Alexander Hamilton was a high-ranking assistant to General George Washington and the first Secretary of the Treasury.
One of America's first constitutional lawyers, he wrote most of the Federalist Papers, a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
Author and historian Thomas DiLorezo, in "The Founding Father of Constitutional Subversion", has no problem laying most of the blame at Hamilton's feet:
"He lobbied for seven years to have such a convention convened, constantly complaining to George Washington and anyone else who would listen that 'we need a government of more energy'.
"At the convention, which scrapped rather than amended the Articles of Confederation, as had been promised, Hamilton laid out his grand plan: A permanent president who would appoint the governors of each state, and who would, through his state-level puppets, have veto power over all state legislation. A national government with the president given essentially the powers of a king is what he advocated.
"It was all rejected, of course, when the convention spurned Hamilton's nationalism and adopted a federal system of government instead, with only a few powers delegated to the central government by the sovereign states, mostly for foreign affairs. Hamilton subsequently denounced the new constitution as 'a frail and worthless fabric'.
"He and his political compatriots, such as Senator Rufus King of Massachusetts, and John Marshall of Virginia, then set about to sabotage the new Constitution by "reinterpreting" the document as something very different from what was clearly written in black and white.
"His purpose, wrote Cornell University historian Clinton Rossiter in his book, Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, was to build 'the foundations of a new empire'.1
Hmmm…"the foundations of a new empire." Take a moment and let that sink in—WAY past your indoctrinations!
"Jefferson and most other founders viewed the Constitution as a set of constraints on the powers of government. Hamilton thought of it in exactly the opposite way – as a grant of powers rather than as a set of limitations – a potential rubber stamp on anything and everything the federal government ever wanted to do.
"He and his fellow nationalists (the Federalists) set about to use the lawyerly manipulation of words to "amend" the Constitution without utilizing the formal amendment process.
'Having failed to persuade his colleagues at Philadelphia of the beauties of a truly national plan of government,' Rossiter wrote, 'and having thereafter recognized the futility of persuading the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to surrender even a jot of their privileges, he set out to remold the Constitution into an instrument of national supremacy.'
"He told the New York State Assembly that the "nation," and not the states, had "full power of sovereignty," clearly contradicting the written Constitution and actual history." 1
In other words, Hamilton insisted that only the nation--taken as a whole--was truly sovereign, not each separate State! And just who was the nation? The governing elite--particularly the judicial demi-gods.
Most Americans would be shocked to realize that the opening phrase to the Constitution--"We, the People"—only referred to those 39 delegates behind closed doors.
You and I are not and never have been "We, the People"!
However, Obama, the Clintons, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi and others believe THEY are—just like their predecessors--thanks to Hamilton.
That's why politicians appear so brazen and self-confident, even when public opinion is against them.
"Silly American," they chide, "you aren't capable of knowing what's good for you and your family."
David Gordon in his review of DiLorenzo's book, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — and What It Means for America Today, concurs:
"This was precisely Hamilton's view. Government, directed by the wise such as himself, would guide the people toward what was good for them. Clinton Rossiter, a Cornell political scientist, catalogued how some version of "the general will" appears hundreds of times in Hamilton's speeches, letters, and writings… Hamilton more pointedly than any other political thinker of his time, introduced the concept of the "public good" into American thought." 2
No wonder some historians have pegged Hamilton as the American "Rousseau"! Any students of world history out there?
Let's pick up with Thomas Di Lorenzo's article, "The Founding Father of Constitutional Subversion":
"When President Washington asked Hamilton his opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank, Hamilton responded with a long-winded report that argued that if one reads between the lines of the Constitution, one discovers "implied powers" that are not specifically delegated to the central government by the states. Like the creation of a central bank, for instance.
"Secretary of State Jefferson was also asked his opinion on the matter, and essentially said that all he saw "between the lines" of the Constitution was blank space.
"Hamilton prevailed, setting the template for the eventual destruction of the Constitution. 'With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers, Rossiter wrote approvingly, Hamilton 'converted the . . . powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 into firm foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate.'
"Hamilton also invented the doctrine of "resulting powers":
'If the united States ever conquered one of their neighboring countries, he wrote, "they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather the result from the whole mass of government . . . than a consequence of . . . powers specially enumerated.'
