What I think of Ayn Rand

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No I didn't.  I read the Federalist and the history of that addition of the Bill or Rights to the Constitution. 

Madison was defeated with respect to the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers are wonderful, but had zero to do with framing the Constitution.

I don't think you and I should discuss law or constitutional history. The topic was Ayn Rand as a novelist.

[BaalChatzaf]

40 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Madison was defeated with respect to the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers are wonderful, but had zero to do with framing the Constitution.

I don't think you and I should discuss law or constitutional history. The topic was Ayn Rand as a novelist.

One last exchange.   See:  https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights

Madison did not get his way on the proposed bill,  but he backed the inclusion of a bill or rights of some sort in the constitution.  This is something Hamilton opposed. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Madison did not get his way on the proposed bill, but he backed the inclusion of a bill or rights of some sort in the constitution.

Madison argued repeatedly against a bill of rights. How can you not know this?

[Brant Gaede]

Vol 3 is James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

But I am not going to argue with my grandfather, affirm or disagree.

Madison's extensive notes are the main source of information about the convention. He got everything except some very short speeches, if not those too.

Brant's biography elevated Madison's intellectual and historical status. There is an obvious New Deal bias according to Rose Wilder Lane. She thought it was irrelevant. In the 1930s he was criticized for quoting Madison in a Congressional hearing supporting The New Deal.

--Brant

and "Dolley" is the correct spelling

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Madison argued repeatedly against a bill of rights. How can you not know this?

Please see;  https://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

From this article: 

Madison, himself, in his election campaign against James Monroe for the new U.S. House, vowed to fight for a bill of rights. He informed the Congress on May 4, 1789, that he intended to introduce the topic formally on May 25; but on May 4, the Congress was embroiled in a lengthy debate on import duties, and when May 25 rolled around, the debate continued. He rose again on June 8 to introduce the subject, but he was blocked, with other members noting that the Congress had more pressing matters to attend to. Stifled, Madison rose again to say why he thought the time was right for the introduction of his list of amendments - and then presented them to the Congress anyway.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"never wavering in his principled opposition to a bill of rights"

http://www.claremont.org/js/ckeditor/ckfinder/userfiles/files/James-Madison-and-the-Framing.pdf

see also https://books.google.com/books?id=6yyQXl4LmdAC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Madison+delegated+powers+bill+of+rights&source=bl&ots=PL9dH119US&sig=UuxbF5mICef6eR9S1KyHgKjzagM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-5sHlxLnTAhUMbFAKHXYqDQI4ChDoAQhDMAU#v=onepage&q=Madison delegated powers bill of rights&f=false

[Brant Gaede]

It would appear Madison did what was necessary to get the Constitution ratified. So he could be for and against a bill of rights depending on practicality v. political philosophy. Fundamentally, Hamilton was the father of the constitutional republic--that is a strong central government. It wasn't so much the structure of that government but that government itself. The President has always been an elected monarch--a logical extension of English governance. We chose not to have a parliament and to write down a constitution to get a good solid start. Slavery was the almost fatal flaw, but State aggrandizement prevailed in the Civil War. The only question was one State or two? The South wanted its own. Should have had it originally.

It was the State all along. A state or states is the fate of the human race. And we wrestle with it--continuously. That can make us strong, but we are fighting ourselves, not men from Mars.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It would appear Madison did what was necessary to get the Constitution ratified. So he could be for and against a bill of rights depending on practicality v. political philosophy. Fundamentally, Hamilton was the father of the constitutional republic--that is a strong central government. It wasn't so much the structure of that government but that government itself. The President has always been an elected monarch--a logical extension of English governance. We chose not to have a parliament and to write down a constitution to get a good solid start. Slavery was the almost fatal flaw, but State aggrandizement prevailed in the Civil War. The only question was one State or two? The South wanted its own. Should have had it originally.

It was the State all along. A state or states is the fate of the human race. And we wrestle with it--continuously. That can make us strong, but we are fighting ourselves, not men from Mars.

--Brant

Hamilton was a big promoter of the new constitution in New York and he wrote several of the papers in the Federalist.  But Madison was the political technician of the trio Jay, Madison, Hamilton.  Hamilton's political fortunes declined during the Adams and Jefferson Administration.  Jefferson was very opposed to the kind of Republic that Hamilton envisioned,  but in the long run  Hamilton's vision won out and Jefferson's vision did not.

[Wolf DeVoon]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Hamilton was a big promoter of the new constitution in New York and he wrote several of the papers in the Federalist.  But Madison was the political technician of the trio Jay, Madison, Hamilton.  Hamilton's political fortunes declined during the Adams and Jefferson Administration.  Jefferson was very opposed to the kind of Republic that Hamilton envisioned,  but in the long run  Hamilton's vision won out and Jefferson's vision did not.

Jeez, you don't know squat, do you? Hamilton proposed monarchy at the Federal Convention of 1787, departed by no one agreed to it.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Jeez, you don't know squat, do you? Hamilton proposed monarchy at the Federal Convention of 1787, departed by no one agreed to it.

Hamilton also proposed that the U.S. be a commercial and manufacturing nation.   Jefferson wanted us to be an agrarian nation.  Now who won in the end?

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Hamilton proposed that the U.S. be a commercial and manufacturing nation. Jefferson wanted us to be an agrarian nation. Now who won in the end?

Honest to Jesus, Bob, you have to stop. Hamilton clobbered Jefferson on "implied powers" doctrine, killed "delegated powers" forever.

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Honest to Jesus, Bob, you have to stop. Hamilton clobbered Jefferson on "implied powers" doctrine, killed "delegated powers" forever.

That he did.  It was John Marshall who put the final nail  into "delegated powers".   See Marbury v Madison

[Wolf DeVoon]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That he did.  It was John Marshall who put the final nail  into "delegated powers".   See Marbury v Madison

 I see you don't know what Marbury was, either. Let's quit this and talk about Ayn Rand, either as novelist (thread topic) or hot pants wench.

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

 I see you don't know what Marbury was, either. Let's quit this and talk about Ayn Rand, either as novelist (thread topic) or hot pants wench.

I got what I know about M. v M.  from Akhil Reed Amar  who is a legal scholar and who has written several books on the U.S. Constitution.  If I want a legal judgement I go to a recognized scholar on matters of law.   Math I can do myself.  For Law I sometimes have to rely on legal authority.