MISREPRESENTING & CONTEMNING The Federalist Papers

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on September 10, 2009 at 7:56am

Personally, Dave, I prefer to read the papers and reach my own bumbling conclusions!
To place more weight on the conclusions of others in such important documents I find as unacceptable as that of talking heads who try to explain a speech I have just listened to! Unless they present additional evidence or statistics.

I must offer one caveat: on occasion, the meaning seems unclear. At that time, I'd like several interpretations and pick my own best fit. Or are we thereby creating "living documents"?

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on September 10, 2009 at 6:03pm

Vern,

You make me proud! You said you prefer to read the papers & reach your own conclusions. I think you hit on something: We have become so used to other people telling us what something means, that we just stopped doing our own thinking. And this is how it came about that something means "X"; but we are told it means "Y". And since we don't think for ourselves, we just go along with what we are told, and we believe it means "Y". And whenever the subject comes up, we assert it means "Y".

Re your second para. I will write up a little explanation of how I do it - how I use & research The Federalist Papers. And NO! - I do not use commentaries!!!!! PH

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on September 11, 2009 at 11:09pm

Reason Jester!

You were not "questioning" Hamilton & Jay, you misrepresented them! You wrongfully portray them as statists, as illogical, and as inferior political philosophers. Throughout, you take a condescending tone towards Hamilton & Jay.

How are we supposed to understand The U.S. Constitution? We have two basic options: The Federalist Papers or accept whatever judges on the US Supreme Court say. Yet you are trashing The Federalist Papers - a work long recognized as our country's greatest work on political philosophy.

Let's look at your portrayal of Hamilton, Madison & Jay as "statists":

1) You said, in your introduction on the home page:

[quote]"The purpose of this committee is to deepen and enrich our understanding of The Federalist Papers, with a critical eye to uncovering fallacious arguments and signs of nationalist or statist arguments set forth in The Federalist." [unquote]

You said in the last para of your response to "Disillusioned Lizzie's" discussion:

[quote]"What the nature of the union should look like is the main point of contention between the Federalists (or Nationalists) and many Anti-Federalists (or true Federalists) like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, who refused to sign the Constitution."[unquote]

In your "Notes and Analysis" to Federalist No. 1, you said:

[quote]"2. This is an ominous sign of Hamilton's nationalist and imperialist disposition." [unquote]

[quote]"3. Hamilton foreshadows the modern statist by appealing to "crisis" for justification of his political program." [unquote]

[quote]"4. Hamilton here appeals to the statists' omnipresent justification for enhanced government powers: "The public good." " [unquote]

[quote]"5. Hamilton at least has an advantage over modern statists in that he has a non-utopian grasp of human nature being fundamentally self-interested." [unquote]

[quote] "6. Hamilton identifies a class of men who will resist union out of a selfish desire to hold onto their legally appointed offices. Hamilton does not explain how "union" will transcend the apparent selfishness of these particular interests in their desires to hold onto power. Here Hamilton clearly displays a national meaning of "union" rather than a "confederate" or truly "federal" meaning." [unquote]

[quote]"8. Hamilton seeks to moderate the discussion and to allay fears that tyranny and a corresponding diminution of liberty may ensue from a too greatly empowered national government." [unquote]

[quote]"11. Hamilton appears to foreshadow the common refrain of the statist of modern times that what is needed is more "bipartisanship." " [unquote]

[quote]"12. This tactic turns out to be a page right out of the statist playbook, and one that Alinskyites like Obama often turn to: Admit to what your enemy charges you with and then brush it aside with an arrogant or condescending attitude; or alternatively, with humor or ridicule." [unquote]

[quote]"13. Hamilton here makes two points damaging to the cause of liberty. The first is that implication that those who fear government are thinking irrationally and emotionally. Apparently, if we are to take the word of Hamilton, the history books littered with examples of tyranny emanating from centralized government must be polemical screeds bereft of reason and merit. The second point is the patented appeal to the undefined and necessarily nebulous public good; which is to say, the higher cause that the individual good must be sacrificed to." [unquote]

[quote]"20. Whether Hamilton will be as openly critical of the dangers of a centralized national government as he is of individual liberty and state sovereignty, by implication of emphasis, is highly doubtful if we may extrapolate from his introduction."[unquote]


2) Oh my! My work is cut out for me:

(a) The first thing everyone needs to do is: Read The U.S. Constitution. For our purposes here, stop after Art. VII, because only the first VII Articles are discussed in The Federalist.

