Story Comments
Posted by: flyonthewallzz 1 year, 4 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Madison wrote a bunch of stuff I do not agree with.
Reply
I tended to like Hamilton's stuff a little more.
Madison was quite cornered about the "Mob rule" of a democracy, and wrote about the populist opinion that put Socrates to death and then built statues for him.
He is a hero of Karl Rove, because he tended to think we should be more of a republic than a democracy, and saner minds could temper the Mob if there was a bit of isolation in place. I kind of think he represents the thoughts of Republican conservatives when the principle has been rendered down to the basics.
None the less both of the Federalist Papers authors spent a lot of words describing and warning about the dangers of a huge military machine.
They both felt that the federal branch should maintain a strong Navy and have a small group of elite warriors.
They Strongly opposed the concept of large standing armies (no more than 2 years). There are words still in the Constitution about how the states can decide about officers.
Hamilton Basically stated that the country would freak out if the military machine became huge. We did not.
I think it is fair to say that we cover about 1/2 the bill for military expenditure for the entire world.
It also speaks well for the folks ,that have served this country, that in spite of the power they are capable of wielding, they still answer to our chosen civilian leaders.
The Business Plot: The Bonus army was offered the opportunity to overthrow Roosevelt. They where ****** off soldiers, but they let their honor shine.
I still prefer Hamilton, too bad he got shot.
Maria Reynolds-
100%
populist1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting perspective, and thank you for writing all that, although I strongly disagree. Maybe that's best left for another thread, though!
Reply
Anyway, if anyone's interested, there's a book coming out soon that discusses just these issues. (well, more from my point of view!)
It's called "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today"
http://www.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Curse-Jeffersons-Revolution-Americans/dp/0307382842
Ok, I'll try to stay on topic now!-
Neutral
flyonthewallzz1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cool that you disagree!
Reply
Sorry to pull a tangential thread.
Thanks for pointing out the book, If I was a better man I would read it.
I do think that many of the words that are attributed to Jefferson where Ghost written by Hamilton.
I am not that smart or well educated, so I was just kind of trying to share what I "felt" when I was cruising The Federalist Papers.
-
-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republic or Democracy is irrelevant to the principles in international law that justify rebellion of the ruled against the ruler. The form of government selected by the founding fathers was founded on legal principles that were the principle cause of the new government being formed in the first place. Whether a democracy of republic is in place, if the government violates the legal principles of the social contract between the ruled and the ruler under the concept of "natural law", then, under international law, the ruled have the obligation to rebel and bring the government down. Any violation of the principle cause for the rebellion and formation of the government in the first place violates the social contract and everything the government claims a right to is nullified ab initio...or from the beginning.
Reply-
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply -
100%
BravoSierra1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I recommend that you back up to prior to Madison, Adams, Hamilton, etc and study Friar Francisco Suarez and the founders of international law at the time of the Age of Enlightenment. These are the principles that the Declaration of Independence addresses and makes a legal defense for rebellion based upon. Any law in the Constitution or any subsequent interpretation of our laws and liberties in violation of these earlier principles is invalid ab initio. Debating them is a moot point if they are invalid. Rove violated the legal definition of natural rights laid out in the Declaration and thus violated the law in many of his actions. Indeed, many of the Bush administration's positions are illegal, not because they violate the Constitution (which they do) but because they are contrary to the natural rights and freedoms accorded to the INDIVIDUAL ABOVE ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT as stated in the Declaration. Most people unfamiliar with international law think the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the basis of US Laws and rights afforded citizens and thus they bicker over the "Constitutionality" of laws, executive privileges, etc. What they fail to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence is the first legal definition of the individual rights of US Citizens and that is is not a philosophical document but that it in fact strictly addresses international laws in place at the time of the American Revolution. It is Washington and the other rebel's legal defense that they would have presented in the courts of Europe and to the British Parliament had they lost. If they had lost, there is a fair chance they would have been exonerated. The British Parliament had already declared the British East India Company to be verging on treason to the Crown and had declared them immoral and incompetent governors of the Crown's possessions. Washington may well have been exonerated and officers of the British East India Company and other governors may well have been hanged for the crimes laid out in the Declaration. If that's what it would have taken to resolve the revolution peacefully and keep the colonies as part of the Empire I suspect that Parliament would have eaten its own. As it was, Washington won.
Reply
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (1)
protohamPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.