Today's Politicos vs The Words and Deeds of The Founders

Hamilton was often accused of being an advocate of a monarchical system of government. His political enemies saw his arguments in favor of a strong federal government and his efforts to strengthen the presidency as indications of his disposition to institute a monarchy in America. He was not deaf to such accusations. In this letter to Timothy Pickering, he explains his views. The last paragraph, is perhaps the most interesting.

With Musket and Tomahawk covers the Wilderness War of 1777 and is a great book to read in conjunction with several others reviewed here at WWTFT, particularly the Ethan Allen biography. Logusz provides a lot of interesting detail about the people and events leading up to Burgoyne’s surrender at Saratoga in October of 1777.

President Obama has adopted a divide and conquer strategy to win reelection. He seems intent on pitting non-whites against whites, atheists against the religious, the gun-phobic against Second Amendment advocates, city dwellers against the heartland, and most important, everyone against the rich. Is this a winning strategy? Not normally.

Obama’s persistent efforts to breach Constitutional limits on government awakened a populist movement to protect the Constitution and shrink government. Obama Care, an enormous breach of the Constitution and a huge expansion of government all by itself, is only the tip of the iceberg, in terms of the breadth and scope of the president’s attack on the Constitution.

The following regulations were issued by Colonel Henry Proctor, concerning the new Canadian Territory of Michigan. Detroit was shamefully surrendered to the British on August 16, 1812.

A return to constitutionality was supposed to be a hallmark of the 2010 election. Part of the GOP’s Pledge to America read, “We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.” Republicans took over the House with considerable help from the Tea Party and other constitutional conservatives. How has Congress fared in delivering on its promise to comply with the Constitution?

Reading Steyn’s latest book is painful but he leavens the pain with his irreverent humor. Prepare to groan while you giggle at his talent for skewering the ludicrous. The book is extensively footnoted, always on point, and all too frequently validated by events.

Aside from the obvious historical purpose, support for ratification of the Constitution, Hamilton’s perspective is interesting to consider in terms of its ramifications for the present day. Federalist No. 25 contains several interesting assumptions and premises. It is for history to decide if Hamilton was right.

In this Federalist Hamilton makes several arguments for the consolidation of the nation’s defense under the control of the federal government, rather than under those of the States. The crux of this essay is an effort to show that the argument against a standing army is not only a straw man, but that being ill-prepared is irrational and dangerous.

Friday’s Wall Street Journal contained an article aptly entitled Contempt For The Constitution, in which they point out the inconsistent, if convenient, (to them) interpretations given to the nation’s founding document by the Obama administration’s Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel on Thursday.