Federalist 46: Let's try it again.

[Listening]

What is the scale of measurement for when the populace of a State is aligned with their Officers?

The next election cycle.

Presidential or Gubernatorial?
Witticisms hardly befit what could very well be an interesting exchange.
For instance, today's media outlets selectively report on how popular a Governor or State Senator is, but in truth, the residents of a State are never asked about each and every issue.

It's pretty clear that the concept of a representative democracy entails that people vest their votes in a person who will take their "will" to whatever legislature they are appointed. If the people don't feel they are being represented...they fire them in the next election cycle.

I suspect Madison was talking about issues where there was a pretty clear feeling on the part of the people in the states...but that is my opinion.

 

[The T]

What is the scale of measurement for when the populace of a State is aligned with their Officers?

The next election cycle.

Presidential or Gubernatorial?
Witticisms hardly befit what could very well be an interesting exchange.
For instance, today's media outlets selectively report on how popular a Governor or State Senator is, but in truth, the residents of a State are never asked about each and every issue.

Does it fucking matter?

And as to the MEDIA? THEY have lost their way and bastardized the 1st Amendment and become part of the problem.

 

[The T]

The next election cycle.

Presidential or Gubernatorial?
Witticisms hardly befit what could very well be an interesting exchange.
For instance, today's media outlets selectively report on how popular a Governor or State Senator is, but in truth, the residents of a State are never asked about each and every issue.

It's pretty clear that the concept of a representative democracy entails that people vest their votes in a person who will take their "will" to whatever legislature they are appointed. If the people don't feel they are being represented...they fire them in the next election cycle.

I suspect Madison was talking about issues where there was a pretty clear feeling on the part of the people in the states...but that is my opinion.

What opinion? That's exactly what he was speaking of.

 

[The T]

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice, where their views often changed over time.

The opinions and perceptions of those from the Foundation Era consequently lack any authority on their own, and are relevant only in the context of Constitutional case law in conjunction with other relevant sources as determined by judicial review.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights.

Uhm...excuse me dipshit? The 14th came LONG after the framers.

INMATERIAL. Try again.

 

[Listening]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

Madison: I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think at the same time that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.
Virginia Plan

Not that you've answered the question or even tried. You do nothing but show up, drop your little turds and (unfortunately) don't leave.

But for others (I could care less if you fell over at your computer), here is from Federalist 45.

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

 

[Listening]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

Folks.....back on track.

What do you think he was saying here ?

 

[The T]

“it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States” because “a greater proportion of the people will have ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline”.

~Madison

 

[JFK_USA]

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice, where their views often changed over time.

The opinions and perceptions of those from the Foundation Era consequently lack any authority on their own, and are relevant only in the context of Constitutional case law in conjunction with other relevant sources as determined by judicial review.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights.

100% correct.

And for these conservatives, individual rights supersede states rights. People have a right to be treated equally under the law. This states rights people made that argument to promote slavery, Jim Crow and anti gay legislation. People's american citizenship supersede a state's citizenship and individual's federal rights are paramount to the will of a state's citizenship to oppress a group of people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As usual with the Founding Fathers they put more faith in as LOCAL AS POSSIBLE.

Incorrect.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, with state and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts. See: US Constitution Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It was also the intent of the people to create a National government and a Federal Constitution to safeguard their civil liberties from overreach by the states, where the people of the United States are first and foremost citizens of the United States, as their civil liberties as American citizens could not be violated by their states of residence:

It does not at all follow[…]that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence.
[…]
The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition [that] the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

We are therefore one people, one Nation, citizens solely of the United States.

 

[The T]

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice, where their views often changed over time.

The opinions and perceptions of those from the Foundation Era consequently lack any authority on their own, and are relevant only in the context of Constitutional case law in conjunction with other relevant sources as determined by judicial review.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights.

100% correct.

And for these conservatives, individual rights supersede states rights. People have a right to be treated equally under the law. This states rights people made that argument to promote slavery, Jim Crow and anti gay legislation. People's american citizenship supersede a state's citizenship and individual's federal rights are paramount to the will of a state's citizenship to oppress a group of people.

Bullshit.

Uhm JIM CROW was DEMOCRATS jackass. What does this have to do with Madison and Federalist 46? HMM?

 

[Listening]

As usual with the Founding Fathers they put more faith in as LOCAL AS POSSIBLE.

Incorrect.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, with state and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts. See: US Constitution Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It was also the intent of the people to create a National government and a Federal Constitution to safeguard their civil liberties from overreach by the states, where the people of the United States are first and foremost citizens of the United States, as their civil liberties as American citizens could not be violated by their states of residence:

It does not at all follow[…]that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence.
[…]
The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition [that] the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

We are therefore one people, one Nation, citizens solely of the United States.

Another fail, unless (of course) you are speaking of the limited scope of the federal government.

From Federalist 45:

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, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

********************

In those areas not defined for the fed...they were to be powerless.

States had state funded churches up through the 1830's but eventually wrote them out of their state constitutions. Never did the federal government seek to interfere as they would today.

Now.....are you going to answer the question of the OP or would you please take your sorry ass off the thread.