(b) Then, when you read The Federalist, you can read with the knowledge that it was written to explain the proposed Constitution you just read, and to urge The People to ratify it. If you read The Constitution, you couldn't possibly believe that Hamilton, Madison & Jay, who urged its ratification, were statists.

(c) Learn the meanings of "Federal”. "Federalism" refers to the form of our government: An alliance of States with close cultural and economic ties associated in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas.

When Hamilton, Madison, & Jay speak of a "national" or "central" government, they are speaking of the "national" government created in the U.S. Constitution - a "national" government which has supremacy over the States in ONLY those few areas enumerated in The Constitution!

The error you seem to be making is this: When Hamilton, Madison & Jay speak of the "national" or "central" government; are you thinking of the unconstitutional usurping national government we have today? Is that what you think Hamilton, Madison & Jay wanted to impose on us? NO WAY! You need to understand that Hamilton, Madison & Jay were speaking of the very different "national government" of very limited & defined powers which was created in the Constitution.

d) Let's look again at some actual quotes from Hamilton & Madison about the federal system created by the Constitution:

Hamilton said in Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):

[quote]"...But as the plan of convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant." [unquote] [italics in original; boldface added] [Hamilton then gives examples from the Constitution of these three cases.]

Madison said in Federalist No. 39 (14th Para):

[quote]…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” [unquote][emphasis added]

Madison said in Federalist No. 45 (9th Para):

[quote]The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. [unquote] [emphasis added]

Read those again! THAT is what "federalism" means! Hamilton, Madison & Jay were "federalists"! You are completely wrong when you call them "nationalists", and the "anti-federalists" "federalists". In fact, it's scary that one could be so mixed up, adhere so tenaciously to a untrue belief, & try to teach it to others!

e) Let's see what that "statist", Hamilton, had to say about our remedies when the federal government, Congress, the President, and federal judges act contrary to The Constitution. Since he was a "statist", did he say they could do whatever they wanted and we had to accept it? NO WAY!

In Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Hamilton said:

[quote]If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. [unquote][emphasis added]

Did you get that? Hamilton said that when our ”creature”, i.e., the federal government, usurps power, WE are to judge the conduct by the standard of the Constitution, and WE are to take appropriate action to “redress the injury done to the Constitution”!

In Federalist No. 33 (1st & 7th paras), Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that Acts of Congress which are not pursuant to the Constitution:

[quote]...will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such [unquote] (7th Para).

Did you get that?

What did that "statist", Hamilton, say about presidents who usurp powers? In Federalist No. 66 (2nd para), he said that Congress'

[quote]...powers relating to impeachments are ... an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive... [unquote]

What did that "statist", Hamilton, say about judges who usurp power? We've heard all our lives that federal judges have “lifetime appointments”. Well, they don’t! It ends up that way because our misrepresentatives in Congress are ignorant & gutless. But that "statist", Hamilton, addressed judicial usurpations and the judiciary’s “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force” in Federalist No. 81, 9th Para:

[quote]…the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body [House], and of determining upon them in the other [Senate], would give to that body [Congress] upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it [the impeachment power], while this body [Congress] was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all apprehension on the subject it affords, at the same time, a cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of impeachments [unquote] [some had said impeachments should be tried in the supreme court].

Hamilton is clear: Federal judges can be impeached, convicted & kicked off the bench for usurping power! Today we hear that “The Rule of Law” requires us to go along with all court decisions. That is a Lie! If the decision is based on an usurpation, the Rule of Law requires us to spit on the decision and demand that the judges be impeached & removed from the bench. Hamilton is my authority for this statement of mine!

