Federalist Society Biggest Donor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Federalist papers are not law and therefore not binding. They are papers published in a newspaper by 3 authors (mostly by Hamilton). Certainly, there was no unanimity at the Constitutional Convention. So, given that only 3 authors’ views are represented, no solid basis exists for their sole use in interpreting the intent of the Constitution.
 
niceatheist said:
nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society
Click to expand...
The guy who wrote that died in a duel by his political opponent.

“say one thing; do another”.
 
Is originalism falsified by the personal conduct of any or all of the Framers?
 
Bon_Croix said:
The Federalist papers are not law and therefore not binding. They are papers published in a newspaper by 3 authors (mostly by Hamilton). Certainly, there was no unanimity at the Constitutional Convention. So, given that only 3 authors’ views are represented, no solid basis exists for their sole use in interpreting the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I’d like to put a sharper point on this. Nobody is arguing the Federalist Papers are law. They most certainly weren’t. And yes, there were several points of strong debate between the authors of the Constitution; impeachment was one of them. There were people who thought there should be a specific list of crimes, but this was messy and inflexible (abuse of power, for instance, isn’t something easily codified), so to was the idea of a trial in the Supreme Court. Hamilton may have been the author of 65, but there’s no reason to think that it wasn’t the consensus view of all involved; impeachment and removal of a President, a man who was selected by democratic process, was not a judicial decision. It was seen (wisely) as a political decision, and as such, the closest thing to a jury of the President’s peers was Congress. If it was a political question, then the politicians had to be the ones to sort it out. And because it was a monumental decision involving the removal of the President, conviction required a supermajority of 2/3s of Senators.

As to the division of the process between the House and the Senate, well that’s where Hamilton refers to Great Britain; because impeachment in British law saw the articles of impeachment voted on in the House of Commons, as the house of the people, whereas because in Britain you were dealing with the Crown’s own representatives and agents, the Peers of the Realm were the closest to being equals to the King, so the House of Lords held the trial (which fit well with the House of Lords being at the time functioning as the Supreme Court, through the Law Lords).

As to what Hamilton’s essay represents, well, quite simply, it represents the consensus view of the Framers. Even in 65, Hamilton does suggest there was debate over which body should have the competence to put the President on trial. Unless you have some reason to imagine that Federalist 65 is just Hamilton’s own views, if you’re a Constitutional originalist, how can you take any other position than it represents the intentions of the Framers as to removing the President?
 
Last edited:
Convince me that the Federalist papers are the consensus view and not the authors’ political leanings.

To me, from my viewpoint, it is obvious that the Federalist Papers were a political move to advocate for the Constitution and against the Articles of Confederation. Why should I believe that it was not when the main author showed up at a duel? A truly sincere and humble man would not have shown up at a duel with a political opponent.

I find it hard to believe that the authors’ included no political leanings in their writings of the Federalist Papers.

At the end of the day, the Constitution is the binding document. Since the Convention was a secret deliberation; we have no assurance that the Federalist Papers represent the “consensus”. In fact, the “Consensus” is the Constitution.

On the other hand, look at laws created by legislative bodies and see that we can, in most instances, obtain the official committee and floor arguments for or against a law and do a better job of determining the intent of a law by examining the issues agreed upon by the majority with special emphasis on the individual who introduced the legislation.
 
Last edited:
The courts have used the Federalist Papers when seeking a window on the framers’ intentions.

What precisely about 65 do you find objectionable?
 
I’d like to know what percentage of justices have used the papers to form their opinions on constitutional issues.
 
niceatheist said:
What precisely about 65 do you find objectionable?
Click to expand...
There is nothing objectionable, unless perhaps you think it says something it doesn’t
Hamilton defends the use of the Senate as a court of impeachment for public officials impeached by the House of Representatives. He argues that there are certainly disadvantages to having a political institution serve as judges given the significant potential for partiality. However, the Senate is the best option available. The Supreme Court would be inadequate due to its small size and the fact that an official, once removed from office, might then find himself judged in criminal court by the same judges who removed him from office.

Hamilton also dismisses the idea of having a separate institution or collection of officials to serve as a court of impeachment. He warns that such a body would be too expensive.
Click to expand...
 
Would you also agree with Hamilton that they based the constitutional process of impeachment on Great Britain’s process at the time?
 
If Hamilton were on CAF; he would be the guy with the most posts.

What does that tell you about Hamilton?
 
Are you trying to argue Hamilton was wrong about the intent of impeachment and the system set up in the constitution to prosecute an impeachment and a removal because he wrote a lot? Most of the Framers were prodigious writers.

Actually I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It feels like you’re attacking Hamilton and Federalist 65, but I can’t be sure.
 
Last edited:
Why would u argue Federalist 65 s/b used by Senate in determining Trump’s guilt or innocence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top