The Statist Constitution, Ctd.
Given my post this morning arguing that there is no more evidence for a narrow interpretation of the body of the Constitution than there is for a broad interpretation, Alex Knapp’s quoting of Alexander Hamilton’s interpretation of that body is fortuitously timed.
If you like that, you’re gonna love this radio show: http://www.onpointradio.org/2011/01/congress-constitutionReport
Hamilton’s a tough one to figure out how to use appropriately. On the one hand, he was one of the two leading figures in pushing for a revision of the Articles of Confederation, so he’s as responsible for the Constitution as anyone else, maybe more so. On the other hand, he didn’t play that much role in the actual shaping of it because he was too divisive a figure, so while he was a delegate to the convention, he didn’t say a lot and didn’t always attend.
Then again, he is one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, which are our primary guide to original understandings. Then again, he was known to want a more powerful government than just about anyone else, so his views weren’t necessarily really representative.
Not to criticize referencing the quote. I just find Hamilton fascinating, perhaps the most intelligent of any of the Founders and certainly the one with the best insight into the future, but difficult to know how far we ought to rely on his thoughts about the Constitution. He can neither be ignored nor wholly taken at face value.Report