And just whom did Hamilton consider to be the ultimate authorities on the meaning of The Constitution? Since he was a "statist", did he say the federal government was the ultimate authority & we just had to go along with whatever they did? NO WAY!

Hamilton considered the people to be “the natural guardians of the Constitution”; and contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para). Hamilton contemplated “…the most vigilant and careful attention of the people…” (Federalist No. 23, next to last Para).

In speaking of power disputes between the federal and state governments, Hamilton said that if the rights of the people “…are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.” (Federalist No. 28 7th Para).

Hamilton was no "statist"!

f) Our law schools have taught for a very long time, that 3 clauses in the U.S. Constitution permit the federal government to do whatever they want. These clauses are the "general welfare" clause, the "interstate commerce" clause, and the "necessary & proper" clause. That "statist", Hamilton, addressed 2 of these clauses in The Federalist:

The "commerce clause" (Art. I, §8, cl. 3): The US Supreme Court has held for a very long time that this clause gives Congress power to regulate any subject which "affects" "interstate commerce". That court has held that if you grow crops on your own land for your own use on your own land, you are "affecting" "interstate commerce" and are subject to regulation by Congress! Even if the crops never leave your property! The court's reasoning is this: If you weren't growing crops on your own land, you'd be buying them on the open market. And if you were buying them on the open market, some of what you bought might come from another State. And by not buying them on the open market, you are "affecting" "interstate commerce" because you didn't buy something you otherwise would have bought. See?

Now, let's look at what that "statist", Hamilton, said:

In Federalist No. 22 (4th Para) and in Federalist No. 42 (11th &12th Paras), Hamilton & Madison explained the purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause: It is to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. That’s all it does.

The "necessary & proper clause" (Art. I, §8, last clause): Basically, the federal courts have said this allows Congress to make laws which they think are "necessary & proper”. I.e., Congress is not restricted to the enumerated powers delegated to it in The Constitution.

But that "statist", Hamilton, said the clause merely gives to Congress a right to pass all laws necessary & proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th Para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary & proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 4th Para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause]were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (Federalist No. 33, 2nd Para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, “a tautology or redundancy”. (Federalist No. 33, 4th Para).

The above are just a few of the great quotes from Hamilton's writings in The Federalist!

He was most emphatically NOT a "nationalist" - he was a "federalist". He was most emphatically NOT a "statist" - he was an ardent supporter of limited Constitutional government where all 3 branches of the federal government were firmly bound by the Constitution, and where The People - as Creators - were the ultimate authority.

Somewhere, somehow, you were fed a load of bull about The Federalist Papers and its authors! And you believed it. I'm trying to spare the others on this site from such a dire fate!

But now: Lay aside everything you think you know, and read the Federalist with a fresh eye.

Look! Just remove your commentary about The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison & Jay. The Federalist can stand on its own. Go ahead - publish The Federalist Papers! But leave out the misleading & erroneous commentary and notes & analysis!

I propose another method of approaching The Federalist: When I want to know what something in the Constitution means, I have two choices: (1) Search U.S. Supreme Court decisions and see what they say it means; or, (2) Look it up in The Federalist.

Hamilton says I don't have to let the Supreme Court tell me what the Constitution means! So, if I want to know what The Federalist says about the "general welfare" clause, I look it up in The Federalist! I read all the cites! And each cite helps me understand the other cites on the same topic. See? I have a hard copy of The Federalist which includes a copy of The Constitution which is collated to the Federalist Papers which discuss the constitutional provisions. It also has an index. So, it's not difficult!

If we let the US Supreme Court decide what it means, we get statism. Hamilton said that WE are to judge the federal government by the standard of The Constitution. If we are guided by The Federalist Papers, we can restore our constitutional republic with its federal form of government! The Federalist Papers are our main commentary on The Constitution. Do not represent them to the Public as works written by statist inferior political philosophers who didn't even know Logic!

If it is necessary, I will address your many comments to the effect that Hamilton & Jay didn't know Logic! But I warn you: I know classical Logic. PH

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on September 12, 2009 at 10:04pm

Hi, Fred,

My hard copy of The Federalist Papers is one I got 40 years ago. It is tattered & all marked up.
It has been my friend & companion for all these years.

I'll look for a new edition which has a copy of The Constitution with references to the Federalist Papers which discuss that constitutional provision. That is a very useful feature! Wow! You can look at, say, Art. I, Sec. 8, which itemizes most of the powers which We delegated to Congress, and find out what the Federalist Papers say about each power! It's GREAT! The same with most other clauses in The Constitution. I rely on the subject index also. When I find a good new edition, I'll let you know. PH

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on September 11, 2009 at 7:19am

Having heard references to my "bumbling conclusions" remark, I see that I have had the opposite effect to that which I intended! The term was chosen with utmost humility and with it's common meaning; ".. lacking in the ability to do or perform: awkward , clumsy, tentative".

My reason for commenting at all was an attempt to hold this conversation in abeyance, and continue reviewing and enjoying the original documents! I obviously was wrong to comment at all. We have scholars here who largely have assimilated the totality of these papers and have, to quote Dave, "...have some very strong passionate feelings regarding the sanctity....." which differ greatly!
So, go at it guys! I shall watch from afar,
and hereby retire from the field of battle.
vern

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on September 29, 2009 at 3:09pm

Welcome to the site, Nick!

(1) Yes, you are correct that words change meaning throughout time. I frequently consult Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828 ed.), and advise others studying The Constitution to do the same. In my paper on Congress' Enumerated Powers, I show the importance of understanding the late 18th century meaning of the word, "welfare", in construing the so-called "general welfare" clause.

(2) Oh NO! Those who, like Hamilton (Federalist No. 84, 10th para) opposed a Bill of Rights were certainly NOT "naive" or closet statists. The exact opposite is true. Read and ponder Federalist No. 84 (10th para). Then (if I may be so bold), read my paper on Religious Freedom. You will see just one of various illustrations of how Hamilton's prediction about the Bill of Rights came to pass. I prove, step by step, how the U.S. Supreme Court took the First Amendment and used it to ban religious speech in the public square. So, yes, just as Hamilton foresaw, the First Amendment was used by the "government" to ban something - free religious speech - which Congress was never given the power to regulate.

In other papers, I explain the grave danger of believing that our rights come from The Constitution. And it is a very grave danger indeed. Besides, it leads to logical inconsistencies - and we don't want any of those. Our rights come FROM GOD, and they predate The Constitution! Truly, Hamilton was a brilliant man.

(3) I think you miss the point of The Federalist Papers! This is not about whether Hamilton, Madison & Jay were brilliant political philosophers [I think they were, and they were better educated than we of today tend to be; but that is not the point.]

This is the Point, and this is why you must cherish & venerate those Papers and hold them in high esteem: They are the most authoritative commentary we have on The Constitution. They show the "original intent" of The Constitution; and the Constitution they embraced & endorsed is one in which only a FEW & enumerated powers were delegated BY THE PEOPLE to the federal government. My proof for this is in my various papers where I quote Hamilton & Madison time and time again. PH

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on September 30, 2009 at 7:28am

You are right, Nick, there are many contradictions in the Federalist Papers!
And I believe that is one of the beauties to be found here!
In the real world, a balance point must often be found between two extreme view points. Only by presenting both and fervently arguing for each may a quorum be reached. Has worked pretty well, most of the time, for a couple hundred years!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on October 1, 2009 at 10:07am

Guys! I see CONCLUSIONS & PERSONAL OPINIONS set forth in your posts, but a complete absence of any FACTS! For example, if you say, "There are contradictions in the Federalist Papers"; then you must be prepared to point to specific illustrations of such contradictions.

