Constitutional history -- United States; United States -- Politics and government; United States. Constitution. 18th Amendment
Hamilton went on: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every
practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and
corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government
might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more
than one quarter.... But the convention have guarded against all
danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President [or any grant
of new power to interfere with individual freedom] to depend on any
preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand
to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it, in the first
instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted
in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making
the appointment,” or a proposed grant of new power to interfere with
individual liberty.... “Thus without corrupting the body of the people,
the immediate agents in the election [or the grant] will at least enter
upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence,
and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a
satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a
number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found
easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen
States [now forty-eight States] in any combinations founded upon
motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt,
might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.” (_Fed._ No.
68.)
If Hamilton had been alive to watch the supposed legislative making
of the Eighteenth Amendment, he would have seen the manner of that
supposed making justify everything he said about the danger of letting
permanent government bodies have anything to do with individual
liberty, except the proper duty of each legislature to make laws for
its own citizens on matters committed to that legislature by those
citizens. And, from what we have just quoted, the “constitutional”
lawyers of 1920 certainly should have known that, when Hamilton
was alive, he and his associates, by their _mention_ of those
“legislatures” in the Fifth Article, never subjected themselves and
their posterity, ourselves, to an omnipotent ability to do what those
governments might will with our individual rights, “in all matters
whatsoever.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account