Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[Skylar]

Well, that's a nice tight little circle. But the question of the thread isn't who has the authority. It's what we think. I suppose you're making an appeal to authority, which is fine. But it's sort of irrelevant. Obviously the Courts have ok'ed redistributions - hell they just signed off on insurance mandatesk. The debate we're having here is whether they made the right call. I think it was a mistake, both in terms of original intent and what's good for the nation.

Its certainly neat, but only because our system of law has some pretty clear heirarchy. My point is simple: constitutionality is a legal standard. So you might as well be asking 'is abortion legal in the US'. The answer is obviously yes. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

Likewise, the constitutionality of the 'redistribution' programs is obviously yes. As the courts determine if a given law meets the legal standard of constitutionality. You can argue if it should be. But there's really no debate on whether or not it is.

Wow... you are utterly fixated on this. Granted, the language of the thread title lacks precision, but it's pretty obvious (to most of us) that the question isn't whether it's considered constitutional by the Court, but whether we think it's constitutional.

I'm just addressing the points you're raising and those posited by the OP. And if you want to set aside the obvious answer to the OP, I've given you plenty to chew on in terms of the actions of the founders. They began using implied powers from the very first session of congress. While arguing against federal subsidies for a certain group of fisherman Madison lamenting about how the general welfare clause was being used to a far greater extent that he thought it should...

......only 3 years after the constitution was ratified.

The founders clearly didn't consider themselves bound by the 'enumerated only' restrictions. But were quite comfortable with implied powers. The passed the First Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress, over the very objections the OP makes. The founders clearly picked a side on the implied power debate.

Once you've popped that legal cherry, the extent of implied powers because a construction built out of precedent over decades and centuries.

And here we are.

 

[eagle1462010]

There is plenty to cut in programs.........like redistribution of wealth programs...........but if anyone wants to cut anything....................................

The LEFT GOES BATSHIT CRAZY..........The sky will begin to fall..........and time will go backwards...........

Then they call you Anarchists....................Because there is never enough programs for them or too small of a Gov't.

It's just what they are.

We should have never went away from the Founding Principles. We can't afford it.

Huh. I haven't done any of those things. So will you address the issues I've raised....or continue to lament against a predigested hypothetical response?

As for the going away from the 'Founding Principles', as most of the hard right wing interprets them, this was done in the very first session of congress by the founders themselves.

If you are not one of those that go bat shit crazy whenever there is a push for cuts in the Federal Gov't then that statement doesn't apply to you. However, if you don't see the left go crazy whenever cuts are mentioned to the 1.3 TRILLION a year Programs then you have blinders on................

The War on Women BS, the War on Kids, and all that BS that they do every time any cuts to the massive programs that are out there.

As far as the intent of the Welfare Clause many Founders were specific in their warnings about General Welfare. Citing Gov'ts like Greece when the people find they can get money from the Federal Gov't for just about anything, eventually bringing the country down. Similar Warnings to our currency when we can't pay the bills.

In my readings of the Federalist papers and views of many of the Founders they say the same all the time. There were differences in the Founders but the ultimate Constitution was a final Compromise among the views.

The Living document argument. Yes they gave means to change the constitution, but made it very difficult to do so. The changes by Wilson were because of a temporary shift of power and attitudes during the time. The same happened under FDR were the Supreme Court allowed a fundamental change in the intent of the Constitution paving the way for THOUSANDS of hand out programs from the Gov't.

In regards to that mindset, the chickens have finally come home to roost as we can't afford it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ten Thousand Commandments

Ten Thousand Commandments of the Federal Gov't.........

2371 rules and 51,403 pages of regulations from a bloated Gov't.

Ten Thousand Commandments An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State Competitive Enterprise Institute

Ten Thousand Commandments 2014: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State
Highlights of the 2014 Edition Include:

• Combined with $3.454 trillion in federal spending, Washington’s share of the economy now reaches 31 percent.

• Costs for Americans to comply with federal regulations reached $1.863 trillion in 2013. That is more than the GDPs of Canada or Australia.

• This is the 21st edition of Ten Thousand Commandments. In that time, 87,282 final rules have been issued. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day.

