Except that either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he has an agenda intended to misinform. The "Federalist papers" were written AFTER the Constitution, so could not be the "origins" of that which preceded it.
I can't agree that we have taxation with representation, at least for the bottom 90% of the people, in view of that study out of Princeton which demonstrated that there was no statistical correlation between the wishes of the bottom 90% and legislation passed by Congress. Iirc, the span of that study was the better part of the 20th century and that correlation likely still stands.
100% correct I'm afraid. We have a corporate oligarchy serving itself and its domestic and foreign donors. Lobbyists must go. Super Pacs must go. Term limits must be re-evaluated. How can we expect politicians to accept millions from corps and countries and not be in debt to them? We all agree that human nature seems to be susceptible to bribery. We need to stop allowing it in our government. That leads to disaster. represent.us has a good plan I think.
it's impressive for those who are totally ignorant of the actual history, and the actual provenance of the "Federalist papers". They have never been LAW. And those on the right who've been touting it for the past 50 years are actually OPPOSED to the Federal gov't. they are propagandists misleading the ignorant.
And hogwash. The purpose of the "Federalist papers" -- which were newspaper articles, not law -- was to SELL the Constitution. They were opposed by the ANTI-Federlaists, who were OPPOSED to the Constitution. In a word, they were BIASED.
RI was founded on the basis of exclusion. Roger Williams was basically chased out of Mass for religious reasons. RI was leery of the other colonies for that reason which may be why they were reluctant to ratify with the others. The speakers mention of the realization of being on the outside looking in has validity. I wish he could have made this point instead of simply, arrogantly, summarizing with "They don't matter."
Madison initially didn't include what became the Bill of Rights because those Rights were already in several State constitution so were implied, Patrick Henry wanted the Rights clearly stated.
Not just Patrick Henry. All the Anti-Federalist were critical of the Constitution lacking in protections. To see who some of them were, read the warnings of all the Anti-federalist, in form of the Anti-Federalist papers.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his Notes on Virginia, he wrote that Lawmakers should NEVER look back at the laws that were passed as "Essential" and should never be reviewed for discussion. Our Founding Fathers recognized that history clouds the individual's judgment (see Jean~Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract) much like today, everybody's understanding of our nation's past is different, based on the teachers talking points. Take, for instance, Roadrage, since when did all American drivers become an expert on the law? This is because Americans exercise laws made relevant since the re-introduction of the Federalists Papers in the 70s. It's my contention, that the Federalist Society thumbed its nose at Thomas Jefferson's warning to the American People and that they broke these laws to promote their cause. Furthermore, I contend that this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote his warning in his Notes on Virginia because Americans have little understanding of the dynamics of politics, which touches EVERY aspect of our lives. William Bennett Munro wrote in his book Social Civics, that two groups of people (Law students and non-law students) living in close proximity to each other, over time, will become suspicious of each other... and this is where America is today.
Was it by design you think? Did some people know this and set it in motion ? Divide and conquer? And I wonder what are the dynamics of politics in this nation especially if we remove the influence of money.
@@michelsolounias1447 Leonard Leo helped establish the Federalist Society, and they're the ones that corrupted our Supreme Court. He just wasn't aware of what he was doing was screwing around with a formula.
1.) The United Colonies of New England (now styled as) THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY and its forefathers were brought into government! 2:) The Constitution comes from The Great Law of Peace. 3.) The UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY is stationed within the Moroccan Empire (Constitution, Article VI: Treatise - 1836 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Moroccan Empire; Genesis Ch 10:6-20; Public Law 97-280. “UNITED STATES CITIZENS are not and can not be Americans; slaves can not draft sovereign papers on another’s man inheritance and call himself free.” “FREE WHITE PERSON” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed.
wHAT PERCENTATGE OF SOUTHERNERS OWNED SLAVES>? Is there a big difference between judging all blacks as thugs or all Irish as drunks, or all the southerners negatively due to the Slavery? I would guess the percentage of drunk Irish and thug blacks were small as were the percentage of slavery supporting southerners.
It's not the proportion that counts so much as the power wielded by the controlling minority. In a dictatorship, for example, nearly all the power is wielded by one person, but with a literal handful of lieutenants who bask in reflected glory, each of whom controls a handful of adherents in intersecting circles of diminishing power. A democracy, on the other hand, allows many centres of power that act to keep each other in check; at least until such time as a demagogue arises who provides a path for the concentration of power. Capitalism provides a simulacrum of democracy; again until the monopolisation of wealth increasingly restricts the choices of those that have least.
The U S has never been a democracy. It’s always been an oligarchy. The ruling elite in the southern states were slave owners. That’s why the insisted on counting their slaves as three-fifths of a man for purposes of representation in the federal government.
