The History Book Club discussion

The Federalist Papers Explained: Authors, Hamilton, Important Quotes, Summary (2000) - C-Span

Link: https://youtu.be/lhy6wRgsMZg

Robert Scigliano interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-Span

Robert Scigliano was a Professor for the Political Science of the Boston College - Booknotes

Source: Youtube, C-Span

The Federalist Papers' Ideals, Arguments, and Enduring Effects on American Political Life (1999)

Link: https://youtu.be/ap-CIkjTqak

Charles R. Kesler (born 1956) is professor of Government/Political Science at Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University.

He holds a Ph.D in Government from Harvard University, from which he received his AB degree in 1978. He is editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and the author of Keeping the Tablets: Readings in American Conservatism.

He was Director of the Henry Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World and Claremont Institute's Publius Fellows Program.

At Claremont, he is a senior fellow of the conservative Claremont Institute, and directs their Publius Fellows Program, a summer institute.

Additionally, he is the editor of the Claremont Review of Books, a quarterly political magazine. He was the Director of Henry Salvatori Center at Claremont McKenna College.

Kesler is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute and an editor of the Claremont Review of Books.

Just as an FYI so you understand where Professor Kesler is coming from in his perspectives - he considers himself a conservative.

(no image) Saving the Revolution: The Federalist Papers and the American Founding by Charles R. Kesler (no photo)

by William F. Buckley Jr. and Charles R. Kesler (no photo)

edited by Charles R. Kesler (no photo)

He has published many peer-reviewed articles and political articles and reviews in publications of the Claremont Institute and elsewhere.

Dr. Kesler was a delegate to the International Youth Year Conference in Jamaica in 1985.

Source: Youtube and WayBack

Kendra wrote: "I'm Kendra and this is my first time participating in a discussion in this group. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and reflections on this short but dense essay and I'm looking forwa..."

Hi Kendra,

I was also a Chemistry & math major. Organic happened to be my favorite subject!!

But right now I work as an actuary. (I'm rolling my eyes a little listening to some of the comments on the ACA!!)

But for me this is a great opportunity to learn more about the Federalist papers. It seems we have a lot of knowledgeable people contributing. I think this is what makes this format such a great value.

Bentley wrote: "Vincent welcome - I know you will and have a wonderful vacation - there is plenty of time when you get back.

A Few Things to think about:

What kind of character do we need to maintain our consti..."


Boy Bentley what a tough one. This could lead to a long exploration of my thoughts on the world and I daresay many others are better educated and more clever than I am.

We don't have the simple character building challenges our our forefathers. We, our generation of Americans, except for those in the active military have not faced the dangers and uncertainty that the founding fathers did in facing the British Empire.

Ambition is for so many to achieve success in a simple measurable factor like wealth. And it seems to many that steps that lead to that achievement are by nature of the goal justifiable.

So I think and hope we can develop leaders of the caliber of general quality of Hamilton, Jefferson etc. but I am less and less optimistic we will accomplish same. The most discouraging is the lock step with which the Washington Republicans seem to follow the President. The $1.5 trillion dollar deficit is incomprehensible to me - for any party. I hope the Republicans like Kasich, who seems consistent (though I do not always agree with him) can and will stand their ground and then not fail.

I hope the Democrats (who are far from perfect too) find someone or some folks who can lead the way and win- in local, state and federal elections - because mostly it seems to be me these folks, the Republicans, are so bound to the "party line" that they are more Koch reps than people reps. Edmund Burke would be turning in his grave - probably is already.

Ok so I stop for now - but for my Republican friends I note that if we think that America was great in the 50s let's say it was with a personal marginal tax rate of 90%. Great governments and great nations are not free.

I will resume reading with msg 69 when I get back to it.

Bentley wrote: "Tom wrote: "I agree with Rob that the paragraph that reminds readers that effective government is essential to the security of liberty. When Hamilton said 'that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is a..."

I agree in this: This is my first time reading the Federalist Papers and I probably hadn't thought of them since some middle school civics class a very long time ago or an Introduction to American History class freshman year in college. But I was struck first and perhaps most of all in this first Federalist Paper by Hamilton's assertion a strong government is necessary for preservation of liberty. I don't know if I completely agree, but that struck me as possibly deep and worth exploring.

Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this all together, and..."

