What don't you understand about the Federalist Papers NOT
Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:31pm

having ANY legal force of law ???

They were written by THREE of the founding fathers for the purpose of convincing the STATE OF NEW YORK to ratify the constitution.

They are NOT the constitution... nor the law.

The Federalist Papers are useful in studying the thoughts and positions of those THREE founding fathers and little more.

  • Federalist 69: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and... more
    • What don't you understand about the Federalist Papers NOT — Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 1:31pm
      • When the "Fathers of the Constitution" write down the reasoning behind what was put in the Constitution, it's SIGNIFICANT! When attempting to determining the intent of the Constitution, you're... more
        • You are silly. I'm going to repeat this simple thing for you over and over until you concede the President is not immune from being prosecuted for felonies. The end.
        • You Don't Get To Shift The Burden...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 2:11pm
          The president is a citizen under the law. As such, he/she is subject to the law, just like every other citizen. Unless you can prove otherwise. Hint: the law does not state anywhere that the... more
          • things that will appear in the final draft against tRUMP are already out there in charges levied against others. He surely knows that tRUMP & company will TRY to bury the report. I read somewhere,... more
          • When writing Number 69 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was, in part, trying to assure people that the office of "President" would have constraints and guards against abuse of power.... more
            • No Need For Inference...Amadeus, Wed Dec 12 4:42pm
              The default state is that unless explicitly stated otherwise, nobody has immunity from the law. There is no need for inference. The president has no such immunity. Impeachment would allow for removal ... more
            • Says YOU. Whooptie do dah.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 4:14pm
              Actual constitutional experts have a variety of views on it because it's NOT so simple as you insist it is.
              • ...than "Experts have a position on that, so I don't"? Which "experts" are correct - those who think a President CAN be indicted, or those who do NOT think that a President can be indicted? I think... more
                • I didn't say any such thing.Sia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 5:17pm
                  My earlier remarks had NOTHING to do with MY personal opinion, but with disputing the "absoluteness" of yours that NO other interpretation was reasonable. You turned it into an argument over whether... more
                  • that the Constitution doesn't say that a sitting President can be indicted? So even though the Constitution specifically includes a statement that a President can be indicted AFTER being... more
                    • Nope. Read the referenced post inside for details.Sia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 7:57pm
            ;article=700259;title=Civilized%20General%20Discussion Also, DO NOT presume to tell me what or why I believe anything.
                      • If you'll just go with "Experts say that a sitting President can be indicted", without giving your own opinion supported by facts, then good for you. I prefer to think for myself, but then...that's... more
                        • Obviously, you did NOT read my actual response.Sia☺giah, Fri Dec 14 10:29pm
                          I don't need to give MY personal opinion on the matter since I am NOT a legal scholar. I will accept the conclusions of both Kenneth Starr and Leon Jaworski that, YES, a sitting POTUS can be... more
                        • You Quoted It, But...Amadeus, Fri Dec 14 4:37pm
                          ...your interpretation of it is... what? Nonsense? Simply because the portion on impeachment explicitly mentions that impeachment does not abridge the ability to indict a president afterward does not ... more
                      • Spelled out for youSia☺giah, Thu Dec 13 8:07pm
                        This is what Kenneth Starr put in writing regarding indicting Bill Clinton. It's been locked in the national archives for 2 decades, but was released to the NYT under the Freedom of Information Act... more
                    • You're a silly. You make dumb arguments that a child can blow holes in with ease as I just did. Answer why you believe the President is immune from the you silly troll.
                • as an adult you would have learned how to have adult discussions. Why are you here wasting our tax dollars is a better question.
        • the phrase SOME of the experts was written by YOUSia☺giah, Wed Dec 12 2:05pm
          I merely pointed out that EXPERTS on the issue do NOT all agree because there is wiggle room for many viewpoints. NOTHING is so specifically written that it MUST be done the way you're claiming it... more
Click here to receive daily updates