sweatyfederalst
- 3 comments
- 0 likes given
- 1 likes received
Bio not provided
Nicely done. I've been briefing Pennsylvania legislators on the exact same issues in support of HB 357.
Nor is it overly helpful to our cause to refute an ancillary point I did not make. My point is simply that not even Hamilton claimed that the Supreme Court was the final arbiter of constitutional matters (as does the modern court vis-à-vis Cooper v. Aaron). My use of the term “monopoly” referred to the argument constructed by the charter’s opponents who alleged – presciently, I might add – that unlike judicial power in Great Britain and the several States, the proposed Supreme Court would have a monopoly on construing the laws of the new constitution.
Moreover, as I winked in the commentary, Federalist #81 is not going to pry people away from the X Factor anytime soon.
Fascinating site. If mainstream libertarianism promotes unconstitutional taxing schemes to funnel citizens toward one economic decision or another, I daresay I’m revoking my affinity for that label.