I think, instead, that it's incontrovertible there are factions today in our country (or possibly they are paid trolls and bots) whose aim is to shut down discussion. Look at the very vicious responses so common in various forms of chatrooms on the Internet, which go back a while but which I would identify as particularly influential in the past decade or so. It's very clear the modus operandi of these factions is to try to bully opposing speech into silence, and to bring down the overall level of discourse so that it is shut out altogether in the minds of thinking men and women.

That's why, in the exercise of freedom and in the continuing fight to preserve freedoms, it is imperative people have the courage to debate, and encourage others in their right to debate. Otherwise the spirit of these Federalist Papers will have died in our age.

Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this all together, and..."

I would make one suggestion: It certainly is possible for there to be purely motivated errors on both sides of a debate such as this one. But I would check for consistency of position on the part of a supposed honest debater. Because if there is too much flip-flop in positions the flip-flops are strong signs of flim-flam, and bring up all the baser motivations that Hamilton (really, people of all ages) have long recognized.

Vincent wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Vincent welcome - I know you will and have a wonderful vacation - there is plenty of time when you get back.

A Few Things to think about:

What kind of character do we need to mai..."

Like I said - I cannot even recognize Paul Ryan anymore - I think one of them was an imposter - either the one who was calling for the balanced budget and against any huge deficits and how we are bankrupting our country versus this new one which seems to have amnesia.

I think we are in dangerous territory right now - with the caliber and the character of our elected officials - unfortunately that includes the White House as well as our other bodies. And frankly they are elected by us so therein lies the problem.

And they are a mirror of us. You raise some great points Vincent and Burke is probably rolling over in his grave along with Hamilton, Madison and Jay.

Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Tom wrote: "I agree with Rob that the paragraph that reminds readers that effective government is essential to the security of liberty. When Hamilton said 'that the noble enthusiasm..."

Hello Cliff - welcome again. I think I agree more with Hamilton (30) sometimes than with Madison (35 maybe) and Jay however was the elder (41) - but all still young men with bold ideas. I think in this day and age especially with the foreign threats we need one very strong central government but one which as strongly protects the rights of the American people (not corporations) and limits campaign financing by these entities that are not individuals.

The United States has grown exponentially since the time of the founding fathers and if they felt that they needed a strong central government - then - to fend off foreign powers who were very far away - right now that is not the case (they are at our doorstep) so we need that strength even more.

But of course we are open to exploring all of the aspects of the Federalist and if this goes as plan by the end of next year we may even be looking at the various Anti Federalist papers - we will look at all of the contributions - and frankly the Bill of Rights only came about because of compromise with the Anti Federalists and that is a mighty good thing.

Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this a..."

Cliff I never thought of that but you may be right - maybe these horrible people who are so nasty are not all Americans - but bots or paid trolls to cause divisiveness - the Russians certainly did not start this nasty business just for this last election.

And you are right - everybody needs the courage to debate because it is the power of their ideas through reflection and compromise that will get us to a better place and keep us from harm.

Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for putting this a..."

For sure - I rest my case with the Honorable Paul Ryan who promoted this tax bill which will only lead us down a primrose path; who by the way would never have increased the deficit and allowed this donnybrook (the old Paul Ryan of years past) and which was passed without any input that they would listen to from others. As Vincent said - nothing is free.

I just finished reading through Federalist #1. I had a question..

Hamilton is concerned about the negative impact of political factions and vigorous political elements on a well functioning government. He goes on to say...

" On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor
of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interests can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants. "

What is he trying to say & what does " paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." mean?

It sounds like he is worried about politicians who fawn over popular ideas or or use popular sentiments to gain power. He believes this will end in tyranny, like the French Revolution. But is Hamilton saying that this type of tyranny from the mob is more likely or less likely with the constitution vs. no constitution & state sovereignty? Is that what he believes? I wasn't sure.

Bentley wrote: "Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks to Bentley for ..."

Just curious...
1. are you opposed to a tax cut or just the method & type of cuts in the plan. The Republicans ran on tax cuts so this shouldn't have been a surprise.
2. are you opposed to Ryan's leadership because they did not cut enough spending

I look at the tax plan and like the reduction in corporate tax rate because it make us more competitive. I would have preferred getting rid of more loop holes. Ideally in a perfect world a flat rate with no deductions would be the fairest (just my opinion) and would produce the most economic growth (backed up by economics).

