The Federalist Papers

[Ieyasu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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