The title of a recent Substack article that was published on The Gateway Pundit claims that “The Left’s Lawfare Will Destroy American Democracy.” The writer went on to argue for a “a powerful response by those on the Right who wish to preserve our Constitution and the rule of law in their true, original meanings.”
Madame! Surely you jest! Our elite schools of law are deficient in any way? So, the Ratification Debates are available at ReclaimingtheRepublic.org and are far more important than Alexander Hamilton's writings for proof in how the Constitution was to be enacted. Hamilton has been outed as British spy #7 in documents found in Canadian archives. Michael T. McKibben of AmericansforInnovation is the source.
Thank you for your response and for the information you provided. Sadly, it is a shock to many that our elite law schools have not been vigilant stewards of our God-given Constitution but I respectfully disagree with your comments about Alexander Hamilton. It has been vogue among our institutions of higher learning since the 1960’s to demean and denigrate our Founders.
Our Founders literally put their lives, their families’ lives and their fortunes on the line when they decided to break with Great Britain. Hamilton was no less committed than the rest. He served as Washington’s aide-de-camp during the Revolution of which he was an early and ardent supporter. He was also the single most important force behind getting the Constitutional Convention to convene. He worked closely with Madison, aka the Father and Chief Architect of the Constitution, throughout the Constitutional Convention and afterwards during the critical ratification period. It is not an exaggeration to say that we would not even have a Constitution or even a country without Hamilton’s contributions. To say that he “has been outed as [a] British spy” is inaccurate at best and without evidence.
The period of time his “betrayal” was supposed to have taken place was in 1790 which was beyond the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the formation of our government. To believe that he was a spy for the British, after all he had sacrificed and contributed to the establishment of the United States government and its Constitution just because one professor from Princeton wrote a book is ludicrous at best and defamatory in the least.
Besides, Hamilton was a loyal aid to Washington throughout the Revolution and was the reason Washington accepted the Chair for the Constitutional Convention. To argue that after all of the tragedies and trials of war and the impossible feat accomplished at the Constitutional Convention that Hamilton would betray Washington in the end is completely ludicrous and illogical.
No, the more logical explanation can be seen in one British officer’s quip that “Washington did not really outfight the British, he simply outspied us.” https://www.intelligence.gov/evolution-of-espionage/revolutionary-war/new-nations-first-spies In other words, the more likely scenario for any so-called inappropriate behavior of Hamilton is that he was involved in a clandestine psyop directed by Washington himself.
Besides, as one article points out, Professor Boyd did not say that Hamilton was a spy: “He [Boyd] does not remotely suggest that Hamilton was in any sense a British agent. He does allege that Hamilton was so passionately opposed to what seemed to him the anti-British bias of his own Government that he conspired with a British agent to change it, confiding to him the deliberations of the U.S. Cabinet itself and engaging in a ‘calculated and continuing use of deception.’" https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,876517,00.html
The article went on to explain that “It is Historian Boyd's argument that Hamilton's machinations ‘compromised the national dignity and the national interest’ of the new republic and weakened its hand in the continuing negotiations with Whitehall.” Id.
Personally, I can’t critique the book having never read it and probably never will. Boyd’s argument is a matter of personal interpretation as the critique notes and probably one of bias, since attempts to tear down the Framers, the Constitution and our Country started in the 1960’s and has continued to grow since that time.
Finally, I still firmly believe with good reason that The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative source that exists anywhere for constitutional interpretation and application. It is well-established in the law that courts will look to the intent of those who drafted, wrote, debated, and ratified the Constitution. The only real record we have besides Madison’s personal notes are The Federalist Papers.
I’ve briefly reviewed the information on ReclaimingtheRepublic.org and, as I’ve always said, I applaud anyone’s efforts who try to reclaim our Constitutional Republic. My own efforts on the matter are still influenced directly by the Framers and more particularly those writings found in The Federalist Papers.
