Skip to main content

View Diary: On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution? (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Federalists weren't federalists at the time. (none)
    No.  Really.  It was one of the very first American examples of Lakoff-style framing.

    Federalism at the time meant "having a loose conFEDERATION of sovereign states, much like the Netherlands, rather than a strong national government".  The Constitution made the national government stronger, and the Federalists were the ones behind it.  The Anti-Federalists believed in that loose confederation instead, exemplified by the Articles of ConFEDERATION.

    (see why the Confederacy got the name it did?)

    So actually, the Federalists were actually nationalists, and the anti-Federalists were actually federalists.

    Nowadays, the people using the word "federalism" mean the ORIGINAL meaning, untainted by that bit of Hamiltonian newspeak, but by calling themselves FederalISTS, they of course use a bit of newspeak of their own, getting the cachet of the Founders while still being on the side of a weaker, not stronger, national government.

    •  we are talking a bit later than that - (none)
      we are talking about 1800 and immediately thereafter.  Marshall was Secretary of State who signed but did not give Marbury his commission as a magistrate, thus causing the case of Marbury v Madison.  The reason Marshall failed to do his duty was he himself was a midnight judge vacating State and heading to SCOTUS.  

      The Jeffersonians  -- Democratic-Republicans  - were inclined to impeach all the Federalist judges to clear the slate.  Who know what might have happened had Marshall not come up with his creative judgment in Marbury.

      Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

      by teacherken on Sat Jul 23, 2005 at 03:18:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site