JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Perhaps you better go study what the Federalist Papers were all about. Maybe you would understand that this country would have failed and likely been divided up by several European powers if we did not create a More Perfect Union. To simply say that the Federalist papers existing for the purpose of Hamilton's belief that the states had too much power shows your total ignorance on the issues of the time. You better start getting your information from some place other than Wikipedia and the 10 grade US History class you failed.
Right, a more perfect union with Federal leadership and where states could not do things like print their own money, declare war on each other and invalidate each other's laws. I actually majored in US History at Penn State. What's your area of expertise?
I need go no farther than Hamilton's own words to prove my point:
Federalist No. 1 said:
Last edited:
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Well that explains everything ...Penn State. For some odd reason, you seem to making the statement that the Federal Government is invaliding the state government laws. At a high level that is the case for some laws but not all law especially when it is issues that are localized.
Hamilton's opinion as you stated in Fed. 1 (with Madison and Jay included support) is prefaced by "which may hazard" you do not note. Obviously Hamilton is discussing the impact of creating the Union and how it could be abused including, IMO, how state laws can be changed, then used them to make the Federal government accept laws under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I believe that the the founders and signer knew how important that the states retain their identity and sovereignty in combination with the Union. IMO the use of the fed to create the concept of entitlement programs is an abuse of the original intent. The intent of the Federalist 1 is to preface the complete set of the Constitution supporting papers (Federalist Papers).
Not sure what you are claiming to be your point? That the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land? Well if you support the Constitution, it is. Not arguing that. The point that is not clear is when does state law fall under the Full Faith and Credit Clause and how laws are applied. I think it is reaching beyond the Constitution's authority to claim every state laws falls under the Full Faith and Credit Clause for every law. Based on that theory, you could say that a law banning same sex marriage has to be honored in all the states. It is just not a one way street. Under stare decisis and current practices, you just can't create a state law that impacts all the other states and claim Full Faith Credit.
Remember the rest of Article IV says:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
What exactly does it explain?
Yes, Penn State, the #15 Public University
in the nation. You may be able to discredit me but Penn State's record stands for it's self.
No, I said the Fed is not recognizing state laws due to the DoMA. Big difference from "invalidating" them. Invalidating them would be changing them.
Hamilton was opposed to almost any state's rights and if he'd had his way we would have presidents and senators serving for life. If Hamilton had his way the federal government would have absolute power. It's not about interpretation of the Federalist Papers, it's about history and it's all available for you to read.
No, it isn't exactly clear, that's why I supported my argument with a family law case example related to homosexual unions. The point of which was to show legal president for the application of the Article 4 in this case.
Simply put:
- You say the Article 4 does not apply to this circumstance
- I show that at least in some cases the courts feel it does
If state A says no gay marriage, and state B say yes to gay marriage, state B is not saying state A has to perform gay marriage. However if state B performs a marriage in their state, and issue a marriage certificate and the couple moves to state A it must be recognized because Article 4 states "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings"
- Act - the act of marriage
- Records - Marriage License
- Judicial Proceedings - a Justice of the Peace (judicial figure) can preform a marriage and when a member of the clergy does he/she is acting on behave of the Judicial branch of the state
This_person
Well-Known Member
How? The government doesn't claim sexual orientation as a requirement to have your marriage recognized.
The government did, at one point, have a racial requirement to have your marriage recognized.
How are those two opposite things "exactly" alike?
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Act - drinking age of 18
Record - 18th birthday
Judicial Proceeding - 18 year old in Florida (when you could drink at 18) Lic. in Florida could not drink in Georgia. More restrictive law in GA won. Also, your case is about altered birth certificates within the state of birth. A little diff than marriage.
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
BTW, the read birth certificate still exists. Can't change that.
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever
Not sure why you seem a need to take issue with Hamilton. He was probably the best champion that got the Constitution past. Some scholars say that his plan was to help position the acceptance of Virginia plan to be more appealing. Not sure I agree with that, but the fact that he came up with his plan all buy himself shows a level of brilliance and style that others of the time did not have.
Second, the British structure was the most widely admired plan around the globe since the British were the super power of the time. Hamilton's plans were not as abstract as some might portray it including you. Interesting enough, may of the State Right distracts (and there were many, plus many that did not like Hamilton on top of it all) included a group that were against him for his position of emancipation.
IMO, Hamilton's experience with the Rev. War and the problems Washington faced with the State's support of it with people and money (see Valley Forge for example and the shape of the army), you would understand why a strong Federal government was needed to protect the interests of the 13 states and why that was important.
As for Hamilton having his way, he did. He basically formed the government as the first Treasury Sec. Since Jefferson was not around, he was in charge. He set it in the direction to make us the world economic power that we have become based on his vision of the way things should be.
Is that what they taught you at Penn St. Or was it the one paragraph section in a web page that is promoting the children Constitution?
I love this line from your linked webpage:
He married into the aristocracy and was one of George Washington's advisors during the Revolutionary War. In politics, he was of the general opinion that the masses could not be trusted to select the leaders of the United States.
He married into the aristocracy! As a bastard child he was a self made man. This implies that he was handed his position because of who he married, but he got were he was on his own merit and hard work.
"One of George Washington's advisors during the Revolutionary War." I think this is a huge understatements of who Hamilton is too.
"masses could not be trusted to select the leaders of the United States."
Gee, I wonder why we have the electoral college? Someone else must have thought of that too.
So again, what is your issue with Hamilton? Are you trying to use him to discredit Federalism and the Constitution to claim State Rights?
I have only 2 issues with Hamilton (most of my points about Hamilton are simply to state that Hamilton didn't want any power to go to the state so of course the Federalist papers reflect that):
- He basically wanted to install a government that mirrored almost exactly what we had just gained independance from
- Personaly, I suscribe much more to the Jeffersonian philosophy
Hamilton didn't really think of the electoral college, his plan was far more convoluted where the people would elect electors, those electors would elect a smaller group of electors and that group would appoint the senators/representatives/president. As with most of the early laws the electoral college was a compromise between two (sometimes more) different plans.
If you want to subscribe to Hamilton's political theory that's fine, but a person is neither wrong, nor uninformed for following a different one. Especially when they are inches apart. I (like Jefferson) just believed in a higher separation of power.
JoeRider
Federalist Live Forever