tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350703203114278619.post6141375002166108637..comments2009-04-06T07:04:27.646-04:00Catohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00758888013939591457noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350703203114278619.post-11088925740603630592009-04-06T07:04:00.000-04:002009-04-06T07:04:00.000-04:00Cato: Good post...how are things in snowy Utica? Was a resident of your sister city Rome, NY, back when I returned from Vietnam, while stationed at "The Griff"(Air Force Base)...then lived there for another year and a half after, back from 1970 to late 1973.PRH.......http://www.blogger.com/profile/05429172501061105316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350703203114278619.post-5638736613138050112009-04-03T21:59:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:59:00.000-04:00Great quote for today, Cato! So true. Now, if only Jefferson had been a bit more consistent when he was President ... heh.<BR/><BR/>I think your analysis of the situation makes a lot of sense. As for your question about the Federalists, and their embrace of the "Elastic Clause," I think that I understand why they did it, and I think (I'm not an expert, but as far as I've read) that it's actually agreeable to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. It's too lengthy of a subject to address here, but HOPEFULLY I will be updating my critique of DiLorenzo's <I>Hamilton's Curse</I> on my Hamilton blog soon, and I will cover this subject.<BR/><BR/>As for the Alien and Sedition Acts ... they were definitely wrong, but they have an interesting history. They did not originate with Adams, but in Congress. Not all of the Federalists were for it; I recall reading that Hamilton called the measures to extreme, and rightly foretold that Adams' signature approving the Acts spelled the doom of the Federalist Party. <BR/><BR/>"What is there in the world that cannot be abused?" Hoh boy.<BR/><BR/>Great post. Thanks for participating today!<BR/><BR/>Happy FFQF!Hercules Mulliganhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350703203114278619.post-40832910011129105282009-04-03T18:59:00.000-04:002009-04-03T18:59:00.000-04:00Interesting, Cato. I suspect I would have been (and may still become?) a secessionist. Just as the rights of the individual must come before the rights of the state, I think those of the states must come before the federal government. Having never experienced our government the way it was designed, though, it's hard to say for sure - although I am sure that claiming authority that has not been granted is the way of death.<BR/><BR/>As I read of the many states that are currently trying to reassert their rights, (I touched on this in my FFQF today) I have this mustard-seed-sized hope that one of those states will go back to the beginning and try to form a state based on God's justice.<BR/><BR/>Then again, I've hoped to see the church do the same thing, and that shows no signs of happening.akaGaGahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02097243169523711419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3350703203114278619.post-70163879604487963142009-04-03T17:57:00.000-04:002009-04-03T17:57:00.000-04:00Cato:<BR/>Good post and good analysis. <BR/><BR/>If memory serves correctly, Jefferson did become more 'elastic' in his interpretation of the Constitution once he took office as President.Mike Bhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07272554710959757226noreply@blogger.com