I find Madison an ambivalent figure; one can find states’ rights and small government arguments in him, but in his most developed initial contributions–here, at the Constitutional Convention, and later in the Federalist–he speaks clearly for a stronger central government, one whose constitution intentionally sought to “enlarge the sphere of government.”
[/quote]
Correct but you hit the key point: he “intentionally sought to ‘enlarge the sphere of government,’” at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers which were a lobbying effort for ratification of the Constitution, BUT relative to what? Answer: the Articles of Confederation.
Ten years later he was penning the words of the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
and what do we find in there? We find a pissed off Little Jimmy telling the federal government that the state of Virginia was nullifying a federal law.[/quote]
Nope.
Madison’s first instruction to Randolph, and Randolph’s first resolution, was to dispose of the Articles of Confederation.
All that follows in my post above was directly relevant to VIriginia Plan and the composition of the Constitution. And you will notice my skillful placement of the word “initial.”
When faced with practical problems, Madison was capable of acting outside of principle; e.g., directing the invasion of Alabama or, as tb points out, re-instituting the Bank of the United States, on the urgent advice of Gallitin.
Ah, the stereotypical internetz invocation of “straw men.” It’s getting to be a rather quaint and tired accusation. [/quote]
Well, no, it’s a function of logic, and that function still applies to internet debates, even if you don’t understand it well.
Hmm, well, I consider myself to be the best authority on, well, myself, and if I say you have it wrong, I’m gonna go with, well, myself. I can be persnickety that way.
So? I have a better question for you. Actually two. Do you think we should have federal securities laws? Second, do you think we should have federal laws on the handling/storage/usage of radioactive substances?
And I don’t want a “well, honcho, here is the skinny, ole Little Jimmy Madison knew the federal government was supposed to be hog-tied up” - just answer the questions directly.
Well, so am I - which is why I quoted Federalist 62 months ago in some thread around here discussing its importance (I think primarily in response to the idea that somehow big government serves as the best way to protect the “little guy” - per the idea of Federalist 62, the “big guys” start engaging in rent-seeking and prefer the “voluminous laws” to the disadvantage of the “little guy”) long before you had even heard of it.
Throwaway line - government does help. It hurts too, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help.
No, I’m dead serious - you make manure up all the time. Constantly. And I think it’s because you like to argue with a certain kind of person, because all of your stock arguments are ready to go. When you find someone that isn’t susceptible to your stock arguments, you start inventing positions (see “straw man”) because you can’t deviate from the talking points.
Uh yeah. Seriously, if you knew what you were talking about here, you’d stop this.
The Pacific Northwest bozos are a tiny minority that are unified only by their clownishness. They don’t represent “America”, and never have. They are the fringe, and that’s where they’ll stay. They are the opposite of American actually - reactionary, uneducated, silly and radical. They are as “mainstream American” as their counterparts in the Occupy Wall Street movement.
As for a wager on “traveling the US”, I don’t do that stuff on the internet, but I am getting quite a chuckle out of this. If you only knew.
Yep, these folks are the punchline to a very bad joke in America. They are puzzlewits, buffoons, and they are not conservatives in any sense of the word - they are radicals, and they have always given conservatives a bad name.
No one said they did.
No one said he was - see what I mean by making shit up? Who said Madison was an advocate of a central government with an unquenchable thirst? I didn’t. See what I mean, Push?
Point is, you insisted that every “trust you” that you (smugly) knew that “Little Jimmy” certainly stood against all this “big gummint stuff” of T-bolt, but in fact, Madison was a complicated character who hardly serves your libertarian agenda and, in fact, as evident by my pointing out to you his desire to have a federal veto over the states, contradicts it.
Hell, I am to the right of Madison on this - I think a federal veto of states is a terrible idea. My point is enough with the bravado when you don’t quite know what you are talking about. It isn’t necessary.
No he didn’t, and I am not surprised you’re running like a scalded dog. Of course Madison had good reasons to want the federal government to be able to veto local legislation. But here is your libertarian hero that was more than happy to vest the federal government - you know, the federal government - with the absolute power to negative local legislation. If Madison had succeeded on this point, the 10th Amendment (assuming it was even added) would have been worthless.