On the spending side I think Ryan should have made cuts because the deficit like others have mentioned is going to be a problem if interest rates rise. Ideally if it were up to me I would cut spending so that we were at 10% of GDP right now I think we are about 25%. So ideally it would be a flat 10% tax with 10% gdp spending. Obviously this is my opinion but probably closer to what Hamilton & Madison would be comfortable with.

Bentley wrote: "Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Tom wrote: "I agree with Rob that the paragraph that reminds readers that effective government is essential to the security of liberty. When Hamilton said 'that the no..."

Yeah apologize for being the tortoise here. I thought in the time I have to give to these readings maybe I could plow through 30 messages a week and add some thoughts of my own - my expectations are down to 10 and even then I'm struggling. :)

Jeffrey wrote:

"It sounds like he is worried about politicians who fawn over popular ideas or or use popular sentiments to gain power. He believes this will end in tyranny, like the French Revolution. But is Hamilton saying that this type of tyranny from the mob is more likely or less likely with the constitution vs. no constitution & state sovereignty? Is that what he believes? I wasn't sure. "

We need to remember that the Constitution as proposed was a compromise. Hamilton is arguing for a balance of governmental power and individual liberties. Too much freedom of choice can be abused for gains of political power. For example, a tax cut if properly applied may stimulate the economy but a demigod might abuse freedom to off short term private gains with longer term liabilities which may beyond others ability to foresee as a inducement to gain political power and use that power to develop a tyranny. Checks and balances might limit individual freedom but those limitations properly applied will reduce the risk of abuse of power by the wrong actors. So yes, I think he is arguing for a limitation on democratic power to prevent abuse.

I think I see in Hamilton's defense of a balance of government power and individual liberties an echo of Plato's fears that democracy may (I think Plato would had said must) degenerate into tyranny. In many circles at this time the chaos of the French Revolution was seen as vindication of these ideas.

Jeffrey T - It seems that we have two Jeffreyies active on this board.

Jeffrey wrote:

"I was also a Chemistry & math major. Organic happened to be my favorite subject!!

But right now I work as an actuary. "

Interesting. Not only do we have two Jeffreyies active on this list but I was contemplating a major in chemistry in college. In Freshman lab I had an organic project cooking and walked out of the building onto the front quad while it was doing it's thing. The fumes in the lab were overpowering. Old school, old lab, poor ventilation. I changed my major.

I am now retired but my last position was an auditor. I reviewed all the buyers' purchase orders for compliance before they were released. I used to joke that I graded all the byer's homework.

Jeffrey T.

Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote:

"It sounds like he is worried about politicians who fawn over popular ideas or or use popular sentiments to gain power. He believes this will end in tyranny, like the French Revolut..."

Thanks for that explanation. I'm a surprised that the different parties would think that a constitution would limit individual freedom.

I remember from history class (and I am no expert) that the bill of rights was a compromise to those who thought the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. I recall some people (like James Wilson? who wanted a strong federal gov't) argued that the Bill of Rights actually strengthened the federal gov't the thinking being if they could guarantee those rights they could also take them away.

Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote:

"I was also a Chemistry & math major. Organic happened to be my favorite subject!!

But right now I work as an actuary. "

Interesting. Not only do we have two Jeffreyies active on ..."

IMO it was a wise choice to become an auditor instead of a chemist. I realized this after doing a summer internship in the department's Chemistry lab. It mostly consisted of washing glassware and sitting around waiting for reactions to finish. Very boring

edit... I don't want to give the negative impression that all chemistry jobs are boring, that isn't the case it just wasn't right for me

Jeffrey wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Cliff wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Richard wrote: "Hello, my name is Rick. I am an avid reader of American history, and I always look forward to spirited discussions on the topic. Thanks..."

I agree with Warren Buffet, Larry Fink and Bill Gates about the tax plan:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...

Bentley wrote:

"I agree with Warren Buffet, Larry Fink and Bill Gates about the tax plan:"

I too would agree and add the detail that the reduction in the number of tax brackets and the way the new brackets are spread in the proposed tax plan gives too much relief at the top end of the income scale.

Jeffrey T.

Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they created with this tax bill) - who or what will it be - will it be those on disability, the elderly, the veterans, the environment or any of the safety nets that Americans as a whole depend upon or the environment and arts - Social Security, Healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Assistance program, Clean Water, Clean Air, National Parks, Public Broadcasting, the Arts. Just of course to help out the top 1% and continue to give Corporate Welfare at the expense of social and environmental programs. These folks do not necessarily have the country as a whole in mind but their own special faction or in this case monetary bracket which by the way should be paying more and now is not.

Social Security was solvent and would never had any issues if they had not taken money out which they were not allowed to do to pay for other pet projects along the way. I hate when they tout it might run out of money and it is all due to their own fiscal and moral irresponsibility if it does. And then instead of fixing their irresponsibility - they cut taxes to benefit the rich, the corporations and for all intensive purposes themselves and corporations who support them through the Citizens United money that are swaying them. It is a cycle. And I love how they tell Americans how much money they are getting back in one pocket but fail to tell them about all of the exceptions that they left out to pay for the top 1%'s tax boondoggle (which in the long run will cost them more or in some cases a lot more due to their shenanigans)

The only way the American people are told what they left out and didn't tell us about was due to the media, journalists, etc. Because the tax bill was locked up too and nobody really had a chance to read it and reflect on its benefits or liabilities in this case before being dragged kicking and screaming in some cases or ridiculed into voting for it. It really is a plan on their part whenever they are pigeon holed by media to keep the Americans in the dark and maybe they really are too obtuse to realize what we are actually ramming through. And in most cases I am sad to say it appears that some segments are. The same ones that are now upset about what is happening to their healthcare. It is a shame.

Most of them did not even read the bill (lol). Ridiculous. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay would not be pleased with Congress or the end result or for that matter - the other branches either.

I might add that the recent campaign stop by the executive branch left me shaking my head and if you have young children that are impressionable - how do you explain an office which we respect or teach our children to respect - acting and speaking the way it does and did. Absolutely the downtrodding of America. Hamilton speaks of this in Federalist One.

Back to the Federalist which by the way discusses what we are dealing with now - and the effects which are reverberating world wide - not just at home.

This is from Forbes:

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillm...

Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Security
By Sen. Don Riegle and Lori Hansen Riegle
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-do...

Sources: Forbes, Huffington Post

Jeffrey wrote: "I think I see in Hamilton's defense of a balance of government power and individual liberties an echo of Plato's fears that democracy may (I think Plato would had said must) degenerate into tyranny..."

Yes, it was confusing to me too - Welcome to both Jeffreys (smile)

The Federalist Two thread is now open.

Link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

But remember each thread will discuss each Federalist paper specifically so if you have additional comments or posts that pertain to any one Paper just post it there and we will be weaving out way back and forth through all of the essays in the next year and a half.

Also I too will be posting pertinent articles, videos or cases as I find them or they come up to the appropriate threads as we go through. Right now we have current threads and discussions open for Federalist One and Federalist Two.

Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote:

"...that the Bill of Rights actually strengthened the federal gov't the thinking being if they could guarantee those rights they could also take them away"

The thing is that the Bill of Rights was to protect/secure those rights... governments cannot just give them or take them away since they are natural rights.

Although, I don't think that will stop the Federal Government today from having those rights as illegal. They have been ignoring or misinterpreting the Constitution for a while now specifically when it comes to foreign policy.

You can continue to discuss, reflect and debate anything in Federalist One here or anything anybody posted or discussed here on this thread at any time. Including the moderator. We will read, reflect and post back.

This is a living thread which never closes.

Donmar wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote:

"...that the Bill of Rights actually strengthened the federal gov't the thinking being if they could guarantee those rights they could also take them..."

Like I said very pertinent to Federalist One.

Sorry about that Bentley. I didn't refresh my browser so I didn't see your posts when I was typing my post. :)

No worries Donmar - that happens to me very frequently. And then I have to go back (smile).

A quick understanding of the Articles of Confederation from Khan Academy:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Khan Academy

What led to the Articles of Confederation being deemed ineffective?

Shay's Rebellion:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Kahn Academy

Brief Overview of The Constitutional Convention:

Two parts - video (short)

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

and:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Khan Academy

Brief Overview of The US Constitution:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Khan Academy

The Federalist Papers

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

Source: Khan Academy

An Introduction to Alexander Hamilton:

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-c...

Source: Khan Academy

Some of the very brief short videos that I have added will help some of you get up to speed on the backdrop of The Federalist or as it has now been called The Federalist Papers.