The 17th Amendment is ripe for being reversed as explained at ReclaimingtheRepublic.org as the Biden administration arranged for Delaware to change its vote and be recognised thus other states can do the same. Several states already have the right to have the legislature vote to recall (Utah comes to mind but because of corruption at the county levels one might not want to trust that legislature....communists made financial devisions to target small population states first since each state had 2 senators anyway). State legislatures lost the right to select the senators but not the right to recall treasonous ones.
So let us discuss the possibility of constitutional chaos by education the left and those who do not trust Trump after Operation Warpspeed that there is supposed to be 1 member of the house for each 30,000 persons AND 1 elector elected by the people (per Ratification debates) for each 30,000 constitutional district ( although the legislature was to choose the manner of this process Ratification debates clarified it was a democratic process of selecting representation).
What say you? Turning loose all the independents who have hated and distrusted every single major party candidate ever presented. Despite your assertion that the constitution was changed re the selection of electors it was actually the corruption brought about by the major parties before 1860.
I agree with you that the 17th Amendment is “ripe” for repeal but I’ve gone further in prior articles to argue that it is patently unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. The 17th Amendment destroyed one of the fundamental Republican institutions critical to the entire Republican form of government created by our Constitution – the Senate. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 63, ¶10. Madison also said that the Constitution was to be “strictly republican,” not democratic. See Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39, ¶2.
In our Republic, the states were supposed to be a “double security” against federal encroachment. Hamilton echoed this sentiment when he said that the states would be a “complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶8.
The 17th Amendment destroyed that institution and the power of the states to control the federal government and its invasions of the public liberty. No one would argue that this invasion has not happened especially to patriotic Americans. Just as with any law, it cannot contravene the Supreme Law of the land. When it does, then it’s not a law. This is the case with the 17th Amendment. It violates the basic Republican principles of the Constitution, and is, therefore, not valid law. I’ve been arguing for years for the states to step up and ignore it.
As far as the presidential elections, we have changed it by practice. Electors, one for every senator and representative, were to meet in each state and not in D.C. to vote for a candidate of their individual choices. They were not to be controlled in any way by the 51% popular vote. As I’ve noted on a number of occasions, these two changes (the 17th Amendment and controlling Electors with the 51%) destroyed the power of the states to control the federal government and gave it to the political parties.
This is the crux of ALL of our problems politically – removing the republican principles in our Constitution and replacing them with democratic ones. As an aside, the corruption in the states is also a result of democracy. The Constitution clearly mandates a “Republican form of government” for every state in the Union, but they are all democracies as well. After we fix the federal government, we can work on the states.
While I appreciate you reading my piece, clearly my satire went over your head. Yes, America is not a “democracy” – but whenever the Right takes ownership of Left-wing branding, it triggers the other side into a tizzy. It’s called trolling. We make a mockery of their stupid lingo much as they have made a mockery of our sacred institutions. No need to be a persnickety pedant – this is a problem with many lawyers who become so consumed by literalistic constructions that they often overlook the forest for the trees. Introduce some levity into your arsenal; it’ll do you good.
It is a shame that your immediate inclination is to attack me as being someone who is overly concerned about details (i.e., “persnickety pedant”) but at least I wasn’t being redundant. It has been my experience over my many years as an attorney that those who attack me for providing too much detail are losing the argument. Funny, I read your Bio but I don’t recall seeing anything about you being a comedian/satirist. Besides, good satire is never lost on the intended target. Anyone reading your article would have a difficult time believing that it was satire as it was clearly written in typical legalistic style. Declaring the Left’s lawfare to be a case of “clearcut election interference” hardly sounds like satire. It sounds more like a clarion call for the right to start filing more lawsuits instead of addressing the real issue. I have been studying and writing about our Constitution and the Framers longer than you’ve been alive. The constitutional state of affairs in our country is no laughing matter. Word of advice. Next time, it would behoove you to be more professional and to provide a substantive analysis rather than personal attacks.