• The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by agencies compared to legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. The ratio stood at 51 for 2013. That means there were 72 new laws and 3,659 new rules – 51 rules for every law, or a new rule every 2 ½ hours.

• Regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,974 per household – 23 percent of the average household income of $65,596 and 29 percent of the expenditure budget of $51,442. This exceeds every item in the household budget except housing – more than health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel, services, and savings. Some 63 departments, agencies and commissions have regulations in the pipeline.

• The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The top two all-time totals are 81,405 pages in 2010 and 81,247 in 2011, both under Obama.

• The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 49.3 percent of all federal rules. In 2013, these were the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

• Small businesses pay more in per-employee regulatory costs. Firms with fewer than 20 employees pay an average of $10,585 per employee, compared to $7,755 for those with 500 or more employees.

 

[eagle1462010]

Home GRANTS.GOV

There are well over 2000 grants available in the General Welfare Clause now. That list has grown dramatically. I've got to go to work now to make sure I pay taxes so others may partake in getting Free money from the Federal Gov't in these grants.

I have listed many of the reasons we are economically screwed here. I have shown that they cost over a Trillion Dollars a year that we have to borrow to spend. Those listed don't include Social Security and Medicare.

If that was the original intent of the Founders then I have some Ocean Front Property to sell you in Arizona.

I believe the intent has been destroyed. People here justify the spending via the courts appointed by Political hacks to circumvent the Constitution through Judicial Activism. Which is how the left implements Enviro regs when the Congress rejected the same through legislation. So they implement them anyway, saying the Courts give them the right to do so under old laws as they interpret them anyway they please.

Our economic path is screwed, and the powers to be don't want to change any of it. They don't want to cut any of it. And the left cheers even though our debt continues to rise, and the interest payments continue to grow. The Tea Party, which I support, wants to end this as do the Libertarians. The left and GOP not so much. They don't want to live within our means. They want MORE MORE MORE.

 

[kaz]

Not most of it, most of it are in tax sheltered trusts. Just like he doesn't pay income tax rates like he says we should pay. And then he's billions behind in paying those.

He's a pure hypocrite.

Got it, you are an ignorant liar. I'm shocked. No really I am

Look man, you are a complete idiot. Put down the kool-aid and Google it. Gates is another one.

You do like the disagree button, do I write a post anymore you don't use it on? Frankly you're getting a bit creepy.

 

[kaz]

You are functionally illiterate, read the quote, it is very clear what he is talking about.

Gawd you are a pathetic waste of breath. Of right you are a libertarian....

It's hilarious how you keep posting a quote that you aren't capable of reading and comprehending.

The quote is clearly referring to that justifiable taxes are at that point the people's money. It's very clear, how can you not read it? I'm not coming to your house and having any food you have to read directions to cook, that's for sure. I'd end up getting served macaroni and catnip....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court can reverse a prior decision. Please show me where is says the SCOTUS can interpret. That term is never used in the Constitution.

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law if the Supreme Court isn't allowed to interpret?

 

[saveliberty]

By having them apply the Constitution.

 

[saveliberty]

Weak minded posters NEED the disagree button kaz.

 

[dcraelin]

False equivalence error there big guy. Your equivalence to progressive taxes is to making some people pay more for milk because they have more money, not supply and demand. Should we allow vendors to set prices at retail stored to progressive amounts determined individually by a customers ability to pay? Poor guy gets to walk out with steak for 1 penny per pound but rich guy has to pay 10k per pound at the same store at the same time? nah...
There is a moral aspect to the free market, yes. But it's not the same moral issue of progressive taxation.

I really dont understand what your saying here.....I dont think anyones stopping venders from charging different amounts...its just that they would find it tough and intrusive to do so, likely wouldnt have any customers left. Regardless I dont think thats what Im saying.

@dcraelin, I'm honestly curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting that demanding equal treatment under the law is the same thing as demanding that everyone else treat you equally as well?

