I actually agree with John Quincy Adams who said that Hamilton's proposed constitution was in many ways superior to the one adopted. The Supreme Court, for all its faults, might be the least partisan and corrupt of the three branches of government. Imagine if the President and the Senate were the same as the Supreme Court in terms of holding office "on good behavior." A life term just makes more sense since a person will value what he possess for life more than a rental for a term of years.
@@in.der.welt.sein. Partisan in that each party is seeking its own private interest at the expense of the national interest. Corrupt in that money is more influential when there are more frequent elections. Every election is an opportunity for money to enter politics.
@@williamcrawford7621 it's odd. Money is fine in every other area of life, and is even the express purpose of the country (i.e. pursuit of happiness), but it has no place in politics? Many people think that the USA (or most any other nation) is a community of purpose, joined by a common bond, in which each person does his part for the success of the whole ("national interest"). If there is poverty or other such unpleasant things, then this is assumed to be due to a lack of commitment to the common good - either on the part of corrupt politicians, greedy capitalists, lazy underachievers in the lower classes, or all three. But if we look at the reality of the nation, we find a collection of antagonisms - between buyers and sellers, sellers and sellers, workers and capitalists, etc. The only real commonality that people share is entirely abstract and negative: They share a common passport, and are therefore subjects and instruments of one and the same political power. People aren’t failing to contribute to the common good, because that common good simply doesn’t exist. Or think of it this way: the whole purpose is competing over money and fortune. This makes a paradox: it's a community of competitors, a collection of antagonisms and conflicts. The "national interest" is nothing but ensuring this wild free for all of private individuals competing against each other. And you can't have that without winners and losers.
The least partisan? 5 of 8 of the justices were selected by the federalist society's Leonard Leo. The Clarence Thomas corruption is beyond Abe Fortas by such a wide margin it is amazing he is still on the court. Today's court has taken partisanship into decisions not seen since before reconstruction.
WOW , seems he is as good a historian as he is a comedian . He gets his facts right as his punch lines . Not trying to be mean , but now i understand why graduates from universities these days have very little respect for or knowledge of true history .
These lectures are always so engaging.
I actually agree with John Quincy Adams who said that Hamilton's proposed constitution was in many ways superior to the one adopted. The Supreme Court, for all its faults, might be the least partisan and corrupt of the three branches of government. Imagine if the President and the Senate were the same as the Supreme Court in terms of holding office "on good behavior." A life term just makes more sense since a person will value what he possess for life more than a rental for a term of years.
Partisan in relation to what exactly? What does corruption consist in?
@@in.der.welt.sein. Partisan in that each party is seeking its own private interest at the expense of the national interest. Corrupt in that money is more influential when there are more frequent elections. Every election is an opportunity for money to enter politics.
@@williamcrawford7621 it's odd. Money is fine in every other area of life, and is even the express purpose of the country (i.e. pursuit of happiness), but it has no place in politics?
Many people think that the USA (or most any other nation) is a community of purpose, joined by a common bond, in which each person does his part for the success of the whole ("national interest"). If there is poverty or other such unpleasant things, then this is assumed to be due to a lack of commitment to the common good - either on the part of corrupt politicians, greedy capitalists, lazy underachievers in the lower classes, or all three. But if we look at the reality of the nation, we find a collection of antagonisms - between buyers and sellers, sellers and sellers, workers and capitalists, etc. The only real commonality that people share is entirely abstract and negative: They share a common passport, and are therefore subjects and instruments of one and the same political power. People aren’t failing to contribute to the common good, because that common good simply doesn’t exist.
Or think of it this way: the whole purpose is competing over money and fortune. This makes a paradox: it's a community of competitors, a collection of antagonisms and conflicts.
The "national interest" is nothing but ensuring this wild free for all of private individuals competing against each other. And you can't have that without winners and losers.
The least partisan? 5 of 8 of the justices were selected by the federalist society's Leonard Leo. The Clarence Thomas corruption is beyond Abe Fortas by such a wide margin it is amazing he is still on the court.
Today's court has taken partisanship into decisions not seen since before reconstruction.
Very fine work.
A wonderful book and very informative.
Lp
Okkokk
Loved this
I thought the Federalist Papers had 85 essays, Hamilton 51, Jay 5, and Madison 29?
Was Hamilton's 6 hour speech really misguided? It moved things forward didn't it?
The Brazil cemented king of grave September and was for not in public for drunken man toe male .
Where in Ohio was this lecture given?
Concord Township Community Center, about 30 minutes east (and a little south) of Cleveland.
WOW , seems he is as good a historian as he is a comedian . He gets his facts right as his punch lines .
Not trying to be mean , but now i understand why graduates from universities these days have very little respect for or knowledge of true history .
1755, not 1555
People lp