There is a brief video on the Articles of Confederation, The Bill of Rights (write-up), video on the Constitutional Convention, Shay's Rebellion, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers (write-up) and Alexander Hamilton. All of these are very brief but highlight the most salient points easily and effortlessly.

Bentley wrote:

"Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they created with this tax bill)"

Yes, Bentley. Among the things that appalled me is a more than 18% reduction in block grants given to the states to provide funding for section 8 housing vouchers.

We need to be aware that the personal tax cuts are only temporary and will expire while the corporate cuts are permanent. As the debt burden mounts the simplest solution to the budget problem will be to let the individual cuts expire and leave the burden of paying off the debts to individual income earners. This sort of vote buying going into the 2018 mid term elections was one of the very things Hamilton was warning us against in Federalist One.

And with that I will be silent awhile while I peruse the new links.

Jeffrey I agree - I have never thought that some of the things going on in the past couple of years would ever have happened here but I have seen things deteriorating for awhile in terms of empathy and looking out for the country as a whole. Many different factional groups which seem to hold court in our government.

That is right. The cuts that we enjoy are transitory yet the corporations which do not need them are permanent. How does that happen in a free country. You hit the nail on the head - vote buying. There is no problem expressing your thoughts here on either side of the equation. And actually it makes one sad. But we cannot be like ostriches sticking our heads in the sand and thinking miraculously that things are going to get better without involvement.

I have no idea what happened with Roberts and Citizens United. That was bizarre and he has honestly since not been inequitable which has surprised me since that ruling. In fact, he has strived to be fair. But what he did in that one case was extremely aggressive and he made that outcome. I could not understand that - then or now.

And honestly I cannot understand the voters who said they voted for somebody because they would shake things up. Who needs that? What we want are deliberate, reasoned, reasonable, civil, reflective, having the ability to analyze, discuss, debate and compromise and come to an inclusive decision. I do not remember our founding fathers saying anything about stirring the pot and creating divisiveness except in our warnings about choice and whether a people was capable of reflective choices in the first place. Anyway I digress and look forward to Federalist 2 because that is going to have us discussing "immigration". No worries there (smile).

Everyone, we have opened Federalist Two and that will prove (I am sure) to be another stirring conversation.

Here is the link:

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "Jeffrey wrote:

"I recall some people (like James Wilson? who wanted a strong federal gov't) argued that the Bill of Rights actually strengthened the federal gov't the thinking being if they could guarantee those rights they could also take them away."

This is a good point. It was with this in mind that the 2nd Amendment was put into place. "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Put aside the latest 2nd Amendment discussion and just consider that the right to own and bear arms is to insure the availability of the minuteman to put down a government that may become to tyrannical. As we have discussed the ability of modern Americans to reflect, reason, debate, etc., I wonder if we would have the wherewithal to recognize the need for revolution and if so would we have the courage and sense of justice that allowed the founders to play the roles they did in 1776.

This causes me to wonder if the National Guard has ever been stood down from being federalized for the War on Terror. Is the Guard back in the ands of their respective Governors? Is the Guard adequate to carry out the role intended for militia in the 2nd Amendment? How bad would things have to get for "We the people..." in invoke the 2nd Amendment for its intended use? If a group of governors sought to use the Guard as minutemen (militia) to put down a renegade US Govt. what would stop the president from just federalizing them to take them out of the fight?

Bentley, this may be too much of a sidebar if so I leave my comments in your hands. But Jeffery's comments got these thought rolling in my mind.

Bentley wrote: "Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they created with this tax ..."

I agree with you Bentley regarding the handling of taxes. I wonder if the government doe, in point of fact, follow a constitutional process for originating new taxes and providing oversight for government spending. I think there are a lot of things that could be taken out of the federal budget that are just waste. I think it is time for major tax reform.

I agree with the idea of a flat tax. Everyone and every corporation pay the same percentage on income with no loopholes. Then put in place checks and balances that require our government to stay within their means and dare I be so bold as to state that a percentage of revenues should be set aside for times of national emergency.

Bentley wrote: "The Federalist Two thread is now open.

Link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...

But remember each thread will discuss each Federalist paper specifically so if you have additional ..."

Bentley could you post the link to the glossary thread for this discussion I am having trouble finding it. Thank you in advance sorry to be a bother.

