....when only white landowners could vote...
Those who own the country ought to govern it
John Jay, Slogan of the Federalist Party
And a passage written under the pseudonym, "A Federalist", 26 Nov 1787, Boston Gazette; in opposition to the Constitution. The writer viewed the proposed Constitution as an instrument of aristocracy.
"....The people are the grand inquest who have a right to judge of its [the Constitution] merits. The hideous demon of aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry, and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. .......
It will first be allowed that many undesigning citizens may wish its adoption from the best motives, but these are modest and silent when compared to the greater number who endeavor to suppress all attempts for investigation. These violent partisans are for having the people gulp down the gilded pill blindfolded, whole and without any qualification whatever. These consist generally of the noble order of Cincinnatus, holders of public securities, men of great wealth and expectations of public office, bankers and lawyers. These, with their train of dependents, form the aristocratic combination. The lawyers in particular keep up an incessant declamation for its adoption; like greedy gudgens they long to satiate their voracious stomachs with the golden bait.
Aside: I may have stumbled on one of Moose's ancestors.
We nearly always look back at the Framers with such admiration but occasionally there was a little oversight. But I suppose if you were a white landowner, it looked pretty reasonable.
On to the serious stuff....
Third, let me make sure that you understand that, pursuant to the doctrines of Separation of Powers, and Federalism, there are some things that are what is called "non-justiciable." That means, oddly enough, believe it or not, that a court can't even take a look at some decisions by the executive branch and the legislative branch, and that the United States Supreme Court can't review some decisions at the state level. It's hard to believe, I know, but there are just some things that a court CAN'T decide, because it is not within what is called "their purview."
This is interesting. Just last night I was skimming a criticism [written prior to ratification] of the Consitution; one of the "Brutus letters", 31 Jan 1788, New York Journal. {Did you ever notice the frequency in which pseudonames were used by these dudes; they must have been worried about mobs and death threats}. Relax. I won't be retyping any passages <s>. The gist, though, was that the judiciary, under the proposed Constitution, had no checks and could exercise to much control over the goverement.
I don't doubt your claim on "non-justiciable" items. Given though my readings from last night, you shouldn't be surprised that this sick mind would be interested in reading some elaboration of "non-justiciable" [which I have some difficulty in pronouncing]. Do you have any pointers to some reference reading? TIA
Regards,
jttmab |