 

[whitehall]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

How do we "try it again" since it was never part of the Constitution? Former KKK member justice Hugo Black quoted Jefferson when he wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "Separation of Church and State" but the opinion was not based on Constitutional law.We can discuss essays by Publis" until the cows come home but the only issue that matters is the Constitution.

 

[Listening]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

How do we "try it again" since it was never part of the Constitution? Former KKK member justice Hugo Black quoted Jefferson when he wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "Separation of Church and State" but the opinion was not based on Constitutional law.We can discuss essays by Publis" until the cows come home but the only issue that matters is the Constitution.

From Justice Thomas:

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.

***********************

And, of course, Black was wrong. The justices are going to base their decisions on something. I'd prefer it be this as opposed to the manual for dykes that some of them use.

 

[eagle1462010]

As usual with the Founding Fathers they put more faith in as LOCAL AS POSSIBLE.

Incorrect.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, with state and local jurisdictions subordinate to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts. See: US Constitution Article VI, Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

It was also the intent of the people to create a National government and a Federal Constitution to safeguard their civil liberties from overreach by the states, where the people of the United States are first and foremost citizens of the United States, as their civil liberties as American citizens could not be violated by their states of residence:

It does not at all follow[…]that the sole political identity of an American is with the State of his or her residence.
[…]
The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition [that] the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

We are therefore one people, one Nation, citizens solely of the United States.

1958 and 1995 interpretations...........

I'll take the Federalist papers for their intent......The Founders over and over again attempted to LIMIT the Power of the Federal Gov't. Which is exactly why they created the systems of checks and balances to keep the power in check.

Madison many times specified the powers intended for the Federal Gov't. The rest of the power to the states. Again, which is why they enumerated the Federal Gov'ts powers.

One of the major malfunctions of people like you, is that they look at Gov't as a Living entity. A Country or power of it's own. The Fed is Supreme in all things......and blah blah blah.

The Founders ALWAYS pushed WE THE PEOPLE. Not WE THE Gov't. And what is the Gov't but Representatives of WE THE PEOPLE. They are supposed to serve the people not the other way around.

Should the Gov't FORGET that, which they have, then the States should CHALLENGE the Federal Gov't.

 

[whitehall]

This is from Madison in Federalist 46.

What do you think he was saying ?

If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

How do we "try it again" since it was never part of the Constitution? Former KKK member justice Hugo Black quoted Jefferson when he wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "Separation of Church and State" but the opinion was not based on Constitutional law.We can discuss essays by Publis" until the cows come home but the only issue that matters is the Constitution.

From Justice Thomas:

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.

***********************

And, of course, Black was wrong. The justices are going to base their decisions on something. I'd prefer it be this as opposed to the manual for dykes that some of them use.

Take it line by line. First you take Constitutional law and then you interpret it. You don't take an essay in the Federalist papers and try to turn it into Constitutional law.

 

[The T]

How do we "try it again" since it was never part of the Constitution? Former KKK member justice Hugo Black quoted Jefferson when he wrote the majority opinion that created the modern version of "Separation of Church and State" but the opinion was not based on Constitutional law.We can discuss essays by Publis" until the cows come home but the only issue that matters is the Constitution.

From Justice Thomas:

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.

***********************

And, of course, Black was wrong. The justices are going to base their decisions on something. I'd prefer it be this as opposed to the manual for dykes that some of them use.

Take it line by line. First you take Constitutional law and then you interpret it. You don't take an essay in the Federalist papers and try to turn it into Constitutional law.

However? The Framers in the Federalists/Anti-Federalists were giving US a handbook as to their intent.

YES it is that simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Framers were not of one mind, nor did they speak with one voice, where their views often changed over time.

The opinions and perceptions of those from the Foundation Era consequently lack any authority on their own, and are relevant only in the context of Constitutional case law in conjunction with other relevant sources as determined by judicial review.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights.

Uhm...excuse me dipshit? The 14th came LONG after the framers.

INMATERIAL. Try again.

You know nothing, Terrible T Snow.

The point is this that you skated around: That the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive knowledge of liberty is a credit to their wisdom and humility when addressing the serious and vital subject of citizens’ inalienable rights

There will never be any secession.

 

[whitehall]

From Justice Thomas:

Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up.

***********************

And, of course, Black was wrong. The justices are going to base their decisions on something. I'd prefer it be this as opposed to the manual for dykes that some of them use.

Take it line by line. First you take Constitutional law and then you interpret it. You don't take an essay in the Federalist papers and try to turn it into Constitutional law.

However? The Framers in the Federalists/Anti-Federalists were giving US a handbook as to their intent.

YES it is that simple.

To put it in technical terms, the "handbook" and the Federalist Papers ain't freaking law. The Constitution is the law of the land. If the Framers in their wisdom wanted to include Federalist 46 in the Constitution we would be discussing it but since they didn't it's a moot point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Not that you've answered the question or even tried. You do nothing but show up, drop your little turds and (unfortunately) don't leave."

I surely did and your are merely projecting your turds elsewhere. Once again Madison's own words show you are wrong.

Madison's Big Government Plan link above: I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think at the same time that a consolidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.
Madison was a Big Government guy before he was a Little Government guy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We study the Founders for wisdom, enough wisdom to make sure we don't make the mistakes they did.