The Good Side of Alexander Hamilton

[Galileo Galilei]

He had no authority to destroy the bank, an congressional creation, after it was chartered. Sorry.

Jackson de-funded the bank, you know that. Then he let it expire in 1836. He vetoed a new bank bill in 1833. He did all this after meeting with James Madison in the summer of 1832. Most of the anti-Madison people don't know about this.

 

[John Taylor]

Jackson de-funded the bank, you know that. Then he let it expire in 1836. He vetoed a new bank bill in 1833. He did all this after meeting with James Madison in the summer of 1832. Most of the anti-Madison people don't know about this.

Only the congress can defund something. It is congress, not the executive, which holds the power of the purse. Come on, even you know that. Jackson only withdrew federally held specie from the Bank of the U.S., and deposited it in state banks.

I am intimately familiar with the history of banking in the United States, and with law and economic history, and nothing in any of those subjects in any way indicates that a national bank is constitutional.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Haha, you are incredible!!! Comparing the Anti-Federalists to the neo-conservatives and liberals who oppose the constitution because it restricts government too much???? The Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, Patrick Henry, John Taylor and John Randolph did so because it granted too much power to the federal government, not because it granted too little.

Get real.

You need to get real. When people like you or George Clinton say the Constitution give too much power, then the neocons and liberls can say; "See, the Constitution gives us more power! After all, the anti-Federalist said it first."

In fact, almost all of the tactics used to distort the Constitution were thought up by the anti-Federalists first.

 

[John Taylor]

You need to get real. When people like you or George Clinton say the Constitution give too much power, then the neocons and liberls can say; "See, the Constitution gives us more power! After all, the anti-Federalist said it first."

In fact, almost all of the tactics used to distort the Constitution were thought up by the anti-Federalists first.

You are evil. It is the anti-federalists who properly described the emerging executive as a potential "foetus of tyranny".

The Anti-Federalists properly warned against granting to the federal government even the strictly enumerated powers it was given, and insisted on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, something, like everything else the Anti-Federalists created, you are no doubt opposed to...

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Only the congress can defund something. It is congress, not the executive, which holds the power of the purse. Come on, even you know that. Jackson only withdrew federally held specie from the Bank of the U.S., and deposited it in state banks.

I am intimately familiar with the history of banking in the United States, and with law and economic history, and nothing in any of those subjects in any way indicates that a national bank is constitutional.

Jackson just put the new federal receipts into state banks. But paid expenses out of the federal bank. Totally legal under the laws at the time. Remember, the president is supposed to execute the laws.

 

[John Taylor]

Jackson just put the new federal receipts into state banks. But paid expenses out of the federal bank. Totally legal under the laws at the time. Remember, the president is supposed to execute the laws.

Yes, but he is also under oath to uphold the constitution, which, if you recall the supremacy clause, trumps laws which are not passed persuant to the constitution.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You are evil. It is the anti-federalists who properly described the emerging executive as a potential "foetus of tyranny".

That always gets me, the slave-holding states worried about tyranny. Boo Hoo.

Prior to the abolition of Jim Crow laws, the States have ususally been more tyrannical than the federal government. Exceptions being Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

The anti-Federalists never predicted what happened in 1913. That's the year the States voted vast new ppwers to the Feds; the income tax and the direct election of Senators. You can't blame James Madison for stupidity by the States in 1913.

Prior to 1913, most people in the US had zero contact with the federal government.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, but he is also under oath to uphold the constitution, which, if you recall the supremacy clause, trumps laws which are not passed persuant to the constitution.

Since you are claiming the national bank was unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional for Jackson to put federal money into it, right? Your arguments are nonsense.

 

[John Taylor]

That always gets me, the slave-holding states worried about tyranny. Boo Hoo.

Prior to the abolition of Jim Crow laws, the States have ususally been more tyrannical than the federal government. Exceptions being Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Truman.

The anti-Federalists never predicted what happened in 1913. That's the year the States voted vast new ppwers to the Feds; the income tax and the direct election of Senators. You can't blame James Madison for stupidity by the States in 1913.

Prior to 1913, most people in the US had zero contact with the federal government.

I wasn't aware that the Anti-Federalists were all proponents of slavery. I was under the impression that a very large portion of the population of New York opposed ratification, and were die hard Anti-Federalists. You must be right though, those bigots, they couldn't possibly be right about a consititutional construction regarding the expansion of federal power through an unenumerated power because they didn't like dark skinned people!!! Brilliant logic!

The States have been more tyrannical than the federal government? If by that you mean because of the constitutional nature of the exercise of the police power, then perhaps you are correct, but merely because the states enacted foolish policies, like your lauded internal improvements like the Erie Canal, does not translate into an endorsement for federalized action.

The Anti-Federalists did predict 1913, and predicted what would happen if your construction of the "necessary and proper" clause was adopted. Centralization of power, inevitably.

 

[John Taylor]

Since you are claiming the national bank was unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional for Jackson to put federal money into it, right? Your arguments are nonsense.

The Second Bank of the United States, like the First, was unconstitutional.

It would be unconstitutional for any president to support an unconstitutional institution, so yes, I support President Jackson's action to withdraw taxpayer monies from that unconstitutional aberation.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The Second Bank of the United States, like the First, was unconstitutional.

It would be unconstitutional for any president to support an unconstitutional institution, so yes, I support President Jackson's action to withdraw taxpayer monies from that unconstitutional aberation.

That's a matter of opinion. The congress has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether the national bank of 1791 is appropriate for that is a gray area, based on the plain language iof the text.

Regardless, the Fed today is unconstitutional.

 

[John Taylor]

That's a matter of opinion. The congress has the power to regulate the value of currency. Whether the national bank of 1791 is appropriate for that is a gray area, based on the plain language iof the text.

Regardless, the Fed today is unconstitutional.

To regulate does not mean to manipulate the value, it means, to make regular. Look up the meaning of the words when they were written, then apply them to the textual fabric, before you come out in favor of central banking.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

To regulate does not mean to manipulate the value, it means, to make regular. Look up the meaning of the words when they were written, then apply them to the textual fabric, before you come out in favor of central banking.

The Fed today manipulates value. The first national bank did not do that. After 8 pages of thread, you still have not understood that there is a gigantic difference between the 1st national bank and today's Fed.

 

[John Taylor]

The Fed today manipulates value. The first national bank did not do that. After 8 pages of thread, you still have not understood that there is a gigantic difference between the 1st national bank and today's Fed.

I understand the differences between the functions of the various national banks which the United States federal government has maintained, but that does not transform an unconstitutionally chartered institution into a constitutional one. Read Tyranny Unmasked and Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I understand the differences between the functions of the various national banks which the United States federal government has maintained, but that does not transform an unconstitutionally chartered institution into a constitutional one. Read Tyranny Unmasked and Constructions Construed and Constitutions Vindicated.

You are one of those people who thinks everything is a black or white issue. You also think you know everything. You don't.

I will continue to support the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, while opposing the Fed.

You can continue to undermine these efforts with distorted history and bizarre emphasis on obscure individuals. The liberals and necons are already twisting and distorting the Founding Fathers. We don't need people inside the movement doing it as well. You need to let go of your hatred of Alexander Hamilton, it is not healthy.

 

[John Taylor]

You are one of those people who thinks everything is a black or white issue. You also think you know everything. You don't.

I will continue to support the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, while opposing the Fed.

You can continue to undermine these efforts with distorted history and bizarre emphasis on obscure individuals. The liberals and necons are already twisting and distorting the Founding Fathers. We don't need people inside the movement doing it as well. You need to let go of your hatred of Alexander Hamilton, it is not healthy.

I have never stated here or anywhere else that I know everything about any issue. Such a claim is as ludicrous as your accusation.

I also have never said that constitutional construction is a black or white issue, it is a construction issue, strictly, according to the plain meaning and context of the charter, or in some more nebulous way like the one you endorse.

Alexander Hamilton is the ancestor of the progressives, and of the neo-conservatives. His primary focus was upon national greatness, constitution be damned. You and he were made of each other.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

I have never stated here or anywhere else that I know everything about any issue. Such a claim is as ludicrous as your accusation.

