|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Tue Jun 4th, 2019 07:47 pm||
|"But….our explanations have far exceeded the Liberal comprehension. We lost em’ when we went beyond a sound byte….."
A sound bite, to some:
“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
Is that too wordy still?
National government bad, federal government good.
How about that?
A National government (subsidizing slavery) employing any method imaginable to put the dictator at the helm of the dictatorship is bad government. A federal government (voluntary association, not a dictatorship) employing any method imaginable to put the employee in charge of the workload remains a good government.
Did I go beyond a sound byte?
People fighting over which dictator is put at the helm of the dictatorship is predictable.
Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:
"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
“Concerned that the majority had violated federalism principles separating the federal government from the states, Stevens argued that the decision had undermined the authority of the state court system. He felt that popular confidence in the impartiality and competence of state judges would be unnecessarily eroded.”