Michael wrote:

"I agree with the idea of a flat tax. Everyone and every corporation pay the same percentage on income with no loopholes."

I opposed the idea of a flat tax. People who benefit the most from stable government and have the greater ability to pay for that benefit should pay a higher share of the cost. As to loopholes I deplore our present government's failure to close any. Even under a flat tax plan there would still be dark money contributions to electoral campaigns and paid consultants walking the halls of congress. A flat tax plan would never be a real flat tax unless these abuses are corrected.

Bentley wrote: "Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they created with this tax ..."

Money was never taken out of a trust fund and SS would still be unfunded. This is basically incorrect. The Trust Fund is debt, it was debt purchased by investors and which the government pays interest on.

I work as an actuary. SS is going broke faster than predicted because the disability portion's payments exceeded the payroll taxes around 2003? and congress took the payroll taxes used to pay SS to fund disability.

The payroll taxes will pay about 73% when the trust fund is exhausted (the debt raised by the gov't) in 2032. Luckily that 73% ratio is fairly constant for the next 50 years according to the SS administration's models.

Michael - here is the glossary thread - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Jeffrey wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they create..."

Jeffrey - they have borrowed against social security which had a surplus and Johnson borrowed against it for the Vietnam War, so did Reagan and George W by the way. There are many reputable articles and stats about it. Remember if Gore had gotten in - he was talking about the lockbox for it. But he did not. Presidents from both parties have been guilty.

I used SS as an example - but it is not something that the founding fathers ever talked about (lol).

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/25/news/...

Michael wrote:

"This causes me to wonder if the National Guard has ever been stood down from being federalized for the War on Terror. Is the Guard back in the ands of their respective Governors? Is the Guard adequate to carry out the role intended for militia in the 2nd Amendment? How bad would things have to get for "We the people..." in invoke the 2nd Amendment for its intended use? "

I don't think the National Guard could ever function against the government. Consider back to Little Rock when Governor Faubus tried to block integration in Arkansas, President Eisenhower simply called up the Arkansas National Guard and placed them under Federal control after the Mayor of Little Rock requested help directly from Eisenhower.

With a three way balance of power I think it unlikely that one branch of government could gain enough power and influence to exert tyrannical control. In the instance I mentioned, both the President and the Court were in agreement and I expect the Congress also but do not know that for certain. Probably the House if not the Senate.

Jeffrey wrote: "Michael wrote:

"I agree with the idea of a flat tax. Everyone and every corporation pay the same percentage on income with no loopholes."

I opposed the idea of a flat tax. People who benefit the ..."

I agree with one of the Jeffreys - I am getting confused like I am speaking to a person with a split personality and then I remember there are two of you (lol).

Michael wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Exactly Jeffrey and I wonder what else they are going to cut out for struggling Americans (and they will then say in the interest of cutting the ballooning deficit which they create..."

Yes, a major tax reform of the one that they just did and more.

Sanford Levinson further discusses Federalist 2:

'Reading the news or listening to political speeches today, it's clear that there are many "Federalist No. 2 Publians" in 21st-century America who are concerned—perhaps even terrified—that the American "we" is becoming irreparably fragmented.

Our national motto, "E pluribus unum," suggests that whatever their apparent differences, Americans ultimately achieve a necessary unity. How is this to be attained?

Some believe that it is enough to share a commitment to the political vision outlined in the Preamble or a willingness to be bound by decisions reached through the institutional procedures the Constitution has established. Others believe more is required—that, for example, there should also be a commitment to accept English as the only "American" language. (This position was articulated by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal during his truncated campaign for the presidency.) The proponents of this view presumably applaud the declaration in Article 2 of the French Constitution of 1958 that "[t]he language of the Republic shall be French." No nonsense there about "multiculturalism" and the recognition of multiple languages within the polity, as one finds, for example, in Canada or in what is often called the world's largest democracy, India.

In 2004, the late Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington published his last book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. He adopted a "Publian" reading of our history, asserting that "the American people who achieved independence in the late eighteenth century were few and homogeneous: overwhelmingly white (thanks to the exclusion of blacks and Indians from citizenship), British, and Protestant, broadly sharing a common culture, and overwhelmingly committed to the political principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents." Huntington despaired that this world was irredeemably lost. America is now fully multiracial, with many ethnicities and religions represented in the American "mosaic."

