiltonian presidents of the twentieth century were both Democrats - FDR and LBJ. As for one of the most prominent Republican presidents, Mr. Ronald Reagan stated upon his departure from the Democratic Party that:
"I didn't leave my party; my party left me."
Now, you can spew your comic book nonsense about the Democrats being the party of Jefferson, and the Republicans being Hamilton's political heirs, but the facts do not support you. Mr. Reagan says the parties have changed - either admit it, or come right out and call the gentleman a liar.
;>)