One should Read the Federalist paper in conjunction with the Anti-Federalist papers. If you don't, you won't fully understand what even today is at stake
@@nfpnone8248The lack of a bill of rights and the risk of a standing army. They had just come off of a revolutionary war against a standing army so that represented significant danger to them. The anti-federalist papers were key to influencing Madison (the architect of the constitution) that the Bill of Rights were necessary when he originally opposed them as unnecessary. If you read the anti-federalist papers or at least the ones concerning a Standing Army, you will understand that the preparatory clause of the second amendment is referring to their fear of a standing army controlled by the President. While others may argue other points from the anti-federalist as the strongest, these two resulted in changes to the constitution. Those changes were the agreement to add amendments protecting individual rights to the constitution and to include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as one of those amendments. Thus, we have the Bill of Rights.
@@carlc1864 Wrong! The antifederalist main argument was against the consolidation of the States into one simple republic that acted as a centralized government where the States were subjected to a higher authority which could require the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates to the States. The other main concern was that they were trying to change too many things as once and should take a stepwise approach where they could test out the changes and make sure they produced the desired results before making the next change. Antifederalist is actually a misnomer, what it means is they were against those who called themselves federalist, who the Antifederalist considered closet nationalists, as they saw the federalist as wanting a confederation of the States without a Senate where the large States would have all the power over the smaller States, which actually isn’t nationalism either, because it lacks the balance that is necessary to protect minority interest and minority participation in the legislative process. The antifederalist were actually strict federalist, where they believed in the equality of the States regardless of size, population or wealth, which is a pure democracy of the States. However a confederated republic with a senate balances the legislative process and protects not only the rights of the minority, which are the rights of the large States in a democracy and the rights of the small states in a republic without a senate, which is known as “legislative checks and balances”, which requires the concurrence of the People in their Collective Capacity and the States in their Collective Capacity to assent to any measure and gives the States assembled as equals with equal suffrage, the democracy of the States as the Union, the power of concurrence over all laws and all treaties. The Bill of Rights only puts constraints on the unchecked power of the States as the Union to protect individuals from decisions which would disenfranchise or otherwise oppress them, but as amendments of addition, they in no way impact the legislative assembly or the legislative process established by the Constitution of he United States or the Articles of Confederation. A Standing army was also not a concern, as in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, the Army and Naval forces necessary to protect the States from invasion and commerce was determined by the united States, in Congress assembled, the Union, not the individual states, even the militia that was required to kept in a state of readiness and properly equipped and to have weapons in public stores, was also determined by the States collectively as the united States, in congress assembled. The only substantive amendment to the Articles of Confederation was to change the apportionment of taxes on the States to pay the debts of the Union from an assessment of the different forms of property within each State to a per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, which created equity, and coupled with the apportionment of representation by the same per capita apportionment created “No Taxation without Representation”, as all federal expenditures must be agreed to through participation of all the States which have correspondingly agreed to pay proportionally for those expenditures they created together as a union. I think you should review both the federalist and antifederalist papers, as well as the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation, because they only balanced the legislative process and made the assessment of taxes to pay the debts of Union more equitable, creating a More Perfect Union, keeping everything else the same. I suspect that you have never read the Articles of Confederation, and haven’t studied the antifederalist papers in a way that you can understand what they were advocating for, because they were trying to preserve democracy and avoid nationalism, or something worse than nationalism. I also agree with the antifederalist that an incremental approach would have been better, they could have easily added the Republican Form of Government established by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States without changing anything else, and made sure it worked properly before making the more cosmetic changes of separating the government into different departments, which only allows the Senate the ability to concentrate on other matters or recess, to be called into actual secession when their consideration is necessary.
@@carlc1864 For some reason RUclips erases my comments, I guess they don’t agree with what I’m saying. Your understanding of the arguments of the antifederalist are inaccurate. In fact antifederalist is a misnomer, because it only means they were against those who called themselves federalist, because they were strict federalist and believed in a democracy of the States as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, and were against consolidation of the States into a centralized government, nationalism, which would rule over the States forcing the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates which disenfranchised the States. The other concern was that they were making too many changes at the same time, and wanted a more incremental approach, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the Antifederalist arguments, as they are only amendments of addition to put constraints on the collective power of the States as the Union, and do not in any way change the legislative assembly or the legislative process, which is what the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation establish. To constitute means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by the Constitution of the United States, and the Articles of Confederation, is congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to make the collective decisions of the States as the Union. A standing army was also not a concern, as the army and navy that was necessary to protect the States from invasion and to protect commerce was established in both documents as collective decisions of the States as the Union assembled in Congress. To be blunt, you are hunting in the wrong field! The Antifederalist were against nationalism and were concerned with an all or nothing approach to making changes. And I actually agree with them on both counts!
