1. Alexander Hamilton was, at heart, a monarchist with the British model as his true favorite government: Hamilton favored the British system. he wished a President with a life term, as well as Senators with life terms, and, as in the British system, the appointment of governors of the states by the President.
An all-powerful national government with the states as vassals was the best choice!
Think Hamilton would have loved FDR????
2. Yet...he was a principal author of The Federalist Papers, supporting the ratification of the Constitution, and, seemingly, with a strong role for the states....'federalism.'
Or did he have something else in mind....the very reality that has come to pass?
3. A careful reading of his words in the Federalist reveals either a confused Hamilton, or a devious one.
In #9, he wrote:
" The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power."
Wait....where did he get 'national sovereignty'? Isn't that the opposite of the implied message in the sentence???
4. In Federalist #23, he writes: " If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government,..." So, there is a difference between a federal and a national government?
See where this is going.....right to Woodrow Wilson!
Watch this...just a bit later..." The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. "
Uh, oh.
5. But...but......" The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." (Federalist #31.)
See where the title of this post comes from?
And in #32, " I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."
What a liar!!!!!
And, with the exception of the enumerated powers, "... 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."
Are we speaking of the United States???
This United States?????
An all-powerful national government with the states as vassals was the best choice!
Think Hamilton would have loved FDR????
2. Yet...he was a principal author of The Federalist Papers, supporting the ratification of the Constitution, and, seemingly, with a strong role for the states....'federalism.'
Or did he have something else in mind....the very reality that has come to pass?
3. A careful reading of his words in the Federalist reveals either a confused Hamilton, or a devious one.
In #9, he wrote:
" The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power."
Wait....where did he get 'national sovereignty'? Isn't that the opposite of the implied message in the sentence???
4. In Federalist #23, he writes: " If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government,..." So, there is a difference between a federal and a national government?
See where this is going.....right to Woodrow Wilson!
Watch this...just a bit later..." The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. "
Uh, oh.
5. But...but......" The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." (Federalist #31.)
See where the title of this post comes from?
And in #32, " I affirm that (with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports) they would, under the plan of the convention, retain that [taxing] authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."
What a liar!!!!!
And, with the exception of the enumerated powers, "... 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."
Are we speaking of the United States???
This United States?????