"Thus, if government engages in an unconstitutional act, such as an undeclared war of conquest, then according to Hamilton, the fact that the conquest occurred would create a new constitutional right. 1
Succeeding Presidents and Congressional leaders quickly embraced this Hamiltonian creed. Today it's employed not only in matters of foreign conquests, but in domestic ones, as well: foreign conflicts without declarations of war, the Patriot Act, Healthcare legislation, torture of prisoners at Guantanamo, assassinations of American citizens abroad, pending control of the internet, genetic engineering of our food supply, the War on Drugs and so many more "newly acquired powers"!
"It was Hamilton who first advocated the broadest possible interpretation of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution so that he could make his case for corporate welfare in his 1791 Report on Manufactures.
'It is . . . of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare,' he wrote. Naturally, the legislature would be eager to define every piece of special-interest legislation to be serving "the general welfare." 1
By the way, there NEVER has been a clause in the Constitution that calls for the government to sponsor personal or citizenry welfare.
A strict, anti-federalist interpretation originally defined "general welfare" to mean what the national government needed to function within its Constitutional limits.
When Hamilton cleverly finished expounding his correct interpretation to the unenlightened—over and over—it meant that the government could get whatever it wanted!
Yep, looks to me like the foxes designed the hen house!
And what a tremendous success it was for the nationalists:
"By the 1930s the "principles of nationalism and broad construction expounded by Hamilton and his disciples" finally monopolized constitutional law in America. Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hamilton's "rubber stamp" constitution was firmly in place." 1
Is your solid gold constitutional compass spinning yet? But wait…there's more!
"Hamilton was also likely to be the first to twist the meaning of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gave the central government the ability to regulate interstate commerce, supposedly to promote free trade between the states. Hamilton argued that the Clause was really a license for the government to regulate all commerce, intrastate as well as interstate.
"Hamilton also invented the notion of special "war powers" that are not specifically delegated to the federal government by the states. He subsequently argued for a standing army, funding of the army "without limitation," and the nationalization of all industries that supplied goods to the army." 1
Amazingly, Hamilton and friends coveted the same government that oppressed the colonists--a ruling, mercantile class--a product of big business and government. The big difference? In this new country across the pond, THEY were in charge!
Big business and big government…sounds all too familiar, doesn't it?
David Gordon, in his review of DiLorenzo's book, offers additional insights:
"He (Hamilton) in contrast to Jefferson, believed that the government should guide the economy. For Hamilton, economics and politics were inextricably mixed. By tying members of the business elite of the states to the new central government, in large part through their involvement in government debt, the power of the national government would be secured.
"We have already alluded to two of the components of Hamilton's economic system, a public debt and a national bank. Protective tariffs in his view were also vital. By tariffs, as well as "bounties," the industrial power of the nation could be built up.
"But why does the growth of industry require the government's help? In Hamilton's famous argument, "infant industries" needed time to establish themselves before they were fit to face the rigors of international competition. [DiLorenzo responds that in practice, the infants never reach maturity. The subsidies remain in perpetuity.]" 2
Joseph Stromberg weighs in from "The Trouble with the Constitution":
"The nationalist program emerged during the Revolutionary War. Gouverneur (his name, not his title) Morris lamented the end of the war in 1783, because, without war, there would be less excuse for energetic, central government.
"Even before the Articles of Confederation were ratified, some nationalists already claimed implied or inherent powers for the Continental Congress. Under the Articles, which they hated, they tried to find penumbras, emanations, and inherent powers lurking in the text. This did not get them very far; but such far-seeing men could not long be denied.
"What they wanted was an American mercantilism, with themselves taking the role of the displaced British bureaucrats, manipulators, and fixers. The nationalists were mainly public creditors, commercial capitalists (especially from the Middle States), and regular army officers. The "crisis" of not getting their way was apparently not a crisis to most of their contemporaries.
"For many Americans, the loose structure embodied in the much-vilified Articles was precisely what the Revolution was all about.
"In the name of preserving property, the nationalists worked for a central authority with ample taxing power, control of the money supply, and power to regulate foreign trade and interstate commerce." 3
Please continue with Part III.
0 comments:
Post a Comment