The writings of the founding fathers

[falconer]

Where can I find some of the writings of the founding fathers in respect to their views on government and rights. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are the only thing that really comes to mind. I'm writing a paper for my criminal justice class on the Constitution and its current meaning in regards to our rights and what the founding fathers intended.

 

[tyme]

www.constitution.org (Don't just look at the founding docs section; there's cool stuff elsewhere on that site, too.)
memory.loc.gov

Not sure about memory.loc.gov, but constitution.org is covered by google, so if you know what you're looking for you might try a google search and add "site:constitution.org" as a search term to narrow it down.

 

[TheBluesMan]

The Federalist papers can be found here: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Anti-federalist papers can be found here: www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm but for some reason the site is down right now. Here's an alternative site: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1389/antifeds/antifed.html

This site has a lot of info on the Founding Fathers too: http://www.federalist.com/index.asp

http://www.brainyquote.com/ has quotations from many of the founding fathers.

Good luck on your paper. Is this the class you have with the cute prof?

 

[falconer]

I picked up the federalist papers at the libary today, as well as a collection of federalist/anti federalist debates. I think I might have enough information for the historical part of my paper between the books and the links you guys gave. Now I just need to find some more current things on rights/liberties in today's world. Obviously, the 2nd and 4th amendments will be two of my biggest areas of concentration given the current political climate.

No Dave, this isn't the class with the extremely beautiful, eastern
European instructor. *sigh*

 

[tyme]

If you want to get into philosophy behind rights/liberties, look for Jeremy Bentham's writings on Government.
[blockquote]Benth.: FRG Ch. 5 Foot. 2 Para. 2/10 p. 494
1. That may be said to be my duty to do (understand political duty) which you (or some other person or persons) have a right to have me made to do. I then have a DUTY towards you: you have a RIGHT as against me.

Benth.: FRG Ch. 5 Foot. 2 Para. 3/10 p. 495
2. What you have a right to have me made to do (understand a political right) is that which I am liable, according to law, upon a requisition made on your behalf, to be punished for not doing.

Benth.: FRG Ch. 5 Foot. 2 Para. 4/10 p. 495
3. I say punished: for without the notion of punishment (that is of pain annexed to an act, and accruing on a certain account, and from a certain source) no notion can we have of either right or duty.[/blockquote]
And, of course, there's Hobbes's Leviathan, which defines just about everything, though perhaps not in a way useful to your argument. Of particular relevance to rights are the ultra-famous chapters 13-16.

Locke talks about rights (second treatise on govt, chapter 9), but got most (well, many) of his ideas from Hobbes.

For 20th century rights and liberties, try
Isaiah Berlin - "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958)
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld - "Fundamental Legal Conceptions" (1918)

Here's some professor's outline of Hohfeld's structure of rights (found on the web somewhere):
I have a right -> You have a duty
My right/power is your duty/liability to respect my claim
If I have a privilege (suspended duty), you suffer a derogation (suspended right)
My privilege is a suspension of your right.

If I have a power, you have a liability.
My power is an ability to change your social/legal/moral status.
If I have an immunity, you have a disability (suspended power).
My immunity is a protection against your power.

The prof then gives a statement incorporating all of these:
"Human rights of the innocent not to be bombed sometimes suffer derogations due to the privilege of the military to exercise its power exposing us to the liability of being indebted to it for giving us immunity against the attacks of the enemy thus forced to operate under a disability."

It should be obvious that Hohfeld is just expanding on Bentham (and maybe prior theorists, I'm not sure).