Great show. Regarding Tom's question re how a Constitutionalist might respond with how the Constitution was sold at the ratifying conventions, my immediate thought was SO WHAT?
First of all, those people are all now dead.
Second, the ACTUAL words of the Constitution are different, which is what WE are stuck with.
Third, the people who sold it as such didn't believe it themselves, as no sooner did the Constitution pass that they started to interpret it how they wished.
It seems that clearly the nationalists had to sell it that way in order to get the puppy through. It was the ultimate political bait and switch. They started rough shodding on that interpretation immediately after ratification referring to the actual words and vagueness of the document itself.
Good call on Madison rejecting the term expressly. If that is how they sold it, they should have had no problem adding that word.
Sheldon, how would you respond to someone who might say, "Well look at the fruits! Under the Constitution, despite it faults, we became the most prosperous, free country in history."
I'm inclined to think, that we became such despite the Constitution. That the revolutionary/anti-federalist/state rights ideology just didn't go away, and that for many years it did a decent job in providing strong opposition to the nationalist agenda.
Merrill Jensen shows that the states under the Confederation were growing economically, and that trade was becoming freer. The future was bright. The problems could have been worked out without centralizing the state.
Great show. Regarding Tom's question re how a Constitutionalist might respond with how the Constitution was sold at the ratifying conventions, my immediate thought was SO WHAT?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, those people are all now dead.
Second, the ACTUAL words of the Constitution are different, which is what WE are stuck with.
Third, the people who sold it as such didn't believe it themselves, as no sooner did the Constitution pass that they started to interpret it how they wished.
It seems that clearly the nationalists had to sell it that way in order to get the puppy through. It was the ultimate political bait and switch. They started rough shodding on that interpretation immediately after ratification referring to the actual words and vagueness of the document itself.
Good call on Madison rejecting the term expressly. If that is how they sold it, they should have had no problem adding that word.
Thanks! I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteSheldon, how would you respond to someone who might say, "Well look at the fruits! Under the Constitution, despite it faults, we became the most prosperous, free country in history."
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to think, that we became such despite the Constitution. That the revolutionary/anti-federalist/state rights ideology just didn't go away, and that for many years it did a decent job in providing strong opposition to the nationalist agenda.
Merrill Jensen shows that the states under the Confederation were growing economically, and that trade was becoming freer. The future was bright. The problems could have been worked out without centralizing the state.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I just picked up his book A New Nation. Also looking to get A Revolution in Favor of Government.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Tom's show notes page:
ReplyDeletehttp://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-663-is-the-constitution-an-enemy-of-liberty/
He also added a separate blog post today regarding the show
http://tomwoods.com/blog/liberty-vs-the-constitution/