Im merely saying that there is really no moral aspect to Supply and Demand. In a Market economy compensation is largely determined by Supply and Demand, and it seems a bit incongruous to install a moral element to tax policy.... based on compensation.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm just addressing the points you're raising and those posited by the OP. And if you want to set aside the obvious answer to the OP, I've given you plenty to chew on in terms of the actions of the founders. They began using implied powers from the very first session of congress. While arguing against federal subsidies for a certain group of fisherman Madison lamenting about how the general welfare clause was being used to a far greater extent that he thought it should...
......only 3 years after the constitution was ratified.
The founders clearly didn't consider themselves bound by the 'enumerated only' restrictions. But were quite comfortable with implied powers. The passed the First Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress, over the very objections the OP makes. The founders clearly picked a side on the implied power debate.
Once you've popped that legal cherry, the extent of implied powers because a construction built out of precedent over decades and centuries.
And here we are.

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?

Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

 

[Skylar]

There is plenty to cut in programs.........like redistribution of wealth programs...........but if anyone wants to cut anything....................................

The LEFT GOES BATSHIT CRAZY..........The sky will begin to fall..........and time will go backwards...........

Then they call you Anarchists....................Because there is never enough programs for them or too small of a Gov't.

It's just what they are.

We should have never went away from the Founding Principles. We can't afford it.

Huh. I haven't done any of those things. So will you address the issues I've raised....or continue to lament against a predigested hypothetical response?

As for the going away from the 'Founding Principles', as most of the hard right wing interprets them, this was done in the very first session of congress by the founders themselves.

If you are not one of those that go bat shit crazy whenever there is a push for cuts in the Federal Gov't then that statement doesn't apply to you. However, if you don't see the left go crazy whenever cuts are mentioned to the 1.3 TRILLION a year Programs then you have blinders on................

The War on Women BS, the War on Kids, and all that BS that they do every time any cuts to the massive programs that are out there.

As far as the intent of the Welfare Clause many Founders were specific in their warnings about General Welfare. Citing Gov'ts like Greece when the people find they can get money from the Federal Gov't for just about anything, eventually bringing the country down. Similar Warnings to our currency when we can't pay the bills.

In my readings of the Federalist papers and views of many of the Founders they say the same all the time. There were differences in the Founders but the ultimate Constitution was a final Compromise among the views.

The Living document argument. Yes they gave means to change the constitution, but made it very difficult to do so. The changes by Wilson were because of a temporary shift of power and attitudes during the time. The same happened under FDR were the Supreme Court allowed a fundamental change in the intent of the Constitution paving the way for THOUSANDS of hand out programs from the Gov't.

In regards to that mindset, the chickens have finally come home to roost as we can't afford it.

So....predigested hypothetical conversations. I'm pretty sure none of us need to be here for the conversation you've having with yourself. As you aren't actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.

 

[Skylar]

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?

Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

Nice catch. Yeah, 'becomes' rather than 'because'. Little bit of autocorrect fun there.

Yeah the Democratic Republican Party is an interesting study. I've always found Alexander Hamilton to be the quintessential Federalist. And as an individual, far more laudable than Jefferson. Though his suggestion that Washington be crowned King was a little over the top.

One of the more telling factors of Madison was his relationship with the Bank of the United States. Madison fiercely opposed the First Bank of the United States and its creation was one of the primary motivation for the establishment of the Democratic Republican Party. Yet when Madison himself was president and the charter for the bank came up for renewal....

.....Madison signed the bill that renewed it and created the Second Bank of the United States. Apparently practicality outweighed idealism as the man aged.

 

[Skylar]

By having them apply the Constitution.

The constitution....according to who? For example, what's the 'judicial power'? What is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? What's a 'search', for that matter? How long is a 'speedy' trial? What is the 'general welfare'? What is 'cruel and unusual' punishment? And those are simply the obtuse issues of definition. When you start getting into the issues of application, things get even more complex.

And what is the relationship between a particular law and the constitution?

What rights are covered under the 9th amendment?

To what degree does participation in a militia relate to gun ownership?

If no law may restrict religion, does that mean that Sharia law trumps the constitution?

And how would the courts 'apply the constitution' if they have no power to adjudicate, no power to rule on any case, no power to define any term, no power to interpret the meaning of constitution?

