Others seem to think that the 14th and 16th amendments were pretty terrible 'power grabs' too. One might be forgiven for envisaging a stereotypical conservative believing that your Founders and your Constitution were a pinnacle of human civilization... so perfect that their system somehow went downhill all the way :doh
What do you like about him? And do you think he would be pleased with how our federal government has turned out so far?
Based on that book, Hamilton was the brains behind the whole operation,along with Madison.Well, I already posted at length in a thread on most influential Americans, but I cannot recall where it was.
I'll say that based on Ron Chernow's biography, Hamilton was easily one of the most influential Americans.
Others seem to think that the 14th and 16th amendments were pretty terrible 'power grabs' too. One might be forgiven for envisaging a stereotypical conservative believing that your Founders and your Constitution were a pinnacle of human civilization... so perfect that their system somehow went downhill all the way :doh
Some comments made by Thomas Jefferson seem a more reasonable counterpoint to such views:
"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our particular security is in possession of a written constitution.... Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time and trial show are still wanting."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading, and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead.
I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
"But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. . . .
A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
Seems then this should be posted to the threads which are concerned with 14 & 16th power grabs where your sentiments would be challenged.Others seem to think that the 14th and 16th amendments were pretty terrible 'power grabs' too. One might be forgiven for envisaging a stereotypical conservative believing that your Founders and your Constitution were a pinnacle of human civilization... so perfect that their system somehow went downhill all the way :doh
Some comments made by Thomas Jefferson seem a more reasonable counterpoint to such views:
"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our particular security is in possession of a written constitution.... Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the Constitution, those powers which time and trial show are still wanting."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them, like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country... As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
"But can they be made unchangeable? Can one generation bind another and all others in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter unendowed with will. The dead are not even things. . . .
A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
Based on that book, Hamilton was the brains behind the whole operation,along with Madison.
He was one of those 200 IQers who apparently was not such a great people person.
this has no bearing on what ludin said.
if you wish to get into a founders duel over quotes, please do.
Gotta be quite brief while posting at work, but it directly addresses Ludin's complaints about "hijacking" the constitution, a government "power grab" and the subsequent "downfall": Those are opinions which obviously have not been widely shared by the generations which have come and gone since. Within the framework of fundamental liberties and representation, the proper role of government is determined by those who are governed - not people from 200 years ago who, even if they were still alive, would be a tiny fraction of the population and wildly out of touch with the structure and needs of modern society. A fact which some folk from 200 years ago recognised.
None of which is to say that more recent folk have always taken the most beneficial route, of course.
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
he was talking about the USSC case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) where the USSC handed the federal government power to regulate commerce inside of states and the people, which they could not do before, and both madsion and hamilton state the federal government has no power to do.
by this court action, it allowed the federal government to get involved in our lives liberty and property, which they were never meant to be.
Fair enough - I've learned a thing or three from googling that - but it doesn't change my point. This seems to have been legislation or a detail of federal power which the legislative branch (obviously), executive and eventually judicial branches all accepted, and which has not been overturned in seven decades since (nor entirely without precedent, for that matter). Whether or not the original authors of the constitution specifically meant for it to be used that way, and whether or not particular individuals in the years since consider it a 'hijacking' or stretched interpretation of it, it all seems to have been above board and following the normal processes, and acceptable or at least not too odious to most citizens of several subsequent generations.