I also have never said that constitutional construction is a black or white issue, it is a construction issue, strictly, according to the plain meaning and context of the charter, or in some more nebulous way like the one you endorse.

Alexander Hamilton is the ancestor of the progressives, and of the neo-conservatives. His primary focus was upon national greatness, constitution be damned. You and he were made of each other.

Hamilton's primary legacy is the Federalist Papers, which have nothing to do with progessives. in fact, the Federalist Papers pretty much contradict the entire progressive agenda.

Outside of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill-of-Rights, the Federalist Papers are the most canonical, most sacred, and most influential writings in defense of a small limited government.

No other nation on earth ever had such a treasure of small government writings to help insure liberty. What you are doing is not productive.

 

[John Taylor]

Hamilton's primary legacy is the Federalist Papers, which have nothing to do with progessives. in fact, the Federalist Papers pretty much contradict the entire progressive agenda.

Outside of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill-of-Rights, the Federalist Papers are the most canonical, most sacred, and most influential writings in defense of a small limited government.

No other nation on earth ever had such a treasure of small government writings to help insure liberty. What you are doing is not productive.

Hamilton only wrote a portion of the federalist papers, and the federalist papers have been proven by history to have been wrong, in that, the constitution did not limit the power of the federal government in the fashions proclaimed by Mr. Hamilton.

It is not the federalist papers or Hamilton which directly created the progressives, but indirectly, that was the end. By foisting a loose constitutitonal construction on the country and defending it, Hamilton established the precedent that his fellow travelers Lincoln and Wilson would later use to destroy the federal republic.

What you are doing, defending a wolf in sheep's clothing, is what is not helpful.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Hamilton only wrote a portion of the federalist papers, and the federalist papers have been proven by history to have been wrong, in that, the constitution did not limit the power of the federal government in the fashions proclaimed by Mr. Hamilton.

It is not the federalist papers or Hamilton which directly created the progressives, but indirectly, that was the end. By foisting a loose constitutitonal construction on the country and defending it, Hamilton established the precedent that his fellow travelers Lincoln and Wilson would later use to destroy the federal republic.

What you are doing, defending a wolf in sheep's clothing, is what is not helpful.

You're totally wrong, the Federalist Papers argue for a smaller government. You again blame some papers written in 1787 for what happened in 1913. Most people have no idea what Hamilton did with the bank. Most people know Hamilton from the Federalist Papers. When I was in school, I read the Federalist Papers, but we did not cover Hamilton's banking policies.

Hamilton's banking policies prove that today's Fed is totally unconstitutional anyway. Hamilton's bank did not have fiat currency, it had a temporary term, did not operate in utter secrecy, and did not do bailouts.

The idea of a central bank goes back to Great Britain, not Hamilton. The progressives used the Bank of England for inspiration because the 1st bank was very limited in power. The progressives were alos inspired by Rosseau and Marx. These people are not even from the United States.

 

[John Taylor]

You're totally wrong, the Federalist Papers argue for a smaller government. You again blame some papers written in 1787 for what happened in 1913. Most people have no idea what Hamilton did with the bank. Most people know Hamilton from the Federalist Papers. When I was in school, I read the Federalist Papers, but we did not cover Hamilton's banking policies.

Hamilton's banking policies prove that today's Fed is totally unconstitutional anyway. Hamilton's bank did not have fiat currency, it had a temporary term, did not operate in utter secrecy, and did not do bailouts.

The idea of a central bank goes back to Great Britain, not Hamilton. The progressives used the Bank of England for inspiration because the 1st bank was very limited in power. The progressives were alos inspired by Rosseau and Marx. These people are not even from the United States.

You are completely and utterly mistaken. The federalist papers argue for a LARGER, MORE ENERGETIC government, one which would replace the Articles of Confederation with a more activist regime.

Actually, Hamilton was instrumental in the issuance of continental script, and it was the continual inflation of this currency which savaged the Amercian economy.

Hamilton wished to emulate the British system, and advocated a loose constitutional construction which allowed for men like Lincoln and Wilson to further attack the constitutional fabric of limited government.