 

[dcraelin]

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?

Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

Nice catch. Yeah, 'becomes' rather than 'because'. Little bit of autocorrect fun there.
Yeah the Democratic Republican Party is an interesting study. I've always found Alexander Hamilton to be the quintessential Federalist. And as an individual, far more laudable than Jefferson. Though his suggestion that Washington be crowned King was a little over the top.
One of the more telling factors of Madison was his relationship with the Bank of the United States. Madison fiercely opposed the First Bank of the United States and its creation was one of the primary motivation for the establishment of the Democratic Republican Party. Yet when Madison himself was president and the charter for the bank came up for renewal....
.....Madison signed the bill that renewed it and created the Second Bank of the United States. Apparently practicality outweighed idealism as the man aged.

Thanks on the catch.

Why would you find Hamilton more laudable than Jefferson?.....I see it just the opposite.

And perhaps Madison was just getting weary of the fight in his old age.

 

[Skylar]

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?

Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

Nice catch. Yeah, 'becomes' rather than 'because'. Little bit of autocorrect fun there.
Yeah the Democratic Republican Party is an interesting study. I've always found Alexander Hamilton to be the quintessential Federalist. And as an individual, far more laudable than Jefferson. Though his suggestion that Washington be crowned King was a little over the top.
One of the more telling factors of Madison was his relationship with the Bank of the United States. Madison fiercely opposed the First Bank of the United States and its creation was one of the primary motivation for the establishment of the Democratic Republican Party. Yet when Madison himself was president and the charter for the bank came up for renewal....
.....Madison signed the bill that renewed it and created the Second Bank of the United States. Apparently practicality outweighed idealism as the man aged.

Thanks on the catch.

Why would you find Hamilton more laudable than Jefferson?.....I see it just the opposite.

And perhaps Madison was just getting weary of the fight in his old age.

Well, Hamilton was born with nothing and was, in the most literal sense of the word, a self made man. He built his own business from nothing. Hamilton fought and bled on the front line during the revolutionary war. He eventually earned Washington's respect and became one of his most trusted advisors. Hamilton loathed slavery and had none.

He almost single handedly orchestrated the US government's repayment of war debt after the revolutionary war when many in the government were clammering for a default. And set the foundation of our nation's relative financial credibility.

He was a leading federalist and had a tremendous impact on the formation of the federal constitution.

Jefferson on the other hand.....was an aristocrat born into privilege. He wrote eloquently and alliteratively about the equality and freedom of all men, while being served tea by his house slaves and looking out the window to those slaves working his fields. When the revolutionary war broke out, Jefferson didn't fight being out of the country as it was fought.

Jefferson was leading anti-federalist who had almost no impact on the formation of the federal constitution....being in Europe when it was written.

On issues of consistency, personal integrity, personal sacrifice, and long term influence on our economy and constitution, Hamilton is the man. Jefferson.....wrote well.

 

[dblack]

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?

Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

Nice catch. Yeah, 'becomes' rather than 'because'. Little bit of autocorrect fun there.
Yeah the Democratic Republican Party is an interesting study. I've always found Alexander Hamilton to be the quintessential Federalist. And as an individual, far more laudable than Jefferson. Though his suggestion that Washington be crowned King was a little over the top.
One of the more telling factors of Madison was his relationship with the Bank of the United States. Madison fiercely opposed the First Bank of the United States and its creation was one of the primary motivation for the establishment of the Democratic Republican Party. Yet when Madison himself was president and the charter for the bank came up for renewal....
.....Madison signed the bill that renewed it and created the Second Bank of the United States. Apparently practicality outweighed idealism as the man aged.

Thanks on the catch.

Why would you find Hamilton more laudable than Jefferson?.....I see it just the opposite.

And perhaps Madison was just getting weary of the fight in his old age.

Weary, or perhaps - being in charge himself - more enthusiastic about state power while he was controlling it. That tendency, for ambitious leaders to almost always push for more and more power, was exactly what they were trying to fend off with the Constitution. The fact that they found their own limits inconvenient later on only speaks to their foresight.

There's no question that many of the founders wanted a more powerful nation-state. But many did not, and weren't willing to sign on to a Constitution that allowed it. They did sign only with assurances from the Federalists that their concerns were addressed by careful limits on the power of the new government. That fact that afterward, many of the of the Federalists, most famously Hamilton, went to work to undo the limits they agreed to doesn't change the intent of the original compromise.

 

[RKMBrown]

False equivalence error there big guy. Your equivalence to progressive taxes is to making some people pay more for milk because they have more money, not supply and demand. Should we allow vendors to set prices at retail stored to progressive amounts determined individually by a customers ability to pay? Poor guy gets to walk out with steak for 1 penny per pound but rich guy has to pay 10k per pound at the same store at the same time? nah...
There is a moral aspect to the free market, yes. But it's not the same moral issue of progressive taxation.

I really dont understand what your saying here.....I dont think anyones stopping venders from charging different amounts...its just that they would find it tough and intrusive to do so, likely wouldnt have any customers left. Regardless I dont think thats what Im saying.

@dcraelin, I'm honestly curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting that demanding equal treatment under the law is the same thing as demanding that everyone else treat you equally as well?

Im merely saying that there is really no moral aspect to Supply and Demand. In a Market economy compensation is largely determined by Supply and Demand, and it seems a bit incongruous to install a moral element to tax policy.... based on compensation.

Depends on the state: U.S. Retail Pricing Laws and Regulations by State
Many states (half) have a law where the price of an item must be displayed, and the retailer can't just arbitrarily change the price of the item per customer.

There are moral aspects to just about everything, supply and demand is no exception.

While I might agree some tax policies are arguably amoral, I don't agree that it is incongruous to install a moral element. For example, removing progressive taxation could be argued as installing a moral element of uniformity of taxation. Moral is a broad term. Taking away one moral tenant of a tax policy is equivalent to installing a different moral tenant. Morality is subjective.

 

[eagle1462010]

There is plenty to cut in programs.........like redistribution of wealth programs...........but if anyone wants to cut anything....................................

The LEFT GOES BATSHIT CRAZY..........The sky will begin to fall..........and time will go backwards...........

Then they call you Anarchists....................Because there is never enough programs for them or too small of a Gov't.

It's just what they are.

We should have never went away from the Founding Principles. We can't afford it.

Huh. I haven't done any of those things. So will you address the issues I've raised....or continue to lament against a predigested hypothetical response?

As for the going away from the 'Founding Principles', as most of the hard right wing interprets them, this was done in the very first session of congress by the founders themselves.

If you are not one of those that go bat shit crazy whenever there is a push for cuts in the Federal Gov't then that statement doesn't apply to you. However, if you don't see the left go crazy whenever cuts are mentioned to the 1.3 TRILLION a year Programs then you have blinders on................

The War on Women BS, the War on Kids, and all that BS that they do every time any cuts to the massive programs that are out there.

As far as the intent of the Welfare Clause many Founders were specific in their warnings about General Welfare. Citing Gov'ts like Greece when the people find they can get money from the Federal Gov't for just about anything, eventually bringing the country down. Similar Warnings to our currency when we can't pay the bills.

In my readings of the Federalist papers and views of many of the Founders they say the same all the time. There were differences in the Founders but the ultimate Constitution was a final Compromise among the views.

The Living document argument. Yes they gave means to change the constitution, but made it very difficult to do so. The changes by Wilson were because of a temporary shift of power and attitudes during the time. The same happened under FDR were the Supreme Court allowed a fundamental change in the intent of the Constitution paving the way for THOUSANDS of hand out programs from the Gov't.

In regards to that mindset, the chickens have finally come home to roost as we can't afford it.

So....predigested hypothetical conversations. I'm pretty sure none of us need to be here for the conversation you've having with yourself. As you aren't actually responding to anything anyone else is saying.

Actually I'm pointing out what the left does and I've posted data on the mountains of regulations and grant programs with their costs via congressional research, and various other info which you don't want to really discuss because it would make your arguments suck.

We give business grants, paid for by the tax payers. It in the grants already posted. So, the tax payers are paying to one person or a small group to start a business...........That is taking from others and handing it to the one or few if the Gov't Deems them worthy. Or in this thread only if you deem them worthy.

You are playing the normal game of Judicial Activism here. When your side can't get it passed in Congress you go to the courts to get your way. And you turn a blind eye to the current POTUS when he violates the law with his pen and phone.

 

[dcraelin]

Very good post, tho I think you maybe meant to say "the extent of implied powers BECOMES a construction" rather than " the extent of implied powers because a construction"?Interesting to learn how Madison was complaining about the subsidies to fishermen. It would be interesting to know if the subsidy was political favoritism......Madison does seem to regret his association with the federalists...and of course later splits with them to form the first Republican party with Jefferson.

Nice catch. Yeah, 'becomes' rather than 'because'. Little bit of autocorrect fun there.Yeah the Democratic Republican Party is an interesting study. I've always found Alexander Hamilton to be the quintessential Federalist. And as an individual, far more laudable than Jefferson. Though his suggestion that Washington be crowned King was a little over the top.
One of the more telling factors of Madison was his relationship with the Bank of the United States. Madison fiercely opposed the First Bank of the United States and its creation was one of the primary motivation for the establishment of the Democratic Republican Party. Yet when Madison himself was president and the charter for the bank came up for renewal.........Madison signed the bill that renewed it and created the Second Bank of the United States. Apparently practicality outweighed idealism as the man aged.

Thanks on the catch.
Why would you find Hamilton more laudable than Jefferson?.....I see it just the opposite.
And perhaps Madison was just getting weary of the fight in his old age.

Well, Hamilton was born with nothing and was, in the most literal sense of the word, a self made man. He built his own business from nothing. Hamilton fought and bled on the front line during the revolutionary war. He eventually earned Washington's respect and became one of his most trusted advisors. Hamilton loathed slavery and had none.He almost single handedly orchestrated the US government's repayment of war debt after the revolutionary war when many in the government were clammering for a default. And set the foundation of our nation's relative financial credibility.He was a leading federalist and had a tremendous impact on the formation of the federal constitution.
Jefferson on the other hand.....was an aristocrat born into privilege. He wrote eloquently and alliteratively about the equality and freedom of all men, while being served tea by his house slaves and looking out the window to those slaves working his fields. When the revolutionary war broke out, Jefferson didn't fight being out of the country as it was fought.
Jefferson was leading anti-federalist who had almost no impact on the formation of the federal constitution....being in Europe when it was written.
On issues of consistency, personal integrity, personal sacrifice, and long term influence on our economy and constitution, Hamilton is the man. Jefferson.....wrote well.

When reading candidate bios, one of my pet peeves is the inclusion of the phrase"successful businessman"without telling the reader what kind of businessman. Invariably on further research the candidate turns out to be either a lawyer, a banker, or an insurance salesman.....the fact of which is apparently better left off the handouts. You say "He built his own business from nothing", I see he was a member of a law-firm, and was "the individual most actively involved in the organization of The Bank of New York" according to Wikipedia, tho it doesnt say where the original capitalization came from. I see he "specialized in defending Tories and British subjects"....which reminded me of something else I've read that at least one historian thought he acted as a British agent, I believe in events surrounding Jays treaty. He was actually assigned the code name 7. I have read some of his correspondence and one letter to the editor that is amazing in that it is a sarcastic personal attack that goes on for about 3 pages....Its no wonder he got shot.

I've seen a show where a British historian called the Constitution a bloodless coup d'etat...... The fact that Hamilton had a lot to do with the formation of the Constitution isn't a plus for me......but then I side more with Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and other anti-federalists.

The payment of the debt, at full face value was a huge benefit to speculators..., speculators who bought up lots of the debt from revolutionary soldiers at pennies on the dollar. ......I believe some had a solution where only original owners would be paid in full.....this would have sufficed.

I wouldn't say Jefferson was a leading anti-federalist or an anti-federalist at all.....he was as you say out of the country.
Jefferson did however found the first Republican party which I believe pulled the country away from a corrupt aristocracy that it seemed to be heading to under the Federalists.