🚀 go-pugleaf

Maddox wrote:
 
>  RobInteresting comments, Rob.  I'd like to know more.  Can you lead 
>  me to a decent site on the web where there are articles on this 
>  issue.  And are the Federalist Papers found up here someplace?  I'd 
>  love to find an indexed set where I can read in them what they have > >  to say about particular subjects.

Thanks.  Try my legal research homepage at: 

		http://user.tulsa.com/~raldrich

Look under heading Federal Research, subheading Federalist Papers. 
There are about ten sources of the Fedealist Papers, most of which are
gopher sites.  I just hoped over there and the last "another copy" under
the first subheading appears to have a good index.

As far as people worrying about the "Anti-federalists Papers," they
major on the minors.  The Federalists won the debate as to the
provisions of the Constitution, and the concessions given to the
Anti-Federalists on some issue do not give the opinions that the
anti-federalists held on other topics any weight.  The Federalist Papers
are a good BEGINNING source for understanding the Constitution. 
Thereafter, I suggest "The Debates."

As far a democracy is concerned, however, there was no division between
the federalists and the anti-federalists.  Most all of the founders
recognized democracies as "a violent and short lived" form of
government.  Even Thomas Jefferson (who buy the way was ambassador to
France and was not a member of the constitutional convention) cannot be
seen as a proponent of democracy unless some of his more liberal
comments are used completly out of context (like was his reference in
half a sentence of a letter to "separation of church and state" which,
taken in context, was a discussion of keeping the government out of the
church's business).  The battle line simply was not democracy verses
republic, but rather, centralized power in the federal verses state
governments.  Discussion concerning the power of the people was just
that, "the people," not any person.  The founders merely recognized that
if a sufficient number of the people wanted something done they could,
BY MERE FORCE obtain their result (which is what THEY did and why they
used such language, to justify their actions).  

They were not granting some new, before unknown, power to the people as
individuals.  This is clear from the formation of our federal
government; who has the power, the people or the state?.
EXECUTIVE: President elected by states (electoral college, state decides
method of choosing); agencies appointed by President, some jobs
confirmed by Senate (state controlled)
JUDICIAL: All Federal Judges (including Supreme Court) appointed by
President (state controlled), confirmed by Senate (state controlled)
LEGISLATIVE: 
	SENATE  ("Upper body" More powerful from state perspective because each
state is equal--2 senators) Selected by states (state decides method of
choosing).
	HOUSE  Selected by people (However, the states decided who was
qualified to vote).
ONLY 1/6 of the federal government was subject to direct control by the
people and then only by the people approved by the State.  Further, this
part of the government was virtually powerless (had no part in selecting
Executive or Judicial officers; could not pass legislation without
concurrence of Senate).  Yet the Executive and Judicial could go on
acting irrespective of House opinions and indeed the Senate could keep
confirming necessary changes in those branches.  

The only way the people (at least those sanctioned by the states with
the power to vote) could exercise any control is if enough of them
agreed, in enough states, on some issue as to be able to completely
change the legislatures in enough states to get a different President
and Senators selected so that Judges could be impeached (House's job)
and convicted (Senate's job) and new judges could be appointed by those
who agree with the House position rather than the old Senate's position.

As I'm sure you know, this HAS NEVER HAPPENED; and probably NEVER will
short of Revolution.  The founding fathers knew this; they structured
the Senate with more power and state control specifically so that the
short term wills and whims of the people would be controlled by the long
term vision of the states.  So where is this supposed power of the
people in the founder's Constuitution?...ain't there.

Rob