Teen Girls Face Hate Crime Charges Over Anti-Gay Flier

I need to clarify that in the first part of the quotation Hamilton is summarizing, in his own words, the position of his opponents - not his own - and then proceeds to defend his own position. My comment should have been: "It seems Alexander Hamilton's opponents' had some concerns about the Supreme Court that have been realized in the times since." The way I first wrote this it might be misunderstood to imply that the first part was Hamilton's own viewpoint. He was a die-hard Federalist and believed all would be well with the Supreme Court.

 

An unfortunate consequence of poor document collection and retention is that only the Federal Papers were published as a collected work. The writings of the Anti-Federalist were not so published and are scattered in various archives or lost. This can give a biased view of the debates, and thereby the thoughts and intents, of the participants who developed our Constitution.

Patrick Henry, a strong Anti-Federalist, in a speech to the Virginia state convention said: "... Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People. My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States? States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation. If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the States."

It's rather clear that old "Give me liberty or give me death!" considered States Rights in a very positive light and was very concerned about an all powerful federal government.

He also said, in comparison of the proposed federal Supreme Court to his Virginia State court: "I take it as the highest [praise] on this country, that the acts of the Legislature, if unconstitutional, are liable to be opposed by the Judiciary."

He was very concerned about the abuse of power by the Judicial branch.

Even though Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist he did state that the courts were to exercise judicial judgement - not legislative will. He wrote that the Court was not to "... substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intnetions of the legislature ... The courts must declare the sense of the law ..."

We sure have moved far away for any "sense" in our Court today!

 

The 14th amendment was part of the Congressional plan for "reconstruction" of the Southern states following the Northern victory in the War Between the States. The amendment was designed to address several issues primarily centered around the status, fundamental rights, and representation of former slaves; the disqualification of certain former Confederate leaders from holding office; and the cancellation of war debts of the Confederacy. Congress made ratification a condition of "reconstruction" for the former Confederate States.

The objective of Congress was to protect freed slaves from the effects of the "Black Codes" of the former Confederate States. This was to make sure all persons - regardless of race - were considered citizens with the same rights and protections under the law. Due process was required to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property and meant to imply an impartial trail according to the law. The original intent was focused on this narrow view directly related to cleaning up the remnants of the era of slavery and the War Between the States. It was somewhat punitive towards the South but, I believe, fundamentally correct and certainly so with respect to recognizing all citizens - regardless of race - as equal before the law.

The application of the 14th amendment has been greatly expanded beyond its original intent by subsequent rulings of the Court without Congressional legislation to back it up. The greatest travesty of this has been the Court's application of the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights as if they were written to apply to the state governments rather than the federal government. The 10th amendment has been disregarded by the Court as mere trappings when in fact it was all about limiting the federal government to nothing more than that which was explicitly defined.

A great visual aid I've seen of this concept is that of Lake Mead representing the powers reserved to the people and the States and the Hoover Dam representing the 10th amendment. The Court has ignored this dam and has instead used the 14th amendment as justification to let loose a flood that has expanded the depth and breath of the federal government. By this and other extrapolations the federal government has increasingly treated the States as if they were Provinces and the people as if they were subjects.

Old Alexander Hamilton, by the way, had initially suggested during the Constitutional Convention that the States be made political subdivisions of the national government with the governor of each being appointed by the national government. Imagine that! He may yet have his original plan if the trend continues to what some desire!

I'm going for a late night walk, then a bath, and then bed!

 

The pendulum swings back and forth but with each generation it seems to be that the center point is moving further to the left!

The danger in all this is the ultimate loss of freedom by the misguided belief that all problems of society should be regulated and solved by government and especially the federal government. There are those who would worship the government as if it were a god.

The rude behavior of these persons, while not right, is not a matter for the government to deal with. There's lots of bad behavior in the world but not all of it can nor needs to be addressed by government which is itself often the source of bad and even evil behavior. Government can not mold the people into ideal citizens. We're looking to the wrong god and not the God we should worship.
[SIZE=+1]
The "hate crimes" laws and pending legislation of the state and federal governments are just another step in that wrong direction. Government has a role to play in administering justice. That should be limited to reactive steps taken to bring criminals to justice so that victims need not be tempted to seek vengeance on their own. The crimes should be limited to the serious matters - the "sticks and stones" - and not the less serious - the "words" - that might tempt both citizens and the government to punish the opposition. State laws have long been in place to cover this matters and new categories of "hate" are not needed since all crime is based in hatred. It can not be perfect and will not end all evil.

The acceptance of homosexual conduct and inclusion of homosexuals as an oppressed group is likewise another step in that wrong direction. We need to remember who's really in charge of the heavens and earth and all that is in them. We need to stop twisting and rationalizing the rules to fit our evil desires. Homosexuality is a crime far more serious than the "words" spoken against it. It involves acts that clearly harm others and harm society in general. The laws against it were reactive to the conduct. Being homosexual was not illegal by civil law but until not that long ago practicing it was. It should still be. God's word makes that very clear! Homosexuals should give thanks that the penalty of death at the hands of fellow citizens is no longer permitted.

The ability for people to speak out against it is something that supporters of homosexuality dearly want to eliminate by any means. The force of law seems irresistibly attractive to that end. The ultimate consequences to liberty would be tragic. That was the warning derived from the news of this incident not withstanding the negative behaviors of the participants.
[/SIZE]

 

No, the point is that the Anit-Federalists were alive and well during the development of the Constitution. The result was indeed a compromise! The problem is that there's no published concise historical document to balance the Federalist Papers therefore much of the arguments made by their opponents have been lost to history and thereby the reason for the compromises have been somewhat lost or reduced to being believed as compromises only between the Federalists. Understanding the concerns and debates of the times puts the original intents into perspective. That's what's missing from today's Court! They've made up their own orignal intent!

Court ordered school busing programs, by the way, are a classical example of judical legislation!

 

Filmproducer, I have enjoyed this debate and, as always, I learn some things from the adventure. We don't agree on the matter but we've managed to have an intelligence spirited debate. That's a good thing don't you think?