Huntington noted the increasing multilingualism generated primarily by the vast new numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants, whom he feared were far less likely to leave their initial language than were Asians, another growing segment of the American populace.

Huntington warned that we should not blithely assume that the post–Civil War United States would maintain itself into the indefinite future.

He explicitly rejected the wisdom of relying only on what might be termed "constitutional attachment," describing this as the "classic Enlightenment-based, civic concept of a nation," in which "nationalism" was predicated entirely on commitment to abstract propositions. "History and psychology, however, suggest that this is unlikely to be enough to sustain a nation for long." Instead, he called for renewed emphasis on the "core culture" that he believed dominated in 1787.

He emphasized that his call for returning to an "Anglo-Protestant culture" did not mean privileging "Anglo-Protestant people"—non–Anglo-Protestants could assimilate to that culture, just as immigrants to France are expected to take on the trappings of "Frenchness," beginning with language.

Critics accused Huntington of nostalgia for an America controlled by persons of his own Anglo-Protestant background. Harsher analyses were offered as well. You need only think of some of the reactions to the prospect of immigration by Muslim refugees from Syria to realize the more ominous implications of embracing Huntington's analysis in full.

But you need not agree with Huntington's analysis in order to wonder if there are, in fact, limits to the heterogeneity that a society can welcome if it would try to achieve what the Constitution calls a "Republican Form of Government." Does such a government require a version of "We the People" that, at the very least, shares important ideological presuppositions, even if they are expressed in different national languages?

Consider the limitation of American law, going back to the initial naturalization law of 1795, that no one shall be eligible for naturalization—in effect being "reborn" as a full "American" to replace one's former civic identity—unless the applicant for citizenship has been resident within the United States for at least five years; shown himself or herself to be "a person of good moral character"; and, crucially, is "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States."

In one of the most eloquent judicial opinions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated punishment of Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to salute the American flag, Justice Robert Jackson wrote, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." You might wonder how this magnificent credo of American liberty coexists with the demand that would-be citizens demonstrate attachment "to the principles of the Constitution."

Many of us, I suspect, are hesitant simply to hope for the best with regard to those who wish to enter the United States. I know that I have qualms about certain sizeable groups of immigrants who have come from undemocratic, indeed anti-democratic, countries and, because they live together in this country and recreate their own versions of their former cultures, may be contemptuous of some of the assumptions required to operate a republican form of government.

Of course, one might argue that it is far too late in the day for such fears. Given the extent to which our political system is so wholly committed to interest-group politics, perhaps it is completely legitimate for a voter to be concerned exclusively with his or her private interests, including those "partial" groups she identifies with, as opposed to a completely fictitious "We the [one] People of the United States."

These concerns are not limited to the United States. As a frequent visitor to Israel, I have wondered more than once if the significant immigration from the former Soviet Union was altogether good for Israel, inasmuch as many of those immigrants appear to have little commitment to pluralistic democracy and recognition of the equal status of their Arab co-citizens.

Israel, it should be noted, differs from the United States in granting immediate citizenship, under the Law of Return, to any Jew who declares that he or she wishes to be a part of the Jewish homeland. Not only can these immigrants vote immediately; they can also stand for election to the Israeli Knesset and therefore play an important role in Israeli politics.

In the United States, on the other hand, one must be a resident for five years, to give the newcomer time to assimilate prior to the award of citizenship. Moreover, one of the more obscure clauses of the Constitution requires that naturalized citizens wait even longer—seven and nine years, respectively, after becoming citizens—before they are eligible to serve in the House of Representatives or the Senate. They remain permanently ineligible to become president. I personally object to these limitations and the de facto "second-class citizenship" they create, but they do speak to the kinds of concerns expressed by Publius.

Perhaps the success of the United States is sufficient to render irrelevant the fact that Publius was simply wrong about the homogeneity of American society in 1787. But we've never stopped debating the merit of his underlying assumption: that the system of government he was so eager to support can work only if the American people share both a common heritage and a vision of a collective future and that genuine multiculturalism is dangerous. I hope, and believe, that Publius was wrong, but we do ourselves no favor if we ignore the questions he raises.

Discussion Questions:

1. Your thoughts on Sanford Levinson's essay? Or anything to do with Federalist 2?

Sources: Levinson's book - already noted and Slate