SES
Here's what YOU don't get about the Federalist Papers.
Sat Mar 2, 2019 10:05am
2601:5c8:4401:cab:cdd2:4e52:4807:1ba7

The Federalist Papers were written to explain and defend the Constitution AS IT HAD BEEN WRITTEN!

They aren't what Hamilton thought SHOULD be in the Constitution.

Sia: "That does NOT mean that was the FINAL AGREEMENT when it was finally written."

"...finally..." written?

What the hell does THAT mean? The Constitution had ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN and had been sent to the States for ratification.
The writers of the Federalist Papers (yes - writers PLURAL) were writing about what WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION!

"According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an 'incomparable exposition
of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later
American writer'."

It's clear that you haven't read the Federalist Papers, have no idea why or when they were written, have no idea who
wrote them, or that they discuss WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!

And it is the HEIGHT of ignorance to claim that "...it matters NOT what Hamilton, alone, thought, wrote, or said."

The Federalist Papers were NOT written by Hamilton, alone.

And it most certainly DOES matter what the writers [plural] of the Constitution intended for it to do -- and NOT do.

And fortunately, we have the Federalist Papers that TELL us that.

You just have to be willing to actually READ them.

  • needs, wants, and ideas as to HOW the constitution would be written, many compromises made. There's NO question that Hamilton's views were what he wrote. That does NOT mean that was the FINAL... more
    • explained that verbiage differently?
      • asking about something that is truly irrelevant to the discussion, itself, or the point made.
        • verbiage by someone who was actually involved in selecting the verbiage... To me, that is sufficient to reach a conclusion pending any other evidence being offered. You, among others, are suggesting... more
          • ...to think that your opinion is CORRECT. Unless, of course, it's a subject that you feel strongly about, apparently. Like, "The President is guilty of a Campaign Finance violation, which is a... more
          • WHO the hell do you and SES think that you are that you can arbitrarily declare something you BELIEVE as FACT and no one can dispute you when ACTUAL experts cannot agree on it ????? I don't have to... more
            • This isn't rocket science...Sprout, Mon Mar 4 9:13am
              We have an explanation by someone who was there. We have opinions by board posters... Which should we give more credibility to? I know you would PREFER to give more credibility to whatever position... more
            • are somehow the be all and end all of discussion just because one of them wrote something in particular that bolsters your argument ??? https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=422700 The... more
              • "The Federalist Papers ill serves judicial opinion writing when cited for anything but analyzing the largest constitutional structures and their purposes "...yeah, like impeachment and how a sitting... more
                • Your Analysis Ignores...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 9:56am
                  ...a glaring hole. What if the President were indicted, but refused to leave office? What recourse would we have? The whole government could collapse! We need a way to remove a President from office, ... more
                  • Amadeus: "I would wager that the Federalist Papers offer no argument about the prosecution and indictment of the President for two reasons." That's incorrect. In TWO PLACES, the Federalist Papers say ... more
                    • Thanks For The Correction...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:25am
                      The first reference (#65) actually uses "still be liable" which indicates a continuing state of vulnerability to prosecution. The second (#69) presupposes that impeachment would come first, and then... more
                      • Ah, and there's the rub, as they say.SES, Mon Mar 4 11:36am
                        I can point to what the Constitution actually says, and to the words of Alexander Hamilton, to support my position. The other position can only SPECULATE based on what is NOT in the Constitution, and ... more
                        • Ironically...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 11:46am
                          ...you are not pointing to what the Constitution says. You are pointing to a blank spot. The Constitution does NOT say, for example: "The President must be impeached and removed from office before... more
                          • with the diametrically opposed arguments of the experts... Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically. In the end,... more
                            • Nope. Not correct.SES, Mon Mar 4 12:11pm
                              Sia: "Some who believe impeachment MUST be first before indictment and others who believe the order is NOT spelled out specifically ." The argument isn't that the order of impeachment-indictment... more
                              • Ooooh, Don't Play Fast And Loose...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:32pm
                                ...there with the words. We already went over that it was only ONE reference that was specific about the order. Amadeus
                                • It's in both #65 and #69. Your bad.SES, Mon Mar 4 3:42pm
                                  The Federalist Papers : No. 65 - "After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution ... more
                                  • "Will Still Be" vs "Will Then Be"Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 4:01pm
                                    Words have meaning. "Will still be" means that he already was "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law" but the state of being liable to such continued after impeachment... more
                              • She's not wrong, some do believe that.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 12:33pm
                                And again, you're making claims about you you concede IS NOT in the Constitution. The full circle is you sitting on your thumb, spinning around.
                          • ...slam dunk to me is that in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton was trying to assure Delegates that a President would not be immune to punishment and removal from office, as the British King... more
                            • You Keep Repeating The Same Arguments...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:34pm
                              ...even after they've been countered. I don't see a reason to keep repeating the counterarguments. You can go back and reread them if you've forgotten them. Suffice it to say that you are no more... more
                              • ...Hamilton DIDN'T Use "The President COULD BE indicted" to assure New York's Delegates that a President could be held to account for wrongdoing?
                                • Why Couldn't A President Be Indicted?Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 3:58pm
                                  Why don't meteorologists tell us when it isn't going to rain orange juice? Amadeus
                                  • ...what COULDN'T happen, as it is to expect a Weatherman to say "It isn't going to rain Orange Juice". It's as stupid to expect the Constitution, which contains VERY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS on how a... more
                                    • You're So Close...Amadeus, Mon Mar 4 10:16pm
                                      Is the President a citizen? Yes. The President must be a citizen according to the Constitution. Are all citizens bound by the law? Yes, all citizens are bound by the law. Is the President, then,... more
                                      • ...probably tell you to "P*ss off!" Since she thinks that "experts" "vehemently" and "enormously" disagree, you are not allowed to claim that you are correct... ...according to the Admin.
                                        • Actually no she's not disagreeing with opinions.HeavyHemi, Tue Mar 5 12:31pm
                                          Here again we can read the posts and see that you are in fast being dishonest about the content of them. You have in fact claimed quotes that were not made to make your arguments. That is dishonest... more
                                    • Nope, this is complete nonsensiscal babbling.HeavyHemi, Mon Mar 4 5:35pm
                                      I mean if you understood whether the Constitution is prescriptive or proscriptive. Or perhaps if you quit conflating the concepts in your *arguments' in mid stride... You're really quite inept.
                            • Then you get even more silly by changing it to 'discussing facts' while using the word 'intent'. Do you have a dictionary?
                • Ad hominem attacks? Do you have a dictionary?HeavyHemi, Sun Mar 3 12:41pm
                  Good lawd....when you 'went to college', did you have to take remedial English classes?
    • Here's what YOU don't get about the Federalist Papers. — SES, Sat Mar 2 10:05am
      • It was to get it signed, but the BILL of RIGHTS was added,changing it !!! Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 11:16am
        Yes, it was already written, but the main purpose of The Federalist Papers was to explain the newly proposed constitution (we had a first constitution called The Articles of Confederation) to the... more
        • ...Papers were all about. Apology accepted.
          • I knew what they were all along.Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 12:28pm
            My point is that anonymous letters to a NEWSPAPER to sell ratification to one particular state is HARDLY proof positive of the precise meaning of the constitution. Legal SCHOLARS disagree as to what... more
            • ...and what the writers of the Constitution SAID was in the Constitution. YOUR argument is "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in... more
              • your description is nothing more than a punctured balloon. So, I suggest that you piss off, Benjy.
              • FALSE !!Sia☺giah, Sat Mar 2 1:47pm
                My argument is that the anonymous letters that Hamilton authored were HIS ATTEMPTS to sell the constitution to the citizens of NY. Letters to the editor are NOT legal documents, (nor do they carry... more
              • That is not her argument, that is a lie.HeavyHemi, Sat Mar 2 1:20pm
                I did not call you a liar. I pointed out that in fact, your claim that "It isn't in the Constitution, which means it COULD BE in the Constitution, and because I WANT it to be in the Constitution, it... more
    • were arguments for ratification, not definitive explanations of anything. If I'm not mistaken, Hamilton and Madison had and wrote contradictory arguments in some instances. So much for... more
Click here to receive daily updates