@parados,
Did ican write (I stopped reading his posts, along with several other a2kers) that the "Federalist Papers are
far more accurate than what any contemporary judge has or
will say to the contrary?"
1.) Does ican understand the Federalist Papers were one side of a debate among the Founding Fathers? Does he know there were Anti-Federalist Papers? Does he understand the difference between the two?
2.) Does he know who the Federalist authors were?
3.) Does he understand that the Federalist authors were
opposed to the Bill of Rights?
4.) Does he understand that Hamilton
established the principle of judicial review by federal courts of federal legislation through one of the Papers? Both ican and okie hate the notion of judicial review, despite the fact that Hamilton -- who should be one of their heroes -- proposed it in the Federalist Papers -- documents that ican here upholds as a model of governmental perfection.
How could Hamilton have proposed something that ican hates? Doesn't ican realize that judicial review is a means of perfecting government? Does he understand the balance of power that was designed to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful? Does he know that Madison used the Federalist Papers to develop the very idea of checks and balances?
5.) Does he understand that the Anti-Federalist Papers began appearing within a week of the Constitution having been sent to the states for ratification?
6.) Does he understand that despite his approval of, and, support for, the Bill of Rights, that Jefferson felt that the list of rights should not be exhaustive. Hamilton, who masterminded the project, feared that listing the rights people were entitled to
might limit said rights.
In fact, people who thought as Hamilton did wanted the judiciary to "interpret these rights in an expansive fashion (Wiki; The Federalist Papers)."
An expansive fashion sounds like the sort of measure taken by the SC in Brown v the Board of Education at Topeka. Again, it would seem ican disagrees with Hamilton! Wow! Ican disagrees with a Founding Father!
7.) Although in his post, ican claims to be prescient (watch him contradict me, but when one says "what any contemporary judge . . .
will say," one is acting as though one is prescient), he is wrong in stating that the Papers are "more accurate (based on what assessment?)" than contemporary judicial rulings. The reality is that judges use the Federalist Papers to determine the intention of the FFs. According to Wiki, the Papers have been quoted 291 times.
So, how can contemporary rulings be less accurate than the Papers if said rulings are based upon the Papers?
Furthermore, the use of the Papers is not greeted with universal approval. Even Chief Justice John Marshall felt that "
progress in our government"
may cause judges to question the "correctness" of the papers, while Madison, another Federalist, said the Papers should
not be viewed as "authoritative."
In other words, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers should both be "living" documents; the Founders did not guarantee their own rectitude, and, government should progress and develop.
