PDA

View Full Version : The first of the Federalist Papers was published 222 years ago today!




Galileo Galilei
10-27-2009, 04:55 PM
The first of the Federalist Papers was published 222 years ago today!

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Today: is the 300th day of 2009. There are 65 days left in the year.

On this date

In 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays calling for ratification of the U.S. Constitution, was published in New York.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/entertainment/index.ssf?/base/living-0/1256616330295490.xml&coll=3

Almost everything the Supreme Court rules on, and almost everthing the US congress votes on, is unconstitutional and contrary to the great wisdom found in the Federalist Papers.

Although highly regarded, most people not in law school or taking political science and/or US history in college, or not a member of the Libertarian Party and/or a Ron Paul republican, has not read them.

A few of them, often # 10 or # 51 by Madison, are sometimes assigned in school.

The Federalist Papers were an instant classic and is still are most authoritive commentary on the Constitution of the United States. They advocate a small, limited central government about 1% of the size of today's bureaucracy.

Educate yourself & arm yourself against the liberals and neocons!

The Federalist
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm

"But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

Federalist # 51

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 05:20 PM
if Madison was still alive, i'd give him a booty BUMP!

Galileo Galilei
10-27-2009, 05:37 PM
James Madison on the general welfare clause in Federalist no. 41:

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/10/27/the-constitution-not-that-old-thing/

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 05:42 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would say most here abhorr the Federalist Papers and are Anti-Federalists. Jefferson, G. Mason, Patrick Henry, etc. all Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist papers are in my opinion vastly superior to the Federalist papers which were for all intents and purposes propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. Guess who was the loudest voice for the Constitution besides Madison? Ben Franklin.


"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005



Just as a curiousity who here identifies themself as either an Anti-Federalist or Federalist.

< Anti-Federalist.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 05:58 PM
<non-collectivist (was that collective?)

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 06:04 PM
<non-collectivist (was that collective?)

So you are an Anti-Federalist :D It's good to have ye' come out of the closet! :p

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-27-2009, 06:07 PM
So you are an Anti-Federalist :D It's good to have ye' come out of the closet! :p

i've got booty bumps for everybody :D

Galileo Galilei
10-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would say most here abhorr the Federalist Papers and are Anti-Federalists. Jefferson, G. Mason, Patrick Henry, etc. all Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist papers are in my opinion vastly superior to the Federalist papers which were for all intents and purposes propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. Guess who was the loudest voice for the Constitution besides Madison? Ben Franklin.


"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005



Just as a curiousity who here identifies themself as either an Anti-Federalist or Federalist.

< Anti-Federalist.

The anti-Federalist papers have been mined for twisted arguments for bigger govenrment by war-mongers and socialists. Thanks a lot!

Jefferson wasn't an anti-Federalist, that's a lie.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 06:18 PM
The anti-Federalist papers have been mined for twisted arguments for bigger govenrment by war-mongers and socialists. Thanks a lot!

Jefferson wasn't an anti-Federalist, that's a lie.

Yes, he was. His views aligned with pretty much every Anti-Federalist view. Secondly, have you even read the Anti-Federalist papers? Lastly, who do you think is responsible for the Bill of Rights? :rolleyes:

Galileo Galilei
10-27-2009, 06:49 PM
Yes, he was. His views aligned with pretty much every Anti-Federalist view. Secondly, have you even read the Anti-Federalist papers? Lastly, who do you think is responsible for the Bill of Rights? :rolleyes:

Jefferson supported a plain language interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, i have read the anti-Federalist Papers. Not all of them, but many.

James Madison wrote the Bill-of-Rights. It was modified in congress, and it was inspired by George Mason.

People like Patrick Henry also helped promote the need for a bill of rights, as did Jefferson.

Madison did pretty much all the work of getting it through congress.

heavenlyboy34
10-27-2009, 06:51 PM
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would say most here abhorr the Federalist Papers and are Anti-Federalists. Jefferson, G. Mason, Patrick Henry, etc. all Anti-Federalist. The Anti-Federalist papers are in my opinion vastly superior to the Federalist papers which were for all intents and purposes propaganda to get the Constitution ratified. Guess who was the loudest voice for the Constitution besides Madison? Ben Franklin.
"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005



Just as a curiousity who here identifies themself as either an Anti-Federalist or Federalist.
(http://mises.org/story/2335)
< Anti-Federalist.
The Antifederalists Were Right (http://mises.org/story/2335)


I am with you in the anti-Fed minority. :cool: That's my fave Franklin quote, BTW. :) I'd rather use today to celebrate the first publication of the anti-federalist papers in 1789.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-27-2009, 07:03 PM
Jefferson supported a plain language interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, i have read the anti-Federalist Papers. Not all of them, but many.

