The Federalist Papers


PDA






Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 05:50 PM
Many of us have heard of the federalist Papers writthn by Hamilton , Madison, and Jay, but have you ever read them or for that matter known where you could access them, Here is a link that will give you access to them.

http://federalistpapers.com/

If you enjoyed reading about "The Federalist Papers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MechAg94
August 24, 2006, 06:25 PM
I have a copy, but I haven't read them yet. The NRA did a American Traditions or American Classics Library collection one time. Got a bunch of good books like that one, Common Sense, and biographies of some founding fathers in nice bound books. I don't know if they still do that stuff. I have a bunch of classic books on firearms I got the same way prior to that. Actually reading them is coming a little slower. There is always something more interesting or more fun to read. Too many magazines also.

WayneConrad
August 24, 2006, 06:50 PM
Great link!

When done reading those, check out the anti-federalist papers (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm). Think nobody saw that SCOTUS would become sovereign? At least one of the authors of the anti-federalist papers saw it coming.

(Edited to add): To whet your appetite:

"This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. -- The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine." Brutus #11 (http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.txt)

"...in proportion as the general government acquires power and jurisdiction, by the liberal construction which the judges may give the constitution, will those of the states lose its rights, until they become so trifling and unimportant, as not to be worth having." Brutus #12 (http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.txt)

GTSteve03
August 24, 2006, 08:01 PM
I was always a much bigger fan of the anti-federalists than the federalists.

Someone's got me on a watch list for that, I'm sure. :p

SuperNaut
August 24, 2006, 08:21 PM
I was always a much bigger fan of the anti-federalists than the federalists.

Someone's got me on a watch list for that, I'm sure.

Me too, and I could use a new watch...

foehammer
August 24, 2006, 08:31 PM
From Federalist 46: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The 2A is not a primarily a right to hunt but was designed as a deterant to a State's attempt to gather to itself a monoply on power.

Foehammer

Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 10:40 PM
MechAg94 , I kow exactly what yoiu mean I got rid of close to $2000.00 worth of hunting Fishing and Historical books tha I collected over the years, And I can for a fact tell you what was ineach and every one of them.

WORDS AND PICTURES.

Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 10:44 PM
WayneConrad , Thanks I will check them out tomarrow my eyes are getting blurry from the computer been on since 8:00AM need a rest.

Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 10:46 PM
GTSteve03 , Are you worried about it?

Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 10:53 PM
foehammer, I think that if you dig a bit deeper you will find that the 2nd Amendment was put there so that there would be no need for a Standing Army to stand inthe defence of our Country, and the the Amendment was to insure that every able oddied man was able to posses and keep his own personal armes and to stand in defence of the Country whencalled upon to do so.

If I have misintrepeted your remarks please clear it up for me as I don't want to be seen here as a Smart Ass as I ain't, I only have an 8th Grade Education.

Kelly J
August 24, 2006, 10:56 PM
My real agenda for posting the Federalist Papers was inthe hope that People would read them to be aware of the por and con arguements of the day and Most importantly to understand that this Country was founded onthe principle of a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY because acording to history DEMOCRACIES ALWAYS FAILED AND IMPLODED, I think that is where we are headed.

kengrubb
August 25, 2006, 01:48 AM
Many of us have heard of the federalist Papers writthn by Hamilton , Madison, and Jay, but have you ever read them or for that matter known where you could access them
I have a print copy that I bought after taking an NRA Personal Protection class back in 1992. One of the instructors referenced it quite a bit. Gave an excellent brief intro to the R2KBA.

The Constitution Society has a link to many Founding Documents including the Federalist Papers.

http://constitution.org/cs_found.htm

Federalist #29 is a very potent weapon to be used whenever someone claims, "The Second Amendment says well-regulated, so that means gun control".

http://constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

... If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.
...
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen.
...
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Bottomline: A well-regulated militia means a tolerable expertness in military movements, and we're supposed to be assembled once or twice a year to ensure that we're shooting, moving and communicating.:what:

tube_ee
August 25, 2006, 01:59 AM
Good stuff, the Federalist Papers...

But, do they have any standing in Constitutional Law? For example, while it is a document of high moral purpose and great clarity, the Declaration of Independence doesn't, at least so far as I've been able to figure out.