@@nfpnone8248 I suppose you wanted your 2 major arguments validated and that is where I disagree. Yes, they made those arguments along with many others and while they may have intended the argument to vote against the constitution as their major argument. That is not how it evolved. The reasons that I used strongest to describe the ones I brought up is because they were the most successful and resulted in a change. That change was to prepare and seek the approval of the amendments immediately after approval. Unalienable rights were first brought up in Antifederalist Paper #4 and rights and Bill of Rights appeared in multiple Antifederalist papers from that point until they concluded with Antifederalist #84 "On The Lack of a BIll Of Rights". So yes, the Bill of Rights was core to their argument throughout the Antifederalist papers. Regarding a Standing Army, I suggest you read Antifederalist paper # 24 Objections To a Standing Army (Part I) and #25 Objections to a Standing Army (Part II) and top that off with #29 Objections to National Control of the Militia. Of course, objections to the standing army were also brought up in several other Antifederalist papers as a reoccurring objection. So, my Dog does hunt and managed to point out the most successful arguments of the Antifederalist Papers. Particularly those that were later adopted to amend the constitution. Source for numbering and titles above came from www.theconstitutionalistsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf
Excellent comment by Franklin. The current equivalent might be that Dimensional Analysis of the Holographic Principle Perspective Imagery is determined from Singularity-point relative-timing positioning after the nature of discovery of values of Pi composed of vector-values of wave-particle reciprocation-recirculation potential e-Pi-i sync-duration positioning in metastable resonance bonding. (Nit picking uncertainty)
Federalist literally means divided power, not centralized power. So The Federalist Society being against centralized power is not a contradiction. The opposite of a federalist system would be like what France has.
I recommend browsing our Playlists. He's led series on the Major Battles of World War II, Vietnam, presidents of the 20th century, and more. Thank you for watching.
This is Maria. YOU have a misunderstanding- federalism is about separation of powers between the Federal government & the states. It’s about how power is distributed among them.
What makes think American historians that knowing a bunch of "fun facts", gossips, personal details of individual characters is better than seing the big picture and give perspective to the events of the past?
Hamilton only proposed his "own system of government" at the constitutional convention to offer contrast to the "Virginia Plan". This mechanism is what gave the Virginia Plan the consensus it needed to go forward. It's clear in the Federalist writings Hamilton was no royalist but was the most staunch defender of our constitution.
He sound like the brits, and I am really tired of the big mouth that are here talking down our rights, and the constitution, especially in these crazy people and the people coming into our country helping to tare down our government and taking away our rights.
This is enjoyable, but hampered by annoying unnecessary mispronunciations. “Publius” was not a guy on a barstool at the corner pub. The name is pronounced: “poob-lee-us.” The Italic tribe whose Sabine kings ruled over Rome before the Roman Republic was founded were not named after the Swedish carmaker . They were not the “Saab-ens.” Their name is pronounced: “Sah-beens.” Elbridge Gerry served as Madison’s Vice President and had a notable political career; however he didn’t lend his name to Gary, Indiana. His greatest fame is from having ingeniously (or deviously) created wildly distorted shapes for congressional district borders to maximize the number elected from his own political faction/party. That practice, still in existence today in some degree, is called gerrymandering. It is pronounced: “jer-ee-man-der” not “ger-ee-man-der.”
Salido note I'm just recently see too many beautiful I'm serious, sincerely comments and Jesse beautiful reactions change a lot of things is for positive ways I think it's amazing people listen and don't be afraid don't be afraid to claim your rights and different ways with respect you supported by the universe humanos history ❤ Laws ❤
Look he's amazing he he made a nice interpretation he introduced you know a nice nice information and nobody catch 😂the resl point 😂❤ uffffffffffffffffffff expression
The "Federalist Papers" were newspaper articles, an advertising campaign with the admitted purpose of SELLING the Constitution -- and were written AFTER the Constitution was drafted and submitted to the states for consideration and ratification. And they were written by three of the more than 50 delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were FOR ratification -- the Federalists. Countering them were those opposed to ratification -- the Anti-Federalists. For that reason the "Federalist Papers" _CANNOT_ be the "origins" of the Constitution. Those origins PRECEDED they writing of the Constitution -- recommended reading: _The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States: Showing that it is a Development of Progressive History and not an Isolated Document Struck Off at a Given Time or an Imitation of English or Dutch Forms of Government._ (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1897; Union, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 1997; Delanco, NJ: The Legal Classics Library, 2003), Sydney George Fisher. Fisher [1856-1927] was a prominent historian and lawyer, who was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1883 after legal studies at Harvard University. His _Evolution of the Constitution_ collates for the first time all the various provisions of colonial documents that served as source material for the Constitution. Asserting that the Constitution was neither an imitation nor an invention, Fisher traces every material clause back to its origin. Twenty-nine colonial charters and constitutions, seventeen Revolutionary constitutions, and twenty-three plans of union are the resulting source materials from which Fisher draws his analysis. Abundant quotations from the sixty-nine documents illustrate the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and make this a valuable sourcebook for the reader who desires to find in one volume the Constitution's many and varied origins. "The Lawbook Exchange" edition: www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/16258/sydney-george-fisher/the-evolution-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-showing-that Library of Congress PDF: tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/evolutionofconst01fish/evolutionofconst01fish.pdf
WRONG!!!! The Federalist papers did NOT predate the Constitution… Federal Papers were to explain the newly written text of the Constitution to the people. To explain the articles and why each was included. Wake Up!!!!
