- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Is there a point to this that deserves a discussion?
Poor guy. Never read the Federalist Papers?
Is that what you conclude from that response? I conclude from the OP that nothing to discuss has been raised.
Is that what you conclude from that response? I conclude from the OP that nothing to discuss has been raised.
I'm sorry you guys didn't get the joke.
The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius" to remain anonymous, and the video began with controversy over anonymous campaign advertising.
I see nothing wrong with anonymous speech in a situation where one's life could be in danger for having a certain view. The FFs were certainly in this situation during the early days. I am not so much a fan otherwise because who the person is and knowing their interests helps me understand why they would say what they say as there is no default reason to trust anyone politically.
I'm sorry you guys didn't get the joke.
The authors of the Federalist Papers used the pseudonym "Publius" to remain anonymous, and the video began with controversy over anonymous campaign advertising.
They old advice is "if you gotta explain it, it wasn't funny".
Read em Guy. And obviously everybody else did not get it.
Already read em Guy - at least a lot of them. But college was so long ago.
Sure, everybody has a right to anonymous speech, it is part and parcel to the right to freedom of speech. Legally, even corporations have the right to free speech.
But the government isn't infringing on anybody's rights when they set the rules for their own elections. Keep in mind we're talking about campaign speech here, which is regulated.
Already read em Guy - at least a lot of them. But college was so long ago.
And obviously everybody else did not get it. See post #4.
You should KNOW the Federalist Papers. We're debating politics on a public forum. It is crucial, and almost mandatory, that you know the federalist papers along with the constitution. Debating the framework of the constitution without knowing the federalist papers is like prescribing medicine without a medical degree. A math professor who hasn't read a math book since college has no business teaching math to students. You need to bring the FP out of your storage, dust it off, and read it. Please.
the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."
Madison himself believed not only that The Federalist Papers were not a direct expression of the ideas of the Founders, but that those ideas themselves, and the "debates and incidental decisions of the Convention," should not be viewed as having any "authoritative character." In short, "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the Authority which it possesses
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?