--Shannon

kengrubb
August 25, 2006, 02:14 AM
FWIW

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndwha.html
"This work has always commanded widespread respect as the first and still most authoritative commentary on the Constitution of the United States.It has been searched minutely by lawyers for its analysis of the powers of Congress, quoted confidently by historians for its revelations of the hopes and fears of the framers of the Constitution, and cited magisterially by the Supreme Court for its arguments in behalf of judicial review, executive independence, and national supremacy. It would not be stretching the truth more than a few inches to say that The Federalist stands third only to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself among all the sacred writings of American political history. It has a quality of legitimacy, of authority and authenticity, that gives it the high status of a public document, one to which, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any" as to the "genuine meaning" of the Constitution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
"Federal judges frequently use the Federalist Papers when interpreting the Constitution as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. However, the amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial."

xd9fan
August 25, 2006, 03:20 AM
I took me a long time (school did not help) before I realized to thank God for the Anti-Federalist!!!

GTSteve03
August 25, 2006, 08:17 AM
GTSteve03 , Are you worried about it?
The Anti-Federalists have been all but forgotten since Lincoln and the War of Northern Aggression.

I don't bother myself with it too much these days, I prefer to spend my time worrying more on whether or not my stockpile of guns/ammo is big enough. :evil:

RioShooter
August 25, 2006, 09:09 AM
Yes, I've read some of them. I can see the book from where I'm sitting.

SuperNaut
August 25, 2006, 11:39 AM
the War of Northern Aggression.

Which war was that?

Deathrider1579
August 25, 2006, 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTSteve03
the War of Northern Aggression.

Which war was that?

That would be the war you yanks call the civil war

-DR

SuperNaut
August 25, 2006, 11:45 AM
Is that common usage in the South? It seems very Neo-Confederate.

Malum Prohibitum
August 25, 2006, 12:10 PM
On the Second Amendment, though, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed.

The modern dispute as to its meaning did not arise until after all of those men were dead.

hugh damright
August 25, 2006, 01:39 PM
On the Second Amendment, though, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed.
How could the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers have agreed on the Second Amendment when it didn't exist yet?

Art Eatman
August 25, 2006, 01:54 PM
Hugh, the discussions led to acceptance of the necessity of the BOR. The Federalists thought that those protections were already built into the proposed Constitution, including what we now know as the Second Amendment. The Anti-Federalists disagreed. So, in order to achieve ratification, the BOR--with its Preamble--was included.

Art

MechAg94
August 25, 2006, 01:55 PM
Is that common usage in the South? It seems very Neo-Confederate.
The entire South voted Democrat for almost 100 years after the Civil War. Partly I think that was due to Reconstruction as much as the War.

There were a lot of bad feelings after that war which was bound to be the case I guess. State's Rights pretty much started a slow death. It is unfortuneate that the southern leaders let slavery become the issue it was.

With our govt as it is these days, I am glad we have the Bill of Rights. The Courts have dropped all the unnamed rights we had and are doing their best to erode the ones actually written.

Malum Prohibitum
August 25, 2006, 06:11 PM
Thanks. I thought it would have been plain what I meant, but I have a bad habit of assuming people know what I am talking about and the history of why the Bill of Rights came about.

Ieyasu
August 26, 2006, 02:14 AM
The modern dispute as to its meaning did not arise until after all of those men were dead.
The modern dispute started sooner than you probably think. From Halbrook's book:
Anticipating the three basic lines of disagreement that have characterized twentieth-century analyses of the Second Amendment, the separate opinions rendered in State v. Buzzard, an 1842 Arkansas case, construed a concealed weapons statue as follows: (1) the individual citizen anytime may bear arms suitable for militia use; (2) the right to bear arms applies exclusively to the militia; and (3) the individual citizen anytime may bear arms of any variety. Since two of the three judges determined that the defendant had borne a concealed weapon unsuitable for militia use, the conviction was upheld. Interestingly, all three judges seemed to assume that the Second Amendment applied to the states.

Kelly J
August 26, 2006, 09:02 AM
tube_ee,Good stuff, the Federalist Papers...

But, do they have any standing in Constitutional Law? For example, while it is a document of high moral purpose and great clarity, the Declaration of Independence doesn't, at least so far as I've been able to figure out.