James Madison wrote the Bill-of-Rights. It was modified in congress, and it was inspired by George Mason.

People like Patrick Henry also helped promote the need for a bill of rights, as did Jefferson.

Madison did pretty much all the work of getting it through congress.

Madison had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. The last States to ratify the Constitution did so with the stipulation of a Bill of Rights. This is the only reason the Anti-Federalists in those States even ratified it, and many ratified it because it was heavily propagandized, much like the Iraq War was. Rhode Island almost went into a Civil War because of the heinousness of the Constitution.

Anti-Fed's hold that any Central Government should be equal or less than the power of the States. Federalists support the opposite. Contrary to popular belief only supplied insofar as by the Statists of the day (Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc.), the AoC was working pretty much as intended. Just about every House and Senate of the sovereign States were perfectly content, and so were the people living in the States.

The Bill of Rights was the direct consequence of the Anti-Federalists. Anyone who associates themselves with Federalists are Hamiltonians, period. The Constitution layed the foundation for the Government institutions that are presently destroying our liberty. If there was no Federal Government with such broad overarching power we would not be in the mess we currently are in.

Jefferson didn't really support much of the Constitution. In fact, the Democratic-Republican party was started in contrast to George Washington's handling of domestic and foreign affairs. This party sprang from the Anti-Federalists. It is also quite ironic that Madison was a part of it. I'm sure he would be kicking himself for the fool he was to abolish the AoC in place for the Constitution. I'm sure you're going to disagree with these facts, but if you read some history you'll see how correct I am.

One last thing. I find it insulting that you include Madison with the Bill of Rights when everything associated with the Bill of Rights came about because of Anti-Federalists. There was originally no Bill of Rights nor was there ever the intention of such. Only through the State Congresses which many were overwhelming Anti-Federalists that the Bill of Rights came to be.

The one thing I wish was that the Anti-Federalists took a stauncher stand and followed Rhode Island. We wouldn't have the monstrosity we currently enjoy today.

heavenlyboy34
10-27-2009, 07:07 PM
Madison had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. The last States to ratify the Constitution did so with the stipulation of a Bill of Rights. This is the only reason the Anti-Federalists in those States even ratified it, and many ratified it because it was heavily propagandized, much like the Iraq War was. Rhode Island almost went into a Civil War because of the heinousness of the Constitution.

Anti-Fed's hold that any Central Government should be equal or less than the power of the States. Federalists support the opposite. Contrary to popular belief only supplied insofar as by the Statists of the day (Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, etc.), the AoC was working pretty much as intended. Just about every House and Senate of the sovereign States were perfectly content, and so were the people living in the States.

The Bill of Rights was the direct consequence of the Anti-Federalists. Anyone who associates themselves with Federalists are Hamiltonians, period. The Constitution layed the foundation for the Government institutions that are presently destroying our liberty. If there was no Federal Government with such broad overarching power we would not be in the mess we currently are in.

Jefferson didn't really support much of the Constitution. In fact, the Democratic-Republican party was started in contrast to George Washington's handling of domestic and foreign affairs. This party sprang from the Anti-Federalists. It is also quite ironic that Madison was a part of it. I'm sure he would be kicking himself for the fool he was to abolish the AoC in place for the Constitution. I'm sure you're going to disagree with these facts, but if you read some history you'll see how correct I am.

One last thing. I find it insulting that you include Madison with the Bill of Rights when everything associated with the Bill of Rights came about because of Anti-Federalists. There was originally no Bill of Rights nor was there ever the intention of such. Only through the State Congresses which many were overwhelming Anti-Federalists that the Bill of Rights came to be.

The one thing I wish was that the Anti-Federalists took a stauncher stand and followed Rhode Island. We wouldn't have the monstrosity we currently enjoy today.

QFT! W00T!! :cool: