Slashdot Mirror

Your interpretation makes no sense in a few different ways. First: The Federalist Papers are arguing in support of the core Constitution at a time before the Bill of Rights or 2nd Amendment existed or had even been proposed. Second: Once again, the argument by Hamilton is not that random ownership of guns will protect liberty, but actually the exact opposite. Federalist No. 29 is specifically in support of the the fact that the Federal government needs to be in charge of an elite armed forces, and that this is "the best possible security", that the people as a whole cannot possibly be up to the task. The only question here is whether this well-trained and Federally-organized "select corps" is a full-time army or a part-time militia. Here's your quote in context of the full paragraph:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

I recommend that anyone read the whole paper, it's pretty short and highly illuminating to the true purpose of a Federally-run armed force, specifically in contrast to disorganized and undisciplined random mobs.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

I am one of those kids that dont understand this (neither about why it is better in short term nor whey bad idea in long term). Someone care to explain?

I nominate Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.

Or, for an outsider's perspective, de Tocqueville.

- aj

Yup. And Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay should've signed their names to the federalist papers. Fucking pussies acting like bullies to that innocent British government.

Anonymity has it's place. Some people use it for bad, others for good, but that doesn't mean you should condemn one group because another you don't agree with used the same tactics. Are we fighting for Iraqi freedom? Do all Iraqi's see it that way?

You can't reason with someone who is unreasonable, so many times the only recourse is to take direct action. I note you completely gloss over the fact that all of this action by Anonymous is ENTIRELY in reaction to the initial attack by HBGary, and more specifically Aaron Barr. If you start a fight and you lose it, that doesn't make you a victim, or in the right. And sometimes an example needs to be made to encourage others to learn from the mistake. Or for the lulz. Whatever.

"The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT."

So, again, can you provide real examples or is it just wishful thinking?

"Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another."
Much more than that. USA is a country; EU is not.

What makes something a country? What I said was that the United States is not a National Government, it is a Federal Government. If you think that is just a matter of semantics, then that is your opinion, and that gives a pretty clear vision of either your ideology or your education, but please recognize that your idea of a state as a mere formality of national affairs is fundamentally different from that of the Founders intentions as well as the law as it is still written today. And not to praise them as some kind of perfect all knowing beings, but you might be keen on familiarizing yourself with some of the things that they SAID and that they DISCUSSED about each issue and item addressed in the constitution. There are records of discussions and letters that outline what, at least, at the time that they wrote it. No, the constitution is vague in some places, but you can get transcripts from the discussion arguing over how and why it should be phrased in a certain way to give the best possible clarity. They may not have all agreed on exactly what it did mean, but it is easy to see what they all agreed it was NOT. I would highly recommend reading The Jefferson Letters, The Federalist Papers, and John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution. To put it simply, One of the powers of the federal government expressly granted by the states in the constitution is to make treaties and declare treaties. This can all be done without having to get the permission of the state first. On the otherhand, in the EU, the EU has common defense, but does not have the power to declare war or make treaties. The Federal Government can can make loans against the United States in the form of Treasury Notes, and could print money if it so desired (which it does not. The last United States Notes were taken out of circulation in 1971). The European Union was founded in 1993, where as the Federal Government we "have today" was founded in 1788. Give the EU 200 years, and I am sure that will get wildly out of control and you will hear France threatening to succeed from the Union like Texas is today. The American Civil War didn't begin until 1861 where for the first time it was challenged whether or not a state had the right to succeed.So what? That is just totally settled? Come on, at very least you need to acknowledge the existential argument there.

As for the Enlightenment Age, I am talking about the Enlightenment itself, not saying it was the greatest time in all history, just that we need to remember what it was and why it worked. Of course I am happy as anyone that we eradicated small pox, but I would argue that were it not for enlightenment thinking, something like a small pox vaccination certainly wasn't going to be devised in the dark ages. You really going to say that the poor lower class were better off in the dark ages? Maybe if you were a puritan, but those kids just gtfo anyhow. (Yes, I realize they came to what is now the United States and had a big influence on law, but I'd really prefer to forget that. I KNOW!)

We don't JUST vote for Specter, just like we don't just vote for any Republican. We vote for both. We vote for Specter AS LONG AS he maintains the principles of the party he was running under, in this case, Republican.

Are you actually familiar with Spector's voting record? Even when he was a Republican, and the Republicans were the majority, Spector had a long history of voting against the Republican party line. He's been in the Senate for a long time. His constituents are under no illusions. Check his record. So in his case, he really is elected far more as an individual than as a party member.

