Sat Mar 2, 2019 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 ANY weight in law), they are merely anonymous letters to the editor intended to convince citizens that the constitution would serve them well that legal scholars use to TRY to ascertain the background of what IS written in the constitution.

While I agree that the Federalist papers CAN certainly give some insight into what PARTICULAR framers were thinking as they wrote the constitution, they are NOT the opinions of ALL of the signatories nor do they carry more weight in law than the ACTUAL constitution.

If the signatories all AGREED that it was as YOU CLAIM, then it would have been WRITTEN THAT WAY IN the signed constitution and NOT left unclear.

There were SO MANY compromises necessary to get agreement at the constitutional convention that many things weren't specified if there was NO settled agreement. So, 3 writers sending letters to NY newspapers trying to convince NYers to ratify it, are NOT "conclusive proof" of anything ???

The founding fathers were VERY MUCH AWARE of the need to be able to remove a POTUS from office because of the monarchy they'd suffered under, so they specifically detailed how to remove one from office, also stating that impeachment was NOT the ONLY result if a POTUS violated his oath of office or committed crimes. It is highly possible that the writers of the constitution hadn't come to an agreement on criminal prosecution or how it was to be done, so only mentioned that it could be done too.

NOWHERE does it state that it MUST BE DONE IN THAT ORDER. If that was the MUTUAL intention, it WOULD have been included. Thus, no one doubts what Hamilton wrote, but it is NOT cut and dry as YOU seem to believe it is.

WHY on earth do you think that YOU, someone without the credentials to declare it so, can possibly overrule ACTUAL SCHOLARS who DO have the credentials to declare it so ?? As it is, constitutional scholars CANNOT AGREE on this particular topic, meaning that it is NOT CLEAR CUT and THAT'S THAT.

Your opinion is worth only as much as anyone else gives it. It is NOT the "final word".

Click here to receive daily updates