Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brutus took the position that the Constitution should adopt the English system in toto (with minor modifications); Hamilton defended the present system. Several scholars believe that the case of Rutgers v. Waddington "was a template for the interpretive approach he [Hamilton] adopted in Federalist 78." [1] [2] [3]
Hamilton's position in Federalist No. 23 was in direct contradiction with the constitution that The Federalist Papers championed, which was written to only include enumerated powers. [ 7 ] : 42 These ideas were further challenged by the Bill of Rights upon its enactment, which codified specific powers that the federal government did not have.
Brutus: Robert Yates, [2] Melancton Smith Anti-Federalist. After Marcus Junius Brutus, a Roman republican involved in the assassination of Caesar. Published sixteen essays in the New York Journal between October 1787 and April 1788. Candidus Benjamin Austin [2] Cato George Clinton [2]
However, Morris turned down the invitation, and Hamilton rejected three essays written by Duer. [12] Duer later wrote in support of the three Federalist authors under the name "Philo-Publius", meaning either "Friend of the People" or "Friend of Hamilton" based on Hamilton's pen name Publius. Hamilton chose the pseudonymous name "Publius".
Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, invoked Federalist No. 10 in a dissent against a ruling supporting limits on campaign contributions, writing: "The Framers preferred a political system that harnessed such faction for good, preserving liberty while also ensuring good government. Rather than adopting the repressive 'cure' for faction that ...
Brutus writes that Congress possesses far too much power, especially over the states. He prefers a true confederation, which would be "a number of independent states entering, for conducting certain general concerns, in which they have a common interest, leaving the management of their internal and local affairs to go and their separate governments.” [6]
Hamilton countered that the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds and claimed that the clause applied to activities that were reasonably related to constitutional powers, not only those that were absolutely necessary to carry out said powers.
Hamilton argues that unity in the executive branch is a main ingredient for both energy and safety. [2] [7] [8] Energy arises from the proceedings of a single person, characterized by, "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch," while safety arises from the unitary executive's unconcealed accountability to the people. [4] [5] [7] [8] [11]