From the Federalist paper you referenced:
“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.”
Well, that has worked out great in actual practice. The Federalist papers were nothing more than editorials written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison for the state of NY. They were not gospel any more than editorials written editorials written by opinion writers for the NY Times today. Why they are cherry picked and held up as if being written by saints is beyond my comprehension.
Than as now politics is determined by moneyed interests. Since the Supreme Court decided companies and secretly funded political action committees had the same right to express themselves as actual human beings the government of the USA has devolved into an oligarchy. Anyone that believes the USA to be a democracy or “democratic republic” is delusional.
Federalist No. 68. Great! What about it? Did some misguided fool tell you that was the definitive end-to-all in the constitutional debate? Perhaps you missed Fed. No. 54 among others.
Mmmmmm. Best you can do?
All I need. If by chance you ever stumble upon anything of note, I’ll let you know.
I sense you’re getting testy? Cheer up old chum!
True. What they do is offer insight into the debates ongoing at the time, so when people say ridiculous things like ‘The Electoral College exists because of the Three Fifths Compromise’ you can refute them.
The Federalist Papers had little to no influence on NY ratifying the constitution, but they’re one of our best references on the subject.
Took you long enough to Google that. Maybe you should actually read them before continuing the discussion.
First of all, did anyone actually say that? Or is that your own little strawman? Secondly, did you think you actually refuted something? You did! Didn’t you?! Bless your heart.
I’m still waiting. What about Fed. No. 68?
As for reading them, well, it has been a while but I do have a B.S with Honors in Political Science, so I read them once upon a time. And I could obviously take your side of any argument and argue it better than you. But I’m not going to make your argument for you here. What does Fed No. 68 say that supersedes the import of the Three-fifths Compromise?
Bingo!
If you have a political science degree why is it taking you so long to Google responses?
Swing and a miss! Strike three.
Perhaps you have to rewatch the John Oliver show that told you what to say. I’ll wait.
Why?
They provide insight into how the framers debated and advocated for their ideas.
300 years from now, the best references for how advocates thought about the Affordable Care Act will be editorials.
I guess the founding fathers best intentions didn’t foresee the impact of mass communications on those who are most susceptible to “low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity”. Even in their worst nightmares could they imagine a piece of work like T***p.
Like leftists that get their information from a highly partisan media?
As Fox news is the most watched news network in the US, I think some would reasonably argue the same could be said for those on the other side of the political fence.
At the risk of seeming to diminish your larger point, I believe it’s the most watched ersatz news network on cable. The actual news department is quite small and is dwarfed by the opinion machine. For clarity, please see the “Tucker Carlson Defense” from the Karen McDougal case. Said defense now being resurrected by Sydney Powell.
And the bulkhead between the two, always leaky, is fast collapsing. Reputable news sites have a bright line between news and opinion sections. The editorialists in the opinion section can be freewheeling, and call people what they will. But the journalists in the news sections must try to be impartial.
When OAN and Newsmax began eating Fox’s lunch, I began reading headlines on Fox’s website “news side” referring to “Emperor Biden” and “Fauxci”(Fauci). Impartiality thrown to the wind, in order to compete with the upstarts.
A response endorsed by Sidney Powell may assist you in understanding.
Patrick M. Byrne [Mar 24, 2021 11:06:48 AM] 78K
RESPONSE TO THE FAKE NEWS ATTACKS ON SIDNEY POWELL
FREE SPEECH
-
This defamation lawsuit is yet another attempt to silence critics and citizens who want to investigate voter fraud. The statements Dominion claims are defamatory are actually protected speech under the First Amendment because they deal with matters of public concern, i.e., election integrity. The Fake News media and their allies are spinning meritless claims because their arguments have neither the facts nor the law needed to hold up in a courtroom.
-
The statements complained of are also protected because Dominion is a public figure and must prove that Ms. Powell acted with malice. This is impossible, as Ms. Powell’s lawyer has explained, because Ms. Powell’s statements were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence. She presented this evidence for all to see in four court filings and on her website.
FAKE NEWS
-
Contrary to what the Fake News is pushing, Sidney did NOT claim in court that ‘no reasonable person would believe her claims’. The press is using twisted legalese and manipulating the legal standard to confuse the issue, as they have done before in other high-profile cases. Ms. Powell’s statements were legal opinions that she stands behind, as they were based on sworn affidavits, declarations, expert reports and documentary evidence.
-
Dominion claims that the evidence Ms. Powell relied upon to assert her claims concerning the lack of election integrity is incredible and not believable. Ms. Powell responded by pointing out that her assertions were her legal opinions based on the evidence she presented to four different courts. Accordingly, her statements are not subject to challenge under defamation law.
S P
Hey folks. I hear the fake news about Sidney today got people down. Ignore it. Just some legal finepoints that the MSM wants to spin to their own advantage. Sidney is fully geared up for this fight. And we are coming off the canvas in a big way. Sit tight.