I attended a conference on Liberty at Brown U about three weeks ago and the historian Gordon Wood said that Madison wanted Federalism because he wanted to "elevate the level of decision making" away the local yokels who had no serious education, and were clomping around with mud on their shoes, if they had shoes, and he thought he would do a better job since he had been to Princeton. I was shocked, but it seemed to me that Wood continued to think this was a good idea. It reminded me of Plato's Philosopher-King, and how he silenced everyone else and took all decisions to himself.
No doubt Madison would spend the four hours lecturing the teacher on how INADEQUATE the teacher and course was.
For you see many a 'Constitutional lawyer' now days doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground and only pontificate on what they THINK the Founding Fathers ment (or what they feel the founders SHOULD have ment.)
James Madison would obviously flunk, as he couldn't possibly know the mass of precedent that's adhered to the Constitution over two centuries.
But, it would surely be interesting to ask him if he thought it might someday be possible to devine Constitutional priciples within the emanations from penumbras cast by the actual text.
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
১৩টি মন্তব্য:
I attended a conference on Liberty at Brown U about three weeks ago and the historian Gordon Wood said that Madison wanted Federalism because he wanted to "elevate the level of decision making" away the local yokels who had no serious education, and were clomping around with mud on their shoes, if they had shoes, and he thought he would do a better job since he had been to Princeton. I was shocked, but it seemed to me that Wood continued to think this was a good idea. It reminded me of Plato's Philosopher-King, and how he silenced everyone else and took all decisions to himself.
He would probably stare @ the rack of his law professor and say, "Oh Dolly, please forgive the lust in my heart."
I wouldn't take too much stock in anything Gordon Wood gave as fact about the Founders or the Founding Era.
For some unknown reason I was drawn to go to the link and read then entire essay/post.
That was fun. Great fun. Manic fun...right before the depressive part, but heck...fun for now.
You cannot help but wonder if the Founders could ever have forseen the abusrdity that has spun from the very brief and elegant founding documents.
Peano, why not?
Before he starts criticizing anybody else, our young writer might want to learn the difference between plural and possessive.
I'll bet young Jim did.
ndspinelli said...
He would probably stare @ the rack of his law professor and say, "Oh Dolly, please forgive the lust in my heart."
No, he'd have gone over to his girlfriend's and said, "Come on, babe, unhook 'em and let 'em ride".
No, he'd have gone over to his girlfriend's and said, "Come on, babe, unhook 'em and let 'em ride".
Shouldn't that be, "unhook 'em and let me ride?"
Sure, armed rebellion would be fun and all, but I'll be screwed when the insulin supply dries up.
No doubt Madison would spend the four hours lecturing the teacher on how INADEQUATE the teacher and course was.
For you see many a 'Constitutional lawyer' now days doesn't know their arse from a hole in the ground and only pontificate on what they THINK the Founding Fathers ment (or what they feel the founders SHOULD have ment.)
Scott M said...
No, he'd have gone over to his girlfriend's and said, "Come on, babe, unhook 'em and let 'em ride".
Shouldn't that be, "unhook 'em and let me ride?"
That, too.
When the protesters were in high gear I wondered what the namesake of your city and the author of the Constitution would think.
Would he be pleased that the protesters were free to express dissent without fear of adverse repercussions, such as becoming a political prisoner?
Or would the father of limited government be repulsed that the protesters were essentially advocating for MORE government?
I bet the 27th amendment would've stumped him.
James Madison would obviously flunk, as he couldn't possibly know the mass of precedent that's adhered to the Constitution over two centuries.
But, it would surely be interesting to ask him if he thought it might someday be possible to devine Constitutional priciples within the emanations from penumbras cast by the actual text.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন