Third anarchist jailed for refusing to testify before secret grand jury

davidmcbeth said:

Th constitution is just a piece of paper ... its up to us all to insure it is followed. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !

Click to expand...

Viva la resistance!

Freedom1Man said:

By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

That is what I walked away understanding.

Click to expand...

I like books that break things down to layman understanding so I enjoyed "The politically incorrect Guide to the Constitution" by Gutzman. Some of the things written are hard to swallow because of what we grow up taught to believe.

Hamilton, Washington, even Madison were nationalist not really federalist, and because they won the first Presidency and Court it's been a down hill slide away from the true nature of the War of Independence by individual states to the massive over bloated unconstitutional Federal government we have today.

davidmcbeth said:

Th constitution is just a piece of paper ............. Resistance is not futile Mr. Picard !

Click to expand...

I believe the Idea behind The Document. Yes, it is just a piece of paper, it is the Idea behind it that must be preserved. I will stand with David and resist those who wish to pollute it.

Citizen said:

What company insures that? Liberty Mutual, of course. I will of course ensure to buy some.

Click to expand...

Companies like Smith and Wesson silly.

Freedom1Man said:

By reading both the federalist and the anti-federalist papers you learn much about what the fears at the time were. I have not read the anti-federalist papers yet myself. I have read the federalist papers and I understand their logic for not including a bill of rights at the start of things. I have made comments to that effect in another thread.

The basic idea being that if we did not enumerate the powers that we were granting the government in the constitution then the government would not have that power. The were worried that by using enumerated rights such as a bill of rights that the effect would be a limiting of the rights of the people.

That is what I walked away understanding.

Click to expand...

This is more or less the understanding I have, also. The trick is to recognize the speciousness of their argument. The Anti-federalists knew government toads would stretch, twist, bend, and ignore pretty much anything they wanted to anyway and so wanted positive declarations. Notice, too, that the constitution does not say anywhere that the fedgov has only the powers vested by the document. This is how the whole implied powers business got going.

Also, take a moment and recall the Alien and Sedition Acts. Despite an express First Amendment prohibition against criminalizing free speech, the Federalists passed a bill criminalizing certain criticism against the fedgov. Despite an express prohibition against it. Not only does the constitution not provide that power, which according to the Federalist argument was enough to prevent an overreach, the First Amendment free speech clause expressly denied Congress the power to make such a law. Yet, the Federalists went ahead and passed the bill, which Federalist Adams signed into law. And, which was used by other Federalists to prosecute and imprison people.

The Federalist Papers make frequent reference to a vigorous federal government being desirable. Vigorous is a code word for powerful. In one of the papers, the author pretends that Congress will be careful about which bills it approves because they themselves will be subject to that law. Ha!! In another, Madison made a soothing argument about finance; then, when he was president he tried to get around it. My main point is that the Federalist Papers need to be understood in the light of their authorship. One cannot read simply the words; one must read between the lines. Take into account what isn't being said. Make a healthy dose of one's own estimation of the likelihood of such-and-such outcome based on understanding of cronyism, lobbying, powerlust, and personal gain.

The authors knew the score on government. They were all intimate with the workings of government. There was no possible way they didn't know.

Scholars know this. You can bet the farm all of SCOTUS knows this. There is no reason we can't know it and use it.

Citizen said:

You wanta watch how you use The Federalist Papers. They were partisan letters-to-the-editor in battleground states, the authors trying to sway readers to support the constitution in the ratification fight in those states. They contain some serious whoppers.
:SNIP:

Click to expand...

Agree on needing to read both the Federalist and the Anti- Federalist papers. I was only replying to the question of what might be considered anti-government writings. Our Government at the time felt that the authors of those documents were committing treason and made it cleat that those responsible would be hanged if caught. Treason was considered a serious crime in those days. Not so much nowadays.

On the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers. I have found both to be very enlightening to read for many years. I have often wondered though why so many people do not know of them. And even more strange to me is why many of those that claimed have read the Federalist papers have no knowledge that there was another set of documents written in rebuttal. The anti- federalist papers.

Michael