Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (133298)	5/17/2004 5:07:30 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Thanks for taking the time to find and print the letter. It pretty much accords with my memory of what went on. The secrecy surrounding the deliberations and writing of the Constitution was maintained: Reports and conjectures abound concerning the nature of the plan which is to be proposed. The public however is certainly in the dark with regard to it. And Madison was neither sanguine about ratification nor about whether, even if it was ratified, it would actually create the stability he and others were seeking: I hazard an opinion nevertheless that the plan, should it be adopted, will neither effectually answer its national object, not prevent the local mischiefs which everywhere excite disgusts agst. the State Governments. The grounds of this opinion will be the subject of a future letter. ... I know I've read the "future letter" at some point in the past, but forget its contents. Might be fun to look it up if I get some free time this weekend. I think it may have been written in Nov or Dec of 1787. But all this is really a digression from the main point, which was itself a digression from the article I posted which inspired this whole thing. uw decided that Galbraith was deficient in historical knowledge because he had the temerity to suggest that major laws ought not be written in secrecy. I replied that, if he was thinking of the CC, it was true that it was written in secrecy, but there was a long ratification process, and besides, circumstances were so different in the late 18th century America compared to 21st century Iraq that the analogy was a poor one. Besides that, I should add, the whole thing was irrelevant to Galbraith's main discussion. I guess I shouldn't have expected any real discussion of his article other than things like that and Nadine pointing to an old news article about some elections in some small Iraqi villages. Back to work.