Now you're having an emotional breakdown (not unlike the Left) for being incapable of grasping the subtle irony in the title of my piece. I don't care if you've been practicing law for decades -- you still evidently have much room for improvement in terms of reading comprehension skills. I would not be so quick to admit that you've been practicing longer than I've been alive, either. This, especially in light of your clumsy reading and failure to take recognition that all great writing, even on the gravest of subject matter, necessarily balances gravity with levity.
More personal insults? You really are, as President Trump would say, “a nasty person.” As far as “great writing” goes, Jefferson referred to The Federalist Papers as “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” Those who are intimately familiar with this truly great work would not describe it as one that “balances gravity with levity.”
I hate to break it to you, but there is more to political philosophy than the Federalist Papers, which, while a seminal contribution to American literature, pale comparatively to Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, or even Cicero's Laws -- which abide by the rhetorical standard I mentioned.
I did not personally "insult" you -- but I do have a right to respond to your screed and the insults you've leveled against me in the comments.
I realize that our law schools are woefully deficient when it comes to all things constitutional. Law schools do not teach the writings of The Federalist Papers with their constitutional curriculum. They teach nothing but judge-made law by court opinion. As such, we have a dearth of understanding in these critical matters – especially among our law school graduates. This, of course, is all by design. The Federalist Papers are not “political philosophy” as you say. They are the most authoritative source for constitutional understanding and interpretation. As the Father of the Constitution and its Chief Architect, James Madison, along with Hamilton, who was the chief driving force behind the Constitutional Convention and Jay being the First Chief Justice, they wrote these 85 letters to explain and defend our U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers most certainly do not “pale” in comparison with any other work in its genre. Reread your comments above. It’s obvious to anyone that your attacks were personal and plentiful. I merely responded to your insults with the facts.
You so clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and are not to be taken as a serious authority on law, The Federalist Papers, or any other matter.
Madame! Surely you jest! Our elite schools of law are deficient in any way? So, the Ratification Debates are available at ReclaimingtheRepublic.org and are far more important than Alexander Hamilton's writings for proof in how the Constitution was to be enacted. Hamilton has been outed as British spy #7 in documents found in Canadian archives. Michael T. McKibben of AmericansforInnovation is the source.
Thank you for your response and for the information you provided. Sadly, it is a shock to many that our elite law schools have not been vigilant stewards of our God-given Constitution but I respectfully disagree with your comments about Alexander Hamilton. It has been vogue among our institutions of higher learning since the 1960’s to demean and denigrate our Founders.
Our Founders literally put their lives, their families’ lives and their fortunes on the line when they decided to break with Great Britain. Hamilton was no less committed than the rest. He served as Washington’s aide-de-camp during the Revolution of which he was an early and ardent supporter. He was also the single most important force behind getting the Constitutional Convention to convene. He worked closely with Madison, aka the Father and Chief Architect of the Constitution, throughout the Constitutional Convention and afterwards during the critical ratification period. It is not an exaggeration to say that we would not even have a Constitution or even a country without Hamilton’s contributions. To say that he “has been outed as [a] British spy” is inaccurate at best and without evidence.
The period of time his “betrayal” was supposed to have taken place was in 1790 which was beyond the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the formation of our government. To believe that he was a spy for the British, after all he had sacrificed and contributed to the establishment of the United States government and its Constitution just because one professor from Princeton wrote a book is ludicrous at best and defamatory in the least.
Besides, Hamilton was a loyal aid to Washington throughout the Revolution and was the reason Washington accepted the Chair for the Constitutional Convention. To argue that after all of the tragedies and trials of war and the impossible feat accomplished at the Constitutional Convention that Hamilton would betray Washington in the end is completely ludicrous and illogical.
