Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
at what point did the federalist papers get elevated to the status of law or a guide to interpreting it?
when were the federalist papers ratified as part of the constitution exactly?
if the federalist papers aren't part of the constitution, and if the constitutional order begins with it's ratification, so begins with the document ratified and not the preliminary debates, what difference does it make what alexander hamilton thought about the general welfare clause and its position? i mean, beyond it being of historical interest, the kind of thing you'd maybe write about were you a legal historian or constitutional historian or working on the late 18th century political culture under the articles of confederation...
|
I don't think it's a radical concept to look towards the authors of a document when a phrase's meaning comes into question. Most liberals have a hard time doing this because it proves a huge federal government and much of their agenda was never intended. Therefore those thoughts have to be thrown out entirely and labeled irrelevant.
So instead of admitting this and try and work towards a more liberal or larger government through amendments and bills, they have to construe words like the 'general welfare clause' or the 2nd amendment to say things that they don't and never were intended in order to get the agenda through.
If general welfare was supposed to mean what it says today wouldn't the new deal legislation of flown right through the courts instead of FDR stacking them in order to get this change?