Reply to thread

If the meaning of the words in the Constitution are so clear, then how could there be such a difference of opinion about it in the first administration?  That's because the Constitution had ambiguity written into it.  The people fill in blanks of that ambiguity.  It doesn't matter what you think.  It matters what we the people think.  We can't require a religious test for office because that is explicitly forbidden.  To change that we would need a Constitutional amendment.  If the people consent to a national health care scheme, why can they not say it is for our general welfare.  Who are you to say they are wrong?  Because of a quote from Madison?  I missed where Madison was the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution.  Could you point out in the Constitution where that is written?

I don't really care about this game of trying to minimize Hamilton because his contribution at the Convention.  He most certainly could not have been that feckless as the Father of the Constitution teamed up with him to persuade New York to ratify the Constitution.  He most certainly significantly defined its implementation.

And speaking of the Federalist Papers, it is clear that all branches of government were to determine the meaning of the Constitution.  The complaint by Anti-Federalists were that Supreme Justices were appointed for life so they could rule without concern for the public.  Hamilton's response was that the Supreme Court's rulings would only have power if one of the other branches of the government decided to support them.  Judicial Supremacy does not exist in the Constitution.