No, the more logical explanation can be seen in one British officer’s quip that “Washington did not really outfight the British, he simply outspied us.” https://www.intelligence.gov/evolution-of-espionage/revolutionary-war/new-nations-first-spies In other words, the more likely scenario for any so-called inappropriate behavior of Hamilton is that he was involved in a clandestine psyop directed by Washington himself.
Besides, as one article points out, Professor Boyd did not say that Hamilton was a spy: “He [Boyd] does not remotely suggest that Hamilton was in any sense a British agent. He does allege that Hamilton was so passionately opposed to what seemed to him the anti-British bias of his own Government that he conspired with a British agent to change it, confiding to him the deliberations of the U.S. Cabinet itself and engaging in a ‘calculated and continuing use of deception.’" https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,876517,00.html
The article went on to explain that “It is Historian Boyd's argument that Hamilton's machinations ‘compromised the national dignity and the national interest’ of the new republic and weakened its hand in the continuing negotiations with Whitehall.” Id.
Personally, I can’t critique the book having never read it and probably never will. Boyd’s argument is a matter of personal interpretation as the critique notes and probably one of bias, since attempts to tear down the Framers, the Constitution and our Country started in the 1960’s and has continued to grow since that time.
Finally, I still firmly believe with good reason that The Federalist Papers are the most authoritative source that exists anywhere for constitutional interpretation and application. It is well-established in the law that courts will look to the intent of those who drafted, wrote, debated, and ratified the Constitution. The only real record we have besides Madison’s personal notes are The Federalist Papers.
I’ve briefly reviewed the information on ReclaimingtheRepublic.org and, as I’ve always said, I applaud anyone’s efforts who try to reclaim our Constitutional Republic. My own efforts on the matter are still influenced directly by the Framers and more particularly those writings found in The Federalist Papers.
https://rumble.com/v38idx7-gk-raw-talks-real-law-and-exposing-the-frauds-guest-anna-von-reitz-81423.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=2
Thanks. I'll check it out.
The 17th Amendment is ripe for being reversed as explained at ReclaimingtheRepublic.org as the Biden administration arranged for Delaware to change its vote and be recognised thus other states can do the same. Several states already have the right to have the legislature vote to recall (Utah comes to mind but because of corruption at the county levels one might not want to trust that legislature....communists made financial devisions to target small population states first since each state had 2 senators anyway). State legislatures lost the right to select the senators but not the right to recall treasonous ones.
So let us discuss the possibility of constitutional chaos by education the left and those who do not trust Trump after Operation Warpspeed that there is supposed to be 1 member of the house for each 30,000 persons AND 1 elector elected by the people (per Ratification debates) for each 30,000 constitutional district ( although the legislature was to choose the manner of this process Ratification debates clarified it was a democratic process of selecting representation).
What say you? Turning loose all the independents who have hated and distrusted every single major party candidate ever presented. Despite your assertion that the constitution was changed re the selection of electors it was actually the corruption brought about by the major parties before 1860.
I agree with you that the 17th Amendment is “ripe” for repeal but I’ve gone further in prior articles to argue that it is patently unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. The 17th Amendment destroyed one of the fundamental Republican institutions critical to the entire Republican form of government created by our Constitution – the Senate. Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 63, ¶10. Madison also said that the Constitution was to be “strictly republican,” not democratic. See Madison, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 39, ¶2.
In our Republic, the states were supposed to be a “double security” against federal encroachment. Hamilton echoed this sentiment when he said that the states would be a “complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Ltr. 28, ¶8.
The 17th Amendment destroyed that institution and the power of the states to control the federal government and its invasions of the public liberty. No one would argue that this invasion has not happened especially to patriotic Americans. Just as with any law, it cannot contravene the Supreme Law of the land. When it does, then it’s not a law. This is the case with the 17th Amendment. It violates the basic Republican principles of the Constitution, and is, therefore, not valid law. I’ve been arguing for years for the states to step up and ignore it.
