Add new comment

Dwight -dude- you're good! Get a publisher! I especially like the 'crooked as a dog's hind leg', yuk, yuk. Yes, compared to most of the other founding fathers, Hamilton was for a strong central government. However, words have their meanings changed over time, especially when politicians try to implement their ideals. Which of course is the natural tendancy and actually their 'job'. (not to change the meanings of words, but to try to enact their ideals). For example: In the 18th century, the word 'regulate' meant 'to make regular'. In terms of the 10th Amendment - where the Federal Government is to 'regulate' interstate commerce, that meant at the time, TO MAKE REGULAR. The colonies (now new States) were very independent, and the concern was that trade barriers and duties (although not legal) were going to be prevelant in the 'States'. Since good ole 'crooked as a dog's hind leg' FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937, the word 'regulate' now means something altogether different. In other words, Hamilton may have been the loudest spokesperson for a strong central government, but anyone with common sense can reason that the version of a strong central government in 1787, is much different than today's version. Therefore, with the change in the definition of a 'strong central government' Hamiltons opinions are useless as a basis. In just 40 years -- listening to, or reading John Kennedy's opinions and speeches (without knowing his political party) you would be calling him a right -wing zealot! A disciple of Tricky Dick Armey. Lets compromise shall we? I'll accept Hamilton's version of a strong central government (i.e. the US Federal Government from 1787 to 1804, the year the Constitution was ratifed by the States, through the year of Hamiltons death. In other words, the only version of a US Federal Government that Hamilton knew of and experienced. IF you'll agree that the Democrats should be defined under John F. Kennedy'sdefition. That means all of his opinions on things like, welfare, taxes, abortion, same sex marraige etc etc. The truth of the matter -- you will not accept this compromise - therefore,since you cannot accept Kennedy's definitions that are just 40 years old!! I must disagree with your attempts to claim that you fully understand Hamiltons definitions that are over 200 years old! (go to the icebox - fill a zippy bag up with ice, place on forehead, DO NOT watch Foxnews, maby Bill Maher)