--Shannon

The two things are seperate yet connected, the Declaration was notifying the King we are no longer going to tolerate his abuses, and that we were going to be in and of ourselves our own Government.

Where as the Constitution was the Giude and rules that we here were and are going to be bound by.

The Federalist Papers, for the most part were news papers, of the sort that were published to garner support for the Constitution, by explainning the Articles and later the Bill of Rights so the people that were not able to read could hear the comments and discussions of the ones that could if you will, to gain an understanding of the Document they were being asked to vote to Ratify, which is why the Federalist papers carry so much weight today, as then, because they did explain the Constitution, and its meanings.

Kelly J
August 26, 2006, 09:09 AM
kengrubb , I agree but the thing that facinates me the most is the fact that the three authors Hamilton, Madison,and Jay, were very capable men of the day and that their writtings still hold so much weight today, the three of them were only in their 30's, what does that say for our educational system of today?

MarkDido
August 26, 2006, 09:13 AM
That would be the war you yanks call the civil war

-DR

Hehehe A long time ago I was shacked-up with a girl who also referred to it as the "War of the Northern Aggression"

Of course she didn't refer to it as "shacking-up" but as "Living together without the benefit of clergy"

Kelly J
August 26, 2006, 09:13 AM
xd9fan,I took me a long time (school did not help) before I realized to thank God for the Anti-Federalist!!!
__________________
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” — Patrick Henry

Libertarians.....champions of Individual Liberty,private property, the free market, and constitutionally limited government. www.fee.org www.mises.org
www.ij.org

As yet I have not gotten into the Writtings but plan to Thank you for the link.

joab
August 26, 2006, 09:15 AM
Is that common usage in the South? It seems very Neo-Confederate.It is actually an historical reference to the war which was also called the "War Of Southern Secession", the "War of Northern Occupation", and the "War of Southern Independence" and I believe it was also called the "War of Southern Hostilities".
All of these are much more appropriate than the revisionistic term "Civil War" that the Union assigned to the war to support fighting it.

Thanks for the links to both sets of papers.
For some reason I can not read things like this on a comp screen.
I'll have to print them out

Kelly J
August 26, 2006, 09:17 AM
This topic has nothing to do with the Civil War, and it was not my intention to get into that sort of discussion, we are commenting of the Federalist Papers, and thoughts of the fact of whether or not they have been read, and opinions of them!

hugh damright
August 26, 2006, 11:52 AM
Hugh, the discussions led to acceptance of the necessity of the BOR. The Federalists thought that those protections were already built into the proposed Constitution, including what we now know as the Second Amendment. The Anti-Federalists disagreed. So, in order to achieve ratification, the BOR--with its Preamble--was included.
Art, are you telling me that, in order to achieve ratification, the USBOR with its Preamble was included in the US Constitution? I think you mean to say that the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers fostered the idea of a USBOR such that many States requested a USBOR when ratifying the US Constitution? The way you worded it, it sounds like you are saying that the USBOR came before ratification.

I am aware that the federalist/antifederalist papers discussed whether or not a USBOR was needed ... Federalist #38 comes to mind:

"This one tells us that the proposed Constitution ought to be rejected, because it is not a confederation of the States, but a government over individuals. Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent, but by no means to the extent proposed. A third does not object to the government over individuals, or to the extent proposed, but to the want of a bill of rights. A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights, but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth is of opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced .... "

The Federalist Papers, for the most part were news papers, of the sort that were published to garner support for the Constitution, by explainning the Articles and later the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights did not exist at the time, so I do not see how the Papers explained the USBOR to garner support for the Constitution. I think what y'all mean to say is that the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers discussed a potentional USBOR, not that they explained an existing USBOR.

But I reckon Antifederalist #84 could shed some light on our Second Amendment:

"In the bills of rights of the States it is declared, that a well regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government; that as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous, they are not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and controlled by, the civil power.

The same security is as necessary in this Constitution, and much more so; for the general government will have the sole power to raise and to pay armies, and are under no control in the exercise of it; yet nothing of this is to be found in this new system."

Art Eatman
August 26, 2006, 03:31 PM
"I think you mean to say that the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers fostered the idea of a USBOR such that many States requested a USBOR when ratifying the US Constitution?"

Yeah, that'll work. :)

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "The Federalist Papers" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!