As far as the presidential elections, we have changed it by practice. Electors, one for every senator and representative, were to meet in each state and not in D.C. to vote for a candidate of their individual choices. They were not to be controlled in any way by the 51% popular vote. As I’ve noted on a number of occasions, these two changes (the 17th Amendment and controlling Electors with the 51%) destroyed the power of the states to control the federal government and gave it to the political parties.
This is the crux of ALL of our problems politically – removing the republican principles in our Constitution and replacing them with democratic ones. As an aside, the corruption in the states is also a result of democracy. The Constitution clearly mandates a “Republican form of government” for every state in the Union, but they are all democracies as well. After we fix the federal government, we can work on the states.
Marxists love democracies.
Madame Publius,
While I appreciate you reading my piece, clearly my satire went over your head. Yes, America is not a “democracy” – but whenever the Right takes ownership of Left-wing branding, it triggers the other side into a tizzy. It’s called trolling. We make a mockery of their stupid lingo much as they have made a mockery of our sacred institutions. No need to be a persnickety pedant – this is a problem with many lawyers who become so consumed by literalistic constructions that they often overlook the forest for the trees. Introduce some levity into your arsenal; it’ll do you good.
It is a shame that your immediate inclination is to attack me as being someone who is overly concerned about details (i.e., “persnickety pedant”) but at least I wasn’t being redundant. It has been my experience over my many years as an attorney that those who attack me for providing too much detail are losing the argument. Funny, I read your Bio but I don’t recall seeing anything about you being a comedian/satirist. Besides, good satire is never lost on the intended target. Anyone reading your article would have a difficult time believing that it was satire as it was clearly written in typical legalistic style. Declaring the Left’s lawfare to be a case of “clearcut election interference” hardly sounds like satire. It sounds more like a clarion call for the right to start filing more lawsuits instead of addressing the real issue. I have been studying and writing about our Constitution and the Framers longer than you’ve been alive. The constitutional state of affairs in our country is no laughing matter. Word of advice. Next time, it would behoove you to be more professional and to provide a substantive analysis rather than personal attacks.
Now you're having an emotional breakdown (not unlike the Left) for being incapable of grasping the subtle irony in the title of my piece. I don't care if you've been practicing law for decades -- you still evidently have much room for improvement in terms of reading comprehension skills. I would not be so quick to admit that you've been practicing longer than I've been alive, either. This, especially in light of your clumsy reading and failure to take recognition that all great writing, even on the gravest of subject matter, necessarily balances gravity with levity.
More personal insults? You really are, as President Trump would say, “a nasty person.” As far as “great writing” goes, Jefferson referred to The Federalist Papers as “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written.” Those who are intimately familiar with this truly great work would not describe it as one that “balances gravity with levity.”
I hate to break it to you, but there is more to political philosophy than the Federalist Papers, which, while a seminal contribution to American literature, pale comparatively to Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, or even Cicero's Laws -- which abide by the rhetorical standard I mentioned.
I did not personally "insult" you -- but I do have a right to respond to your screed and the insults you've leveled against me in the comments.
I realize that our law schools are woefully deficient when it comes to all things constitutional. Law schools do not teach the writings of The Federalist Papers with their constitutional curriculum. They teach nothing but judge-made law by court opinion. As such, we have a dearth of understanding in these critical matters – especially among our law school graduates. This, of course, is all by design. The Federalist Papers are not “political philosophy” as you say. They are the most authoritative source for constitutional understanding and interpretation. As the Father of the Constitution and its Chief Architect, James Madison, along with Hamilton, who was the chief driving force behind the Constitutional Convention and Jay being the First Chief Justice, they wrote these 85 letters to explain and defend our U.S. Constitution. The Federalist Papers most certainly do not “pale” in comparison with any other work in its genre. Reread your comments above. It’s obvious to anyone that your attacks were personal and plentiful. I merely responded to your insults with the facts.
You so clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and are not to be taken as a serious authority on law, The Federalist Papers, or any other matter.