Sentences with phrase «n't federalist»

Wouldn't federalist want * more * people to be executed, because the states could avoid further proceedings by killing the people now?

Not exact matches

That's not to say that Carey doesn't often succeed in highlighting stuff about THE FEDERALIST that its partisans would rather slight.

Even FEDERALIST 49 might be understood to be a bit too ironic about it, by saying straight out the «veneration which time bestows on everything,» whether it's really good or not.

And Amar and others such as his colleague Bruce Ackerman (leaders of what Wills terms the «Yale school of nullification») have been arguing that the Federalists were not altogether successful, leaving room in our constitutional government for exceptional moments of popular intervention on behalf of a fundamental reorientation of American politics.

THE FEDERALIST makes it all too clear that the connection between being old and recalcitrant and being good isn't reasonable.

We shouldn't confuse THE FEDERALIST with the Constitution.

It's not so clear to me — contra Berkowitz — why anyone who reads THE FEDERALIST would know that the Obama mandate is unconstitutional in a way that would compel our Supreme Court to declare it void.

In teaching THE FEDERALIST, we can't neglect the fact that it's a partisan document, designed both to get the Constitution ratified and spin how it will be interpreted down the road.

So the reason THE FEDERALIST is LIBERAL EDUCATION is that's a great tool for teaching how to follow partisan but deep political arguments in tough — but not that tough (each FEDERALIST is pretty self - contained and short, for one thing)-- texts.

That not superfluous adantage of veneration is the theme of FEDERALIST 49.

The least we can say is that JUDICIAL REVIEW as a tool for containing the relatively tame national legislature described in FEDERALIST 10 is not a prominent theme in THE FEDERALIST.

If it can be shown, after all, that the founding Federalists were opposed to any government that promoted a particular conception of the good life, might we not then say that Laurence Tribe's and Eleanor Smeal's defense of «reproductive freedom» as a constitutional right is consistent with the principles of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay?

My purpose, therefore, is not to provide a systematic critique of the book, but rather to comment on two of its more interesting aspects, namely: (1) its argument that the Federalists, in writing the Constitution, were actually defending the principle of the «neutral» state, and (2) its attempt to apply «neutral state» principles to the issues of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

While not necessarily the best policy, accommodating experiments in the «laboratories of democracy» represents smart politics: it fits with Republican notions of states» rights and federalist self - determination, but is also consistent with the overwhelming support cannabis legalisation enjoys among the Democratic base.

If it is impossible for ordinary Conservative opinion to sit with mainstream European progressive Federalists and Socialists then I am not surprised, we are not like them and if this means there is no democracy for us in Europe then I daresay you are rejoicing.

So seemingly «weird «legislation is not the result of some federalist conspiracy or EU power grab, it's integral to the core economic purpose of the EU.

Indeed, the history of the Federalists and the Whigs bears this out - not every minority party eventually returns to the majority.

But Douglas Carswell, who wants to leave the EU, said: «I hope it's a left - wing federalist who goes native immediately because that will be an important demonstration that we can not win in Europe and when the referendum comes any sensible Conservative will vote to leave.»

But that won't make Republican lawmakers as happy as you might think, because of the GOP's longstanding internal conflict between pursuing reform from Washington and abiding by its federalist, small - government principles.

However, one point that is missing from Ryan's otherwise comprehensive article is how a conservative court would reconcile its federalist inclinations with a holding that states can not provide a «more spacious» conception of church - state separation.

A national purpose is not a federal program... I actually think that the best way to do this is to use the federalist model.

We shouldn't trade our federalist birthright for a national - curriculum mess of pottage.

But we must not discard the proven constitutional discipline of our federalist system.

We don't have major federal funding earmarked for schools, but we do have equalization payments that (I believe) are more robust than the US federalist model.

Muhlenberg was a «low» Federalist, not as all - out for central power as the Hamiltonian Federalists, but loyal to President Washington.

Unfortunately, with the not so popular arch federalist Martin Schulz who wants a full blown Union with EU members transferring sovreignity to Brussels.

In our federalist society, it is not the burden of North Dakota's citizens to ask Congress in Washington, D.C. to clear up its contradictory and confusing regulations concerning Cannabis; it is their right to grow industrial hemp pursuant to their own state law and the United States Constitution,» adds Steenstra.

In the ratification debate, both Federalists and anti-Federalists shared the view that judges were not to be «punished for want of judgment.»

And here's another sure sign that the jurisprudence in this area is a complete mess: federalist doesn't even seem to know what side he's on.