Skip to main content

Alexander Hamilton on the role of states vs. the federal government

I have been watching the "John Adams" miniseries on HBO, and it has me fairly obsessed (my wife is getting a little irritated with me starting every sentence with "methinks").  It has gotten me thinking about the founders, and what they envisioned.  I came across this quote from Alexander Hamilton in #45 of The Federalist Papers:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
 Sometimes people will say that the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, and it was.  However, even a strengthened federal government via the Constitution was still significantly smaller and more limited (especially in times of peace) than the state governments, and as Hamilton states, they viewed state governments as being responsible for seeing to the welfare of citizens.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John McCain and George H.W. Bush...Separated at Birth?

...have you noticed the similarities (I know they're not identical) between the candidacies of John McCain and George H.W. Bush? Both men: were decorated military veterans had lost nomination fights in the past had extensiive foreign policy resumes criticized for being less interested in domestic politics criticized for being a moderate, not being conservative enough. True enough...McCain and George HW...seperated at birth.
1 comment
Read more

NW Republican: Ronald Reagan was more than an actor

This is a GREAT post in NW Republican: NW Republican: Ronald Reagan was more than an actor He is basically making the point that I've made...that while I agree with Christine O'Donnell on points of policy, she was a terrible candidate. We mock Joe Biden for being prone to gaffes, but she was almost as prone to it as he is. We mocked Barack Obama for being unqualified to be President, but what are her qualifications? What has she actually done ? We need to get to a point where someone needs to actually be a good candidate with significant life achievements, not just have the right views and look good on TV. The ones who fit that bill in the last election (Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Rob Portman are examples) won. Here is a link to the original column by Peggy Noonan that he refers to in his blog post: "Americans Vote for Maturity", by Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 11-5-2010
Post a Comment
Read more

Things you didn't know about Judd Gregg

He's held all major electoral positions in New Hampshire, serving as Representative (representing the district that includes Nashua) from 1981 to 1989, Governor from 1989 t0 1993, and Senator from 1993 to the present. His father, Hugh Gregg, was Governor of New Hampshire from 1953 to 1955 Gregg stood in for John Kerry during practice sessions held by George W. Bush in preparation for the 2004 United States Presidential Election Debates. Four years earlier he had played the part of Al Gore for the same purpose. Gregg won more than $850,000 in 2005 after buying $20 worth of Powerball tickets at a Washington, D.C. convenience store. Gregg endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008, and is considered a fiscal conservative and social moderate
Post a Comment
Read more