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/
The Federalist Papers
- Thread starter Kelly J
- Start date
- Status
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/
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
Member
Great link!
When done reading those, check out the anti-federalist papers. 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
"...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
When done reading those, check out the anti-federalist papers. 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
"...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
Last edited:
GTSteve03
Member
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.
Someone's got me on a watch list for that, I'm sure.
foehammer
Member
Federalist Papers
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
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
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.
WORDS AND PICTURES.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.Kelly J said:
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.
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
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
Member
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."
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
Member
I took me a long time (school did not help) before I realized to thank God for the Anti-Federalist!!!
GTSteve03
Member
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.
RioShooter
Member
On My Bookshelf
Yes, I've read some of them. I can see the book from where I'm sitting.
Yes, I've read some of them. I can see the book from where I'm sitting.
Deathrider1579
Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 198
That would be the war you yanks call the civil war
-DR
Malum Prohibitum
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
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.
The modern dispute as to its meaning did not arise until after all of those men were dead.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
How could the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers have agreed on the Second Amendment when it didn't exist yet?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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
Art
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
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2006
- Messages
- 572
Art
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.
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.
- Status