Change is custom to our constitution's guard rails . our first president did argue against a 2 party system back then and warned against party pride. Our global influence must reign superior and now is time we have a kings party and a queens party or ladies and gentlemen party. According to birth certificate you belong to our body politic. Never look for problems to a solution . you'll never set the example with out customary change.
I believe the first documents written on abuse of power was the Magna Carta - Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. thinking for myself" ----- Thomas Jefferson To Hopkinson, 1789 I am not a federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction, is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters; let us not betray self-government with world government; let us celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin."
The origin of your constitution is Native Ideology.... For the people by the people.... Ben Franklin wrote most of the constitution and he spent a great deal of time with Natives, and wrote about it a fair bit, you should read his old papers, so it's kinda an odd mix of old British laws and Native Ideology, The Great Law of Peace is from Natives is pretty much your constitution. You know that Native fella called Hiawatha... the confederation of Native tribes...
The "Federalist papers" were written by THREE of the more than FIFTY-FOUR delegates to the Constitutional Convention. On the other end of the 54 were THREE who REFUSED to sign the Constitution. The "Federalist papers" were newspaper articles -- they were not and never have been LAW. And they are not entirely honest because their purpose was to SELL the Constitution, over against the ANTI-Federalists, who wrote newspaper articles OPPOSING the Constitution.
Can you remind me my professor in law school is the way you teach people you know like amazing enchanted history mystery of real souls it's amazing people❤
It is a shame that more RUclips viewers don't subscribe to this material. American History is truly great.
Because it is uninformed. False. The Constitution existed before the "Federalist papers" were written.
RED infiltration
I wish more people would watch John’s talks, they are always so entertaining and educational. You can’t get better.
Reminds me of Dr. Roy Casagranda. Very effective
Except that either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he has an agenda intended to misinform. The "Federalist papers" were written AFTER the Constitution, so could not be the "origins" of that which preceded it.
I can't agree that we have taxation with representation, at least for the bottom 90% of the people, in view of that study out of Princeton which demonstrated that there was no statistical correlation between the wishes of the bottom 90% and legislation passed by Congress. Iirc, the span of that study was the better part of the 20th century and that correlation likely still stands.
100% correct I'm afraid. We have a corporate oligarchy serving itself and its domestic and foreign donors. Lobbyists must go. Super Pacs must go. Term limits must be re-evaluated. How can we expect politicians to accept millions from corps and countries and not be in debt to them? We all agree that human nature seems to be susceptible to bribery. We need to stop allowing it in our government. That leads to disaster. represent.us has a good plan I think.
My comment yesterday was not intended to denigrate the lecture. I found it very interesting, with an engaging presentation. I highly recommend it.
Just read the Federalist Papers for a start
More lectures from Dr. Foster please. One a day will do
I agree! This channel has great content.
it's impressive for those who are totally ignorant of the actual history, and the actual provenance of the "Federalist papers".
They have never been LAW. And those on the right who've been touting it for the past 50 years are actually OPPOSED to the Federal gov't. they are propagandists misleading the ignorant.
The statement; They were written in the late 18th century, so people had a little trouble getting to the point. 😂 is so funny and so true.
And hogwash. The purpose of the "Federalist papers" -- which were newspaper articles, not law -- was to SELL the Constitution. They were opposed by the ANTI-Federlaists, who were OPPOSED to the Constitution.
In a word, they were BIASED.
RI was founded on the basis of exclusion. Roger Williams was basically chased out of Mass for religious reasons. RI was leery of the other colonies for that reason which may be why they were reluctant to ratify with the others. The speakers mention of the realization of being on the outside looking in has validity. I wish he could have made this point instead of simply, arrogantly, summarizing with "They don't matter."
Madison initially didn't include what became the Bill of Rights because those Rights were already in several State constitution so were implied, Patrick Henry wanted the Rights clearly stated.
Not just Patrick Henry. All the Anti-Federalist were critical of the Constitution lacking in protections. To see who some of them were, read the warnings of all the Anti-federalist, in form of the Anti-Federalist papers.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote his Notes on Virginia, he wrote that Lawmakers should NEVER look back at the laws that were passed as "Essential" and should never be reviewed for discussion. Our Founding Fathers recognized that history clouds the individual's judgment (see Jean~Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract) much like today, everybody's understanding of our nation's past is different, based on the teachers talking points. Take, for instance, Roadrage, since when did all American drivers become an expert on the law? This is because Americans exercise laws made relevant since the re-introduction of the Federalists Papers in the 70s. It's my contention, that the Federalist Society thumbed its nose at Thomas Jefferson's warning to the American People and that they broke these laws to promote their cause. Furthermore, I contend that this is why Thomas Jefferson wrote his warning in his Notes on Virginia because Americans have little understanding of the dynamics of politics, which touches EVERY aspect of our lives. William Bennett Munro wrote in his book Social Civics, that two groups of people (Law students and non-law students) living in close proximity to each other, over time, will become suspicious of each other... and this is where America is today.
