So he is against expanding democracy but as we know it did expand but his counter is the Concurrent Majority. This argument is both enlightening and shocking.

It is enlightening because it shows the vocal minor factions idea that they are the public. Its belief that if enough of the minority can be created or unified against the majority being the majority is 50 percent or less then the Concurrent Majority view is correct.

This is shocking. This is an endorsement of Clay's corrupt bargain of 1824. I am going to use this document for this and Calhoun on nullification.

Its shocking because it shows in my opinion modern american political thought. It is not about compromise to get the job done but compromise to prevent change.

It is also shocking because it can create moments were a majority is defeated especially if disenfranchisement happens as in today with voting rights, gerrymandering, etc. Or the 50 percent majority does not fully assert its will and people do not participate in the government.

It further gives arguments to obstructionists that the Constitution is designed as a government not to change. It is an interesting commentary on today's society.

This is an interesting older distinction of the words being Federal made up of states and National as some kind of unