Joe Liberty wrote:Interesting you should say that, you seem to have skipped over the Tenth Amendment.
Because the framers of the constitution didn't include a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton
publicly argued against including a bill of rights in Federalist #84. I am not kidding. He explicitly argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the people would be electing the people in charge, therefore the people needed no further legal protections. The framers of the constitution certainly had no intention of including anything like the tenth amendment. Every single provision in the bill of rights was added as part of a compromise with antifederalists to secure ratification; because the federalists realized that getting most of what they wanted was worth giving up on some short-term excesses.
Imagine, if you will, a Constitution without a bill of rights.
That is the sort of federal government envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. That is the federal government they wanted; not one that was required to respect any personal liberties, not one that was required to allow unstated rights to the states or to the people. What the framers of the Constitution wanted was a federal government that was explicitly granted some extremely broad and vague powers and absolute supremacy over state governments where they conflicted. They wanted a federal government with such broad yet vague powers precisely because they knew that they could use those powers to push their way into other matters.
You are confusing what the framers of the Constitution wanted with what we actually got out of a process or compromise, accommodation, and political tradition. Our government has been as limited as it has been primarily because the elected officials in the federal government kept getting slapped back when powerful people rejected overreaches of federal power. Not because of the Constitution. The federal government has been limited more by "judicial activism" on the Supreme Court than by anything the framers of the Constitution originally put in place.
You could provide some links. No offense, but your word isn't good enough. Show me.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asphttp://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.htmlhttp://www.thefederalistpapers.org/fede ... -dangerousThis is not "my word", it's their own words. This is not made up stuff, this is what they explicitly stated that they wanted.
He didn't write it, no,
It was, in fact, written by his political opponents. Did you think the enmity between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (Jefferson's VP pick) came out of nowhere? We're talking about a level of enmity between factions where members of each group would literally engage in fatal duels with the others over political differences. "He didn't write it, no" is a severe understatement of the level of political division we're talking about. The only reason that Jefferson was Adams' VP was because of an oversight in how the VP was elected which resulted in the runner up becoming VP; there are extensive records on this matter and how the Adams administration intentionally kept Jefferson isolated and out of anything even resembling power. The Federalists were so aghast at this oversight that they actually amended the Constitution to change the rules on electing the vice president to prevent if from happening again.
but his philosophy was a strong influence, even if he was in France.
Among antifederalists, yes.
Those were the people who were opposing ratification. His philosophies certainly
were not a strong influence on the Federalists--he founded the first credible party to oppose them! Let me put it this way, Jefferson and the federalists disagreed so vehemently that Jefferson
created a political party specifically to oppose them. That is hardly strong agreement.
To pretend he and his ideas had nothing to do with it is disingenuous.
Certainly it isn't.
Having said that, he did have some issues with it (lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices was one big one).
Yeah, like opposing the Constitution itself. He did have "some issues" with the entire document. He was pretty clear about wanting it rewritten; not just in his lifetime, but rewritten by every generation.
"Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government..."
Sure, because
the federalist papers were a PR job. What was he supposed to say?
Another way of stating Madison's argument would be; "You can totally trust these guys, you may be giving them the power to do lots of bad things, but they promise they won't use it." Would you believe any politician who wrote that in an op-ed piece today? Because that's what the Federalist Papers were--politicians writing op-ed pieces advocating a comprehensive set of new powers for the federal government. Would you trust them for a minute that they
didn't intend to use those powers to their fullest extent? The federalist papers rely on this trick quite a lot. "You elected the people who will hold these powers, so obviously you can trust them not to do something
wrong with them." Yeah, right. They also had some bridges for sale (literally).
Speaking of the supremacy of the federal government, Madison had this to say in Federalist #40:
"In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several states a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."
So, to paraphrase a bit, "Except for these massive and expansive new powers,
which we totally won't abuse, the constitution doesn't infringe on state sovereignty. But as it relates to these incredibly vague and open-ended powers, well, in those matters obviously the federal government must be supreme. And look, there's nothing to worry about anyway, because we can always amend the Constitution to
change the enumerated powers later."
Seriously, would
you believe that coming from a politician today? I don't know why you assume that Madison wasn't trying to polish a turd.
"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the constitution on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power, which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction." [Emphasis mine]
Alright, let me ask you this; why don't you try to paraphrase Madison's defense here. Let me do it for you; "Our opponents are wrong... because they are wrong." He does not actually explain how the Constitution
doesn't do as its opponents claimed. His opponents who turned out to be
absolutely correct. There is literally no defense there. He is literally just stating that his opponents have some valid objections, but then notes that his opponents must be wrong because they are wrong. He presents absolutely nothing to back his assertion that the antifederalists are wrong. No quotes or language from the Constitution specifying the definition of common defense or general welfare, no formulas by which appropriate taxation might be calculated... nothing at all to suggest that the antifederalists are wrong. He just calls them liars. That's it.
It is an example of a politician writing many words but saying nothing--which Madison shows to be a trait extending all the way back to the debate over ratification.