You should be burning effigies of Madison in protest of his desire to have Leviathan trample all over the rights of states, but you don’t. Curious.
In any event, back the original point before we got distracted - government is inherently a good thing. The next step is then to define its scope and role. But starting with any assumption that government is “evil” makes for a stillborn institution that won’t be given adequate authority to do what it needs to do, whatever its scope and role.
and what do we find in there? We find a pissed off Little Jimmy telling the federal government that the state of Virginia was nullifying a federal law.[/quote]
Asked and answered. You’ve already been shown that Madison did not support nullification generally or with the Resolution. You don’t get to hit “reset” on that argument.
The government is imposing obligations on others who don’t share their values in the name of Freedom/Equality for all as an end. [/quote]
Ok, so - the government isn’t permitting moral relativism in the name of liberty? Agreed. Said that.
[quote]Institutions are a means to an end.
Government is an institution.
Freedom/Liberty relative to the other person is an end that is Good.[/quote]
Ok, so - libertarians view liberty as an End that is Good in and of itself, and if government gets in the way of that, government is bad and we need to get rid of the obstacle. Agreed. Said that.
I find Madison an ambivalent figure; one can find states’ rights and small government arguments in him, but in his most developed initial contributions–here, at the Constitutional Convention, and later in the Federalist–he speaks clearly for a stronger central government, one whose constitution intentionally sought to “enlarge the sphere of government.”
[/quote]
Correct but you hit the key point: he “intentionally sought to ‘enlarge the sphere of government,’” at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers which were a lobbying effort for ratification of the Constitution, BUT relative to what? Answer: the Articles of Confederation.
Ten years later he was penning the words of the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
and what do we find in there? We find a pissed off Little Jimmy telling the federal government that the state of Virginia was nullifying a federal law.[/quote]
Nope.
Madison’s first instruction to Randolph, and Randolph’s first resolution, was to dispose of the Articles of Confederation.
All that follows in my post above was directly relevant to VIriginia Plan and the composition of the Constitution. And you will notice my skillful placement of the word “initial.”
[/quote]
That’s what I said. We agree. He said those words in the context of the composition and passage of the Constitution which did away with the A of I.
[quote]
When faced with practical problems, Madison was capable of acting outside of principle; e.g., directing the invasion of Alabama or, as tb points out, re-instituting the Bank of the United States, on the urgent advice of Gallitin.[/quote]
I understand.
He was also capable of acting within the principle of nullification of unconstitutional federal laws AND outside the principles of federal supremacy.
Interesting. What will we do?[/quote]
Sorry about this one, push, but the reason I cite an author directly is so that others can read him directly. Brookhiser makes it abundantly clear that the AoC were irrelevant to Madison’s preferences. Madison wanted a national veto on states’ laws–any laws–not in reference to the AoC but as the preferred form of a national government under the Constitution. To be clear: Madison wanted a Federal government that had the veto over one which did not, the Articles of Confederation be damned.
Madison, I find, could not be counted on to follow always his own rules. Madison’s invasion of Alabama had nothing to do with nullification; he acted using war powers without the consent of Congress–the same constitutional clause he championed at the Constitutional Convention. Or during the Jay Treaty debates, he wanted the House (of which he was the leader) to vote on it, rather than the Constitutionally mandated Senate, purely for political reasons.
And the Bank of the US was simply a policy decision, fully legal, and against his general principal, but a principal he was nevertheless willing to compromise for practical purposes.
What will we do? A few years ago, to a similar question from you, I responded, “Go ask Madison.”
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
You forgot to read the last sentence, I think. His purposes for that provision were to:
1. Guard national rights and interests from invasion.
2. Keep states from dealing unjustly with each other.
3. Keep states from oppressing the minority by unrighteous measures in the interest of the majority.
It was not intended to justify ever-growing federal domination. It was to give the feds authority to strike down state laws that violate your God-given rights. To prevent the states from having too much power.
~James Madison~[/quote]
Almost there, but some quotes fall out of context. May I refer you to Brookhiser’s biography, James Madison, pp 51-58?
Madison had directed Randolph to deliver the Virginia Plan, in which was proposed the national veto over state laws. The supremacy of the national government in this regard (consonant with your assertions, JP) was a necessity, to avert factionalism and the bullying of the majority. (Republican he may have been, but he still had a healthy dislike of mob rule.) Madison argued on June 6 that the Virginia plan "expanded the arena of political contention. " (Here, quoting Brookhiser.) The Plan would extend majority rule over the whole country or “as Madison said on June 6, ‘enlarge the sphere’ of government.'” The national government would be powerful enough to defend “the weaker party” within any state against persecution. Madison: “‘So great a number of interests and parties’ would ensure that a vicious majority could never coalesce nationwide.”
I find Madison an ambivalent figure; one can find states’ rights and small government arguments in him, but in his most developed initial contributions–here, at the Constitutional Convention, and later in the Federalist–he speaks clearly for a stronger central government, one whose constitution intentionally sought to “enlarge the sphere of government.”
[/quote]
Madison changed his views in response to mistakes and experiences, as any wise person would, but he was always in favor of defending rights.
State nullification is legitimate as a response to the federal government defrauding people’s rights, and federal veto is a legitimate response to a state defrauding rights. That’s why you can find examples of each in his writings.
Still doesn’t support an ever-growing dominion of federal authority, just another method of balancing power.
No he didn’t, and I am not surprised you’re running like a scalded dog. Of course Madison had good reasons to want the federal government to be able to veto local legislation. But here is your libertarian hero that was more than happy to vest the federal government - you know, the federal government - with the absolute power to negative local legislation. If Madison had succeeded on this point, the 10th Amendment (assuming it was even added) would have been worthless.
You should be burning effigies of Madison in protest of his desire to have Leviathan trample all over the rights of states, but you don’t. Curious.
[/quote]
If I recall he said that so the feds could back up a minorities rights being trampled by the majority
What you had earlier called a libertarian concept of “more liberty is good - an end to itself”
Basically, if the states are increasing liberty against the feds - then good on them. And vice versa.
And I’m pretty simple on these things - not an expert on Madison at all, but this lines up with the concept of govt’s purpose being to protect the rights of the governed… That’s not a libertarian lie is it?
I find Madison an ambivalent figure; one can find states’ rights and small government arguments in him, but in his most developed initial contributions–here, at the Constitutional Convention, and later in the Federalist–he speaks clearly for a stronger central government, one whose constitution intentionally sought to “enlarge the sphere of government.”
[/quote]
Correct but you hit the key point: he “intentionally sought to ‘enlarge the sphere of government,’” at the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers which were a lobbying effort for ratification of the Constitution, BUT relative to what? Answer: the Articles of Confederation.
Ten years later he was penning the words of the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
and what do we find in there? We find a pissed off Little Jimmy telling the federal government that the state of Virginia was nullifying a federal law.[/quote]
Nope.
Madison’s first instruction to Randolph, and Randolph’s first resolution, was to dispose of the Articles of Confederation.
All that follows in my post above was directly relevant to VIriginia Plan and the composition of the Constitution. And you will notice my skillful placement of the word “initial.”
[/quote]
That’s what I said. We agree. He said those words in the context of the composition and passage of the Constitution which did away with the A of I.
I have a feeling that Madison, like you and me, might be susceptible to changing his mind on some things as the years go by. Know what I mean?
Because in 1798 he wrote the Virginia Resolution. I’m sure you’ve read it. In that document he doesn’t even remotely come across as the kind of guy who was interested in the federal government vetoing a state law. If so, the federal government could’ve vetoed the very resolution he authored.
Agreed?[/quote]
Agreed on that one.
It is a good thing that we don’t always get what we want…at least at first. TB is correct; had that element of the Virginia Plan been adopted, the 9th and 10th amendments would be superfluous.
Experience can be a treacherous teacher. In Madison’s case, he was somewhat embittered by his his experience in Virginia’s legislature when he arrived in Philadelphia; thence the national veto notion.
And once he became a political animal–and Jefferson’s eminence gris–he was quick to include the 9th and 10th Amendments; and it may be noted, that the 27th amendment was what he originally proposed as #2!
And once the House leader, he wanted to usurp the privileges of the Senate.
And once the President, he would bypass the privileges of the Congress.
And once at war, well, a bank and solvency didn’t seem like such a bad contingency, after all.
Where practicality trumps principle, be careful whose principles you enshrine.