Was it by design you think? Did some people know this and set it in motion ? Divide and conquer? And I wonder what are the dynamics of politics in this nation especially if we remove the influence of money.
@@michelsolounias1447 Leonard Leo helped establish the Federalist Society, and they're the ones that corrupted our Supreme Court. He just wasn't aware of what he was doing was screwing around with a formula.
1.) The United Colonies of New England (now styled as) THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY and its forefathers were brought into government!
2:) The Constitution comes from The Great Law of Peace.
3.) The UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY is stationed within the Moroccan Empire (Constitution, Article VI: Treatise - 1836 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Moroccan Empire; Genesis Ch 10:6-20; Public Law 97-280.
“UNITED STATES CITIZENS are not and can not be Americans; slaves can not draft sovereign papers on another’s man inheritance and call himself free.”
“FREE WHITE PERSON” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Ed.
@@elyon9329 eh?
I saw all these national documents yesterday at the National Archives. I cried.. hard..
wHAT PERCENTATGE OF SOUTHERNERS OWNED SLAVES>? Is there a big difference between judging all blacks as thugs or all Irish as drunks, or all the southerners negatively due to the Slavery? I would guess the percentage of drunk Irish and thug blacks were small as were the percentage of slavery supporting southerners.
True. Like judging all male Britains as gentlemen.
It's not the proportion that counts so much as the power wielded by the controlling minority.
In a dictatorship, for example, nearly all the power is wielded by one person, but with a literal handful of lieutenants who bask in reflected glory, each of whom controls a handful of adherents in intersecting circles of diminishing power.
A democracy, on the other hand, allows many centres of power that act to keep each other in check; at least until such time as a demagogue arises who provides a path for the concentration of power.
Capitalism provides a simulacrum of democracy; again until the monopolisation of wealth increasingly restricts the choices of those that have least.
The U S has never been a democracy. It’s always been an oligarchy. The ruling elite in the southern states were slave owners. That’s why the insisted on counting their slaves as three-fifths of a man for purposes of representation in the federal government.
One should Read the Federalist paper in conjunction with the Anti-Federalist papers. If you don't, you won't fully understand what even today is at stake
If you have read the Antifederalist Papers, what were the two major arguments they were making against the Federalist?
@@nfpnone8248The lack of a bill of rights and the risk of a standing army. They had just come off of a revolutionary war against a standing army so that represented significant danger to them.
The anti-federalist papers were key to influencing Madison (the architect of the constitution) that the Bill of Rights were necessary when he originally opposed them as unnecessary. If you read the anti-federalist papers or at least the ones concerning a Standing Army, you will understand that the preparatory clause of the second amendment is referring to their fear of a standing army controlled by the President.
While others may argue other points from the anti-federalist as the strongest, these two resulted in changes to the constitution. Those changes were the agreement to add amendments protecting individual rights to the constitution and to include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as one of those amendments.
Thus, we have the Bill of Rights.
@@carlc1864
Wrong! The antifederalist main argument was against the consolidation of the States into one simple republic that acted as a centralized government where the States were subjected to a higher authority which could require the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates to the States. The other main concern was that they were trying to change too many things as once and should take a stepwise approach where they could test out the changes and make sure they produced the desired results before making the next change.
Antifederalist is actually a misnomer, what it means is they were against those who called themselves federalist, who the Antifederalist considered closet nationalists, as they saw the federalist as wanting a confederation of the States without a Senate where the large States would have all the power over the smaller States, which actually isn’t nationalism either, because it lacks the balance that is necessary to protect minority interest and minority participation in the legislative process. The antifederalist were actually strict federalist, where they believed in the equality of the States regardless of size, population or wealth, which is a pure democracy of the States.
However a confederated republic with a senate balances the legislative process and protects not only the rights of the minority, which are the rights of the large States in a democracy and the rights of the small states in a republic without a senate, which is known as “legislative checks and balances”, which requires the concurrence of the People in their Collective Capacity and the States in their Collective Capacity to assent to any measure and gives the States assembled as equals with equal suffrage, the democracy of the States as the Union, the power of concurrence over all laws and all treaties.
The Bill of Rights only puts constraints on the unchecked power of the States as the Union to protect individuals from decisions which would disenfranchise or otherwise oppress them, but as amendments of addition, they in no way impact the legislative assembly or the legislative process established by the Constitution of he United States or the Articles of Confederation.
A Standing army was also not a concern, as in the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States, the Army and Naval forces necessary to protect the States from invasion and commerce was determined by the united States, in Congress assembled, the Union, not the individual states, even the militia that was required to kept in a state of readiness and properly equipped and to have weapons in public stores, was also determined by the States collectively as the united States, in congress assembled.