The definitions of the terms used in The Constitution are easy to find. Get an old American dictionary. Webster's 1828 ed. is readily available. The Federalist Papers explain provisions of The Constitution. I've quoted from both in the papers on my blog. I am just now looking through Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention, which illustrates the definitions of terms. For example, "they" are saying that the so-called "interstate commerce" clause authorizes Congress to make a law REQUIRING us to buy heath insurance. In one of my papers I quote Madison & Hamilton from The Federalist showing what the "interstate commerce" clause really means. That is confirmed by Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on October 1, 2009 at 10:20am

You say there are holes in the Constitution. But that is a mere conclusion. You must identify the holes. And then we can address them, one by one. If you don't identify the holes, I have no idea what you are talking about!

And thus, one is left only with the impression that you think we need to rewrite parts of The Constitution. And so, you present the Constitution as a document which is somehow defective, and that it is the fault of The Constitution, instead of a corrupt, shallow & Godless People who elected usurping politicans (who in turn put usurping judges on the bench), that we are so rapidly turning into a totalitarian fascist dictatorship. PH

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on October 1, 2009 at 1:00pm

Whew! I don't know where to begin with you. I have already addressed many of your points in this page and on my blog. Would you consent to read them and then, let's talk?

But one thing I have not already addressed is this: My own knowledge is based on a solid understanding of primary sources - the original writings themselves. I NEVER, EVER read a secondary source where someone just sets forth his own views, and then parrot that. People do it because it's fast, easy, and they get to come across as experts without having to do any work.

But the truth is it takes a lot of work & study to become an expert on anything.

If you will read my papers, you will see that I support everything I say with a citation to a primary source. I don't cite secondary sources as authority! I also illustrate the logical method of approaching a problem, and teach people how to analyse constitutional problems on their own using primary sources. Scalia is another secondary source! He is not an authority in his own right. His opinion are either "right" or "wrong" according to the objective criteria of The Constitution. To say otherwise is to place him above The Constitution. PH

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on October 1, 2009 at 1:39pm

One more point & a correction: (1) The Point: For most of my adult life I was a litigation attorney (trial & appellate). It gets burned into our brains that we have to be able to support our statements & arguments with FACTS & legal authority. So! I hold you to the same standard. Our "opinions", "feelings","personal views" and the like are always irrelevant when it comes to The Constitution. Facts & Logic are what count.

(2) The Correction: I have cited secondary sources as authority! I recently finished a paper dealing with the translation of ancient Hebrew into Hellenistic Greek & English. I don't know Hebrew, so cited two secondary sources as authority! Alas, I had no choice.

But re The Constitution, YOU can understand it as well as I or anyone else if you are willing to set aside what all others say (Scalia included), and read primary sources. The Federalist Papers. Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention. I use Webster's 1828 dictionary b/c it's readily available. Sometimes we have to look outside these three: E.g., Jefferson's writings, Blackstone's Commentaries, the Magna Charta, etc. The last two formed part of the intellectual furniture which occupied the minds of our framers. All three of the writers of The Federalist were lawyers, & I think Jefferson was also, and they would have known Blackstone's Commentaries.

There is one book on the Constitution which I heartily endorse: The Second American Revolution by John Whitehead. He is the attorney who founded The Rutherford Institute. He proves how the change in judicial philosophy transformed this country from a constitutional republic to it's present dreadful form where the law is nothing more that whatever Congress says & the personal opinions of judges. PH

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on October 1, 2009 at 2:29pm

Thanks, PH!
At least I think so! I get off Scot-free.
Please note that I defined conflicts narrowly, as differing viewpoints! I choose to use such "weasel words" only. This ol' farm boy isn't going to get into much specific: at least not yet! And certainly not with anybody who actually has significant knowledge! And I admit it: I am lazy.
Glad I didn't touch the Constitution! It, and the Federalist Papers, are quite clear in period English and not that difficult to understand. The first 2 Federalist Papers seem to be the most difficult to understand: a dictionary would certainly help.

As for rewriting the constitution, one need only peruse a document like HR3200 to realize how poorly such a document might be written today! Rewrite it? No, follow it!

And, by the way: perhaps the Constitution should largely be held in abeyance! We're just starting into these Papers; one should perhaps review all sequentially, before examining the final document.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page