Kelly J
Regular Member
imported post
OT
OT
Yes, quite. Unless he was trying to allay fears by making it seem beyond plausible.Think of the impications of this Statement!
Kelly J wrote:Yes, quite. Unless he was trying to allay fears by making it seem beyond plausible.Think of the impications of this Statement!
After reading Hologram of Liberty, my perspective shifted a good bit on the Federalists (the men).
Its a good book. I can't agree with all of his conclusions and premises; but it certainly bringsone to a full stop andgetsone to look at ideas he aquired without question beginning in elementary school.
Even as early as 1870 a judge named Lysander Spooner wrote a pamphlet called No Treason. Hologram of Liberty quotes from the secondprinting or reprinting of No Treason. InitSpooner said words to the effect,
[align=center]"Either the Constitution gave us such government as we have had, orwas powerless to stop it."[/align]
This sentence shifted something for me. For years I had been grumbling about Congress this, and Congress that, activist judges this, scoundrel president that. Suddenly, it wasn't the men that were twisting the Constitution. It was the Constitution that had holes that allowed twisting!! Of course, anybody can twist anything; but there has been an awful lot of nonsense claimed to be Constitutional. What if the commerce clause were written more rigorously? What if there was language that in controversy, Constitutional powers were to be interpreted explicitly, rather than implicitly?
There is a lot more in Hologram of Liberty. Check it out.Available at http://www.gunlaws.com.
OTKelly,
Sorry, I didn't make it clear that Hologram of Liberty is a book. He used to have a brief description of the book on his site. The description seems gone. It took me a while to find the book. The link is below. It was well worth the $20, even though it is a comparatively small book. If you are interested, click on the link, scroll down the page to the section highlighted in gold. It is the first book below the highlighted section.
I get your take on Madison's words and don't disagree with it. My take was that he was trying to show that a certain action would raise an alarm, thereby undermining theattempt before it got far off the ground, and besides why wouldthe federal gov't becrazy enough to try it anyway.
https://trout.secure-host.com/gunlaws/secureorder.htm