The only substantive amendment to the Articles of Confederation was to change the apportionment of taxes on the States to pay the debts of the Union from an assessment of the different forms of property within each State to a per capita apportionment based upon an enumeration, which created equity, and coupled with the apportionment of representation by the same per capita apportionment created “No Taxation without Representation”, as all federal expenditures must be agreed to through participation of all the States which have correspondingly agreed to pay proportionally for those expenditures they created together as a union.
I think you should review both the federalist and antifederalist papers, as well as the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation, because they only balanced the legislative process and made the assessment of taxes to pay the debts of Union more equitable, creating a More Perfect Union, keeping everything else the same.
I suspect that you have never read the Articles of Confederation, and haven’t studied the antifederalist papers in a way that you can understand what they were advocating for, because they were trying to preserve democracy and avoid nationalism, or something worse than nationalism. I also agree with the antifederalist that an incremental approach would have been better, they could have easily added the Republican Form of Government established by Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States without changing anything else, and made sure it worked properly before making the more cosmetic changes of separating the government into different departments, which only allows the Senate the ability to concentrate on other matters or recess, to be called into actual secession when their consideration is necessary.
@@carlc1864
For some reason RUclips erases my comments, I guess they don’t agree with what I’m saying.
Your understanding of the arguments of the antifederalist are inaccurate. In fact antifederalist is a misnomer, because it only means they were against those who called themselves federalist, because they were strict federalist and believed in a democracy of the States as equals with equal suffrage to reach a majority consensus of all the States as the Union, and were against consolidation of the States into a centralized government, nationalism, which would rule over the States forcing the States to reinstate slavery in States that had already abolished slavery, and other similar dictates which disenfranchised the States. The other concern was that they were making too many changes at the same time, and wanted a more incremental approach, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
The Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the Antifederalist arguments, as they are only amendments of addition to put constraints on the collective power of the States as the Union, and do not in any way change the legislative assembly or the legislative process, which is what the Constitution of the United States and the Articles of Confederation establish. To constitute means to form or assemble, and the only thing formed and assembled by the Constitution of the United States, and the Articles of Confederation, is congress as a legislative assembly of the States governed by legislative processes to make the collective decisions of the States as the Union.
A standing army was also not a concern, as the army and navy that was necessary to protect the States from invasion and to protect commerce was established in both documents as collective decisions of the States as the Union assembled in Congress.
To be blunt, you are hunting in the wrong field! The Antifederalist were against nationalism and were concerned with an all or nothing approach to making changes. And I actually agree with them on both counts!
@@nfpnone8248 I suppose you wanted your 2 major arguments validated and that is where I disagree. Yes, they made those arguments along with many others and while they may have intended the argument to vote against the constitution as their major argument. That is not how it evolved. The reasons that I used strongest to describe the ones I brought up is because they were the most successful and resulted in a change. That change was to prepare and seek the approval of the amendments immediately after approval. Unalienable rights were first brought up in Antifederalist Paper #4 and rights and Bill of Rights appeared in multiple Antifederalist papers from that point until they concluded with Antifederalist #84 "On The Lack of a BIll Of Rights". So yes, the Bill of Rights was core to their argument throughout the Antifederalist papers. Regarding a Standing Army, I suggest you read Antifederalist paper # 24 Objections To a Standing Army (Part I) and #25 Objections to a Standing Army (Part II) and top that off with #29 Objections to National Control of the Militia. Of course, objections to the standing army were also brought up in several other Antifederalist papers as a reoccurring objection. So, my Dog does hunt and managed to point out the most successful arguments of the Antifederalist Papers. Particularly those that were later adopted to amend the constitution. Source for numbering and titles above came from www.theconstitutionalistsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TheAntiFederalistPapers.pdf
Excellent comment by Franklin.
The current equivalent might be that Dimensional Analysis of the Holographic Principle Perspective Imagery is determined from Singularity-point relative-timing positioning after the nature of discovery of values of Pi composed of vector-values of wave-particle reciprocation-recirculation potential e-Pi-i sync-duration positioning in metastable resonance bonding. (Nit picking uncertainty)
That is a gem of a statement. I copied it, thank you. Can't wait to lay that down in my next disagreement.
I want to love this. But the amount of rabbit trails between points is just too much 😵💫🥵
Yes, and the unfinished sentences: more than half.
Federalist literally means divided power, not centralized power. So The Federalist Society being against centralized power is not a contradiction. The opposite of a federalist system would be like what France has.
Yeah that's when I decided to find something else to listen to. He said it like it was so clever 😂
Great content as always! Thankyou Dr. Foster and the library for making this available to the public.
Brilliant presentation, thanks.
Excuse me. I must finished my crumbs. Sharon is watching
Where can you hear more presentations from Dr. John Foster ??
youtube?
I recommend browsing our Playlists. He's led series on the Major Battles of World War II, Vietnam, presidents of the 20th century, and more. Thank you for watching.
I’m gonna be captain Obvious and say that Benjamin Franklin was a wise, wise man!
Thank you i really enjoy ❤
Thank you for mentioning the fact that the "Federalist Society" is misnamed, since it is anti-federal government. That has always struck me as absurd.
This is Maria. YOU have a misunderstanding- federalism is about separation of powers between the Federal government & the states. It’s about how power is distributed among them.
Ladies and gentlemen, Dr John F Foster!
Surprisingly enjoyable! Thanks so much!
Thomas Sowell. Can I say more .
Walter Williams
Being a steward of public funds (which BTW, for those that forget, are taken at point of a gun) is a sacred trust. It cannot be taken lightly. 🇺🇸
I appreciate the effort, but you're really kind of all over the place name dropping people without actually filling men on who they are.
What makes think American historians that knowing a bunch of "fun facts", gossips, personal details of individual characters is better than seing the big picture and give perspective to the events of the past?
It's currently 2024 and humanity continues to develop
Hamilton only proposed his "own system of government" at the constitutional convention to offer contrast to the "Virginia Plan". This mechanism is what gave the Virginia Plan the consensus it needed to go forward. It's clear in the Federalist writings Hamilton was no royalist but was the most staunch defender of our constitution.
I think he left St. Croix, Danish V.I. for the Colonies
He sound like the brits, and I am really tired of the big mouth that are here talking down our rights, and the constitution, especially in these crazy people and the people coming into our country helping to tare down our government and taking away our rights.
No president for life, and no king or queen, or someone that is in office that are communist or a sort like collective socialist ,
Many of us are wishing today the federalists didn't win out.
The people are the government's by law of our creator.
Interesting.
Anyone who gets dubbed the Prince of Darkness by San Franciscan political society is ok in my book lol
This is enjoyable, but hampered by annoying unnecessary mispronunciations.
“Publius” was not a guy on a barstool at the corner pub. The name is pronounced:
“poob-lee-us.”
The Italic tribe whose Sabine kings ruled over Rome before the Roman Republic was founded were not named after the Swedish carmaker . They were not the “Saab-ens.” Their name is pronounced: “Sah-beens.”
Elbridge Gerry served as Madison’s Vice President and had a notable political career; however he didn’t lend his name to Gary, Indiana. His greatest fame is from having ingeniously (or deviously) created wildly distorted shapes for congressional district borders to maximize the number elected from his own political faction/party.
That practice, still in existence today in some degree, is called gerrymandering. It is pronounced: “jer-ee-man-der” not “ger-ee-man-der.”
How many times do we have to hear the world “like”. Sounds like a sorority girl
George W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on--- shame on you."
Truly the People's president 🤣
I'm from the south, and I've ALWAYS thought it is "gross" in it's thinking , too.
My gid hes amazingly 😂❤❤
Salido note I'm just recently see too many beautiful I'm serious, sincerely comments and Jesse beautiful reactions change a lot of things is for positive ways I think it's amazing people listen and don't be afraid don't be afraid to claim your rights and different ways with respect you supported by the universe humanos history ❤ Laws ❤
Look he's amazing he he made a nice interpretation he introduced you know a nice nice information and nobody catch 😂the resl point 😂❤ uffffffffffffffffffff expression
The "Federalist Papers" were newspaper articles, an advertising campaign with the admitted purpose of SELLING the Constitution -- and were written AFTER the Constitution was drafted and submitted to the states for consideration and ratification.
And they were written by three of the more than 50 delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were FOR ratification -- the Federalists. Countering them were those opposed to ratification -- the Anti-Federalists.
For that reason the "Federalist Papers" _CANNOT_ be the "origins" of the Constitution. Those origins PRECEDED they writing of the Constitution -- recommended reading:
_The Evolution of the Constitution of the United States: Showing that it is a Development of Progressive History and not an Isolated Document Struck Off at a Given Time or an Imitation of English or Dutch Forms of Government._ (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1897; Union, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 1997; Delanco, NJ: The Legal Classics Library, 2003), Sydney George Fisher.
Fisher [1856-1927] was a prominent historian and lawyer, who was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1883 after legal studies at Harvard University. His _Evolution of the Constitution_ collates for the first time all the various provisions of colonial documents that served as source material for the Constitution. Asserting that the Constitution was neither an imitation nor an invention, Fisher traces every material clause back to its origin. Twenty-nine colonial charters and constitutions, seventeen Revolutionary constitutions, and twenty-three plans of union are the resulting source materials from which Fisher draws his analysis. Abundant quotations from the sixty-nine documents illustrate the evolutionary nature of the Constitution and make this a valuable sourcebook for the reader who desires to find in one volume the Constitution's many and varied origins.
"The Lawbook Exchange" edition:
www.lawbookexchange.com/pages/books/16258/sydney-george-fisher/the-evolution-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-showing-that
Library of Congress PDF:
tile.loc.gov/storage-services/public/gdcmassbookdig/evolutionofconst01fish/evolutionofconst01fish.pdf
WRONG!!!! The Federalist papers did NOT predate the Constitution… Federal Papers were to explain the newly written text of the Constitution to the people. To explain the articles and why each was included. Wake Up!!!!
How do you know this?
The people know nothing because you don't understand 100% but I😂😂😂😂
He is freaking Disney villian!
Garcia Frank Hernandez Linda Lewis Joseph
Maybe you should talk Newton
Hall Charles Rodriguez George Rodriguez Joseph
Change is custom to our constitution's guard rails . our first president did argue against a 2 party system back then and warned against party pride.
Our global influence must reign superior and now is time we have a kings party and a queens party or ladies and gentlemen party. According to birth certificate you belong to our body politic. Never look for problems to a solution . you'll never set the example with out customary change.
Lee Steven Perez Daniel Martin Robert
Jackson Betty Martinez Laura Rodriguez Joseph
Actually, the source of our true sovereignty comes from God, as per the Declaration of Independence.
I believe the first documents written on abuse of power was the Magna Carta -
Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.
thinking for myself"
----- Thomas Jefferson To Hopkinson, 1789
I am not a federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction, is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Let us not betray freedom by embracing slave masters; let us not betray self-government with world government; let us celebrate Jefferson and Madison, not Marx and Lenin."
I give it to you a million I give it to you before a million dollars you take different way my nose few minutes ago😂❤❤❤😂
BREAKING: Xenu forcefully occupies Kolob, forces Scientology on Mormons.
He throws rocks at children who reads books.
The origin of your constitution is Native Ideology.... For the people by the people.... Ben Franklin wrote most of the constitution and he spent a great deal of time with Natives, and wrote about it a fair bit, you should read his old papers, so it's kinda an odd mix of old British laws and Native Ideology, The Great Law of Peace is from Natives is pretty much your constitution. You know that Native fella called Hiawatha... the confederation of Native tribes...
Hello Alex 😂❤❤❤
Lewis Michelle Jackson Patricia Young Edward
Moeed pirzada
Robinson Mark Lewis Sandra Thompson Matthew
Gid bless you sweetheart 💋
Thomas i know beautiful haircut 💈
Perez Shirley Williams Elizabeth Jones Mary
Hall Betty Harris Kimberly Wilson Sarah
Moore Betty Jones Linda Martin Gary
Smith Scott Perez Brenda Taylor Jessica
Hall Steven Lopez Helen Lee George
People ypu the college before 😂😂😂😂 interpretation people catch his explanation names subjects some people are so easy you don't see it already
Okay. She is not like Emma. She actually has a beating heart.
I bet this is interesting, but I cannot hear it. HIRE AN AUDIO ENGINEER!
I heard it fine, but I did have the same problem a few days ago w a different video.
Sounded fine on my end.
Bad intention always 😡
Smith Donna Hernandez Kimberly Lopez Karen
Clark Margaret Williams Amy Harris Kimberly
White Gary Lewis Jose Moore Betty
Card card tooth's.
Miller Donald Perez Steven Anderson Donald
Okay. John. You have to deal with the fact that your wife is stifling you.
Nope , the origin was the Iroquois confederacy
A MAGA “Historian”!
Wanted to watch this but way too many sort of & kind of fillers in just the first minute. F-ing crazy😢
This lecturer needs to learn to finish a sentence and a thought!
My God 😢its very sad 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 why people
Wow, around 52 minutes this guy gets kind of off-putting, writing off half his audience. The US Grant ref was appreciated.
He's offputting point blank.
These papers say that guns are not permitted on the free market.
We need to rewrite the constitution
Yank
Dumb
John. You can still be a good father and be a shitty husband. Josh. Stop laughing
ADN 😂😂😂😂 genetic
If you want to knock a conservative group for their raison d’être, you should learn how to pronounce raison d’être.
Boring presentation
He's a poor teacher
This dude is engaging, knowledgeable, funny, and thoughtful. If that’s a poor teacher, then what does a good one look like?
The origin of the federalist papers was a federalist
Sincerely hope some comments are bots....🫠
1:05 Read and talk about the Federalist Papers rather than just arging with each other in the abstract. Good idea, especially over the next 100 days.
The "Federalist papers" were written by THREE of the more than FIFTY-FOUR delegates to the Constitutional Convention. On the other end of the 54 were THREE who REFUSED to sign the Constitution.
The "Federalist papers" were newspaper articles -- they were not and never have been LAW. And they are not entirely honest because their purpose was to SELL the Constitution, over against the ANTI-Federalists, who wrote newspaper articles OPPOSING the Constitution.
Can you remind me my professor in law school is the way you teach people you know like amazing enchanted history mystery of real souls it's amazing people❤
Hernandez Thomas Robinson Steven Williams Steven