Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't go into specifics so that we can interpret it the way we want to. We're not supposed to be concerned with how exactly did James Madison feel about this or Thomas Jefferson think about that.
The Federalist Papers went into much detail on the specifics of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified based on what these specifics were. What the Federalist papers spell out is a limited federal government with specific enumerated powers.
The Federalist Papers went into much detail on the specifics of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified based on what these specifics were. What the Federalist papers spell out is a limited federal government with specific enumerated powers.
However, the Federalists were only a minority of those who participated in the American Revolution or the creation of the federal state that we know as the United States of America. There were other opinions for example those of Thomas Paine who left the United States because he felt the Federalists betrayed the ideals of the Revolution. Objections to Federalist policies led to a split and the creation of a opposition party called the Democratic-Republicans who felt the Federalists wanted to shut out the common man in favor of the wealthy and centralized authority over local control. For example, Federalists backed the creation of a Bank of the United States to manage banking and issue our new currency the dollar. In otherwords our version of the Bank of England which does the same for the British. Marbury vs Madison was also a Federalist action which established the idea of Judicial Review and the power of the Supreme Court to strike down Acts of Congress if it finds they violate the Constitution. The Federalist party lost popularity and by the 1820s it collaspsed and died. Idea of a strong Federal government was taken up in the early 1850s by a new party that formed when midwestern Whigs, former Federalists and New England Abolitionists joined forces. The new party called its self the Republicans and in 1856 they ran John C. Fremont for President. In the next election in 1860 Abraham Lincoln.
However, the Federalists were only a minority of those who participated in the American Revolution or the creation of the federal state that we know as the United States of America. There were other opinions for example those of Thomas Paine who left the United States because he felt the Federalists betrayed the ideals of the Revolution. Objections to Federalist policies led to a split and the creation of a opposition party called the Democratic-Republicans who felt the Federalists wanted to shut out the common man in favor of the wealthy and centralized authority over local control. For example, Federalists backed the creation of a Bank of the United States to manage banking and issue our new currency the dollar. In otherwords our version of the Bank of England which does the same for the British. Marbury vs Madison was also a Federalist action which established the idea of Judicial Review and the power of the Supreme Court to strike down Acts of Congress if it finds they violate the Constitution. The Federalist party lost popularity and by the 1820s it collaspsed and died. Idea of a strong Federal government was taken up in the early 1850s by a new party that formed when midwestern Whigs, former Federalists and New England Abolitionists joined forces. The new party called its self the Republicans and in 1856 they ran John C. Fremont for President. In the next election in 1860 Abraham Lincoln.
The Federalist Papers have nothing to do with the Federalist Party associated with Adams and Washington.
It doesn't go into specifics so that we can interpret it the way we want to. We're not supposed to be concerned with how exactly did James Madison feel about this or Thomas Jefferson think about that.
I guess I can go steal that flat screen I've been wanting now, because I interpret laws differently than the store.
I guess I can go steal that flat screen I've been wanting now, because I interpret laws differently than the store.
I raised my tenants rent a $100. He argued we had 18 months left on our contract. I replied that we have a living contract.
Federalist Paper #41 explains the general welfare clause;
Quote:
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 the debts, and provide for the common defense 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 labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
It doesn't go into specifics so that we can interpret it the way we want to. We're not supposed to be concerned with how exactly did James Madison feel about this or Thomas Jefferson think about that.
Actually, the Constitution goes into specifics in many areas.
When the Constitution says, "The Fed govt can have the following powers and NO OTHERS", it meant exactly that. Liberals couldn't find a way around it, so they announced it was "vague", to let themselves start slipping extra powers in where they wanted.
Liberals hope people haven't read the Constitution, so their announcements of "vagueness" will go unchallenged.
The Federalist Papers have nothing to do with the Federalist Party associated with Adams and Washington.
What a stupid statement. You really don't think the Federalist Papers papers had no influence on Washington or Adams who had the everyday headache of being the President of the United States. Men who had to work with the men who drafted the Federalist Papers which argued for a Federal state to replace the failed state that the United States under the confederation was becoming. The United States is LUCKY it had the temper of men like Washington or Adams to create the USA and set so many precidents we follow even today. Would you rather of had Simon Bolivar and his Gran Columbia or or Citizen Genet or Robespierre instead?
What a stupid statement. You really don't think the Federalist Papers papers had no influence on Washington or Adams who had the everyday headache of being the President of the United States. Men who had to work with the men who drafted the Federalist Papers which argued for a Federal state to replace the failed state that the United States under the confederation was becoming. The United States is LUCKY it had the temper of men like Washington or Adams to create the USA and set so many precidents we follow even today. Would you rather of had Simon Bolivar and his Gran Columbia or or Citizen Genet or Robespierre instead?
Let me explain something. During the ratification process those who favored ratification were labeled Federalist those who opposed anti-Federalists. Neither the Federalist or the Democratic-Republican Party existed. During Washington's 1st term divisions arose between Jefferson, Madison, etc and Adams, Hamilton, Washington, etc. as to the proper role of the federal government. Those with the more expansive view of the powers of the federal government united behind Adams while those who correctly held the more limited view united behind Jefferson and the two party system was born.
To put it simple Madison was a Federalist during the ratification process. Madison, Hamilton and Jay were the authors of the Federalist papers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