Note, also, that our government was specifically designed to limit the influence of political parties. See Federalish paper #10. In parliamentary systems, one tends to have single-interest political parties. The US system was specifically designed to avoid this, as Madison wrote.

Personally, I can't see how strict adherence to party policy is a good thing. Each party has a tiny leadership, usually unelected -- Michael Steele for the Republicans, Howard Dean for the Democrats. Are you really telling me that all the nation's elected officials should subjugate their consciences to a small number of their party's elite? That isn't a democracy or a republic, that is a dictatorship. In a very real sense, the existence of party "whips" on both sides is a violation of the principles that underly this nation.

Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book..

I doubt he will buy a book. Might be better to provide some easy clicky things with pretty pictures to keep him entertained.

They also left us other documents that go a long way to explaining where their heads were at. Federalist Papers anyone? More nifty stuff is available at the click of a mouse.

We shouldn't hope to call the US a democracy--it's a democratic republic.

On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary...

Judges were considered Officers of the Union by the Constitutional Convention, and were thus appointed like "diplomats". However, our founding fathers wanted to guarantee these officers functioned independently of the other two branches, and thus wrote the station into the Constitution*. The power of judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution; it was established several years afterwards in a political coup.**

...even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate!

The Senate was an institution of state sovereignty, not popular sovereignty. Even so, Senators were indirectly elected by the state legislatures.

--
* In fact, the Judiciary Branch was seen as such an impotent institution that it had three Chief Justices in its first 12 years. (Compare with Marshall's stint of 34 years).

** PBS published a great documentary about the SCOTUS, which I highly recommend.

We shouldn't hope to call the US a democracy--it's a democratic republic.

On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary...

Judges were considered Officers of the Union by the Constitutional Convention, and were thus appointed like "diplomats". However, our founding fathers wanted to guarantee these officers functioned independently of the other two branches, and thus wrote the station into the Constitution*. The power of judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution; it was established several years afterwards in a political coup.**

...even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate!

The Senate was an institution of state sovereignty, not popular sovereignty. Even so, Senators were indirectly elected by the state legislatures.

--
* In fact, the Judiciary Branch was seen as such an impotent institution that it had three Chief Justices in its first 12 years. (Compare with Marshall's stint of 34 years).

** PBS published a great documentary about the SCOTUS, which I highly recommend.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Well said!

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Who exactly were the Federalist Papers trying to get elected again?

Cheers,
Craig

Don't
Tread
On
Me you worthless piece off white trash

Federalist #68
 
...It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

>Yes, but until then you're still giving them $60/Mo...

I'm paying $50 a month now for broadband cable internet access. The fact that TV comes along with it is just a bonus. I don't (and won't) pay extra for pay-per-view, HDTV, or whatever other extra bells and whistles they want me to may extra for.

>What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

What part of "there has been no militia, as intended by the founding fathers, since at least 1903" do you not understand? The fact that the federal government has absorbed the state militias so that they now serve to augment, rather than counterbalance federal military power makes it even /more/ necessary that the people be armed. Just because there are no militias anymore does not invalidate the wisdom of the founding fathers to have armed citizens as a counterbalance to tyranny. See Federalist 29.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/f ed29.htm

Steve

That is a good view, but Thomas Jefferson did not write any of the Federalist Papers. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Thomas Jefferson was not a Federalist; rather, he was a Republican and upon becoming President tried to unite the groups.

Certainly one can't claim that these people weren't willing to fight for their ideals. And they thought anonymous writing was a valid (useful / legal / legitimate) way to bring about democracy and political change.

Breeding a group of people who are convinced they're doing their thing for the world, yet who write anonymously behind the safety of a pseudonym or "Anonymous Coward" moniker?

Get some integrity people, and write with your real names. Stand up for what you believe in and put your name next to your thoughts.


I suppose you've never heard of the Federalist Papers.

Just a thought... And I have been wrong before...

How about more the Federalist style of government and not the "Republic" government. It's always seems to be this way since then anonymous PUBLIUS authored the Federalist papers.

Now, I'm wondering why we are currently enspousing a "democracy" in budding 3rd world nations?

Why don't we hear more about advocating "Republic" government instead?

Or is this more of the media's misguided use of terminology and its application whenever they report "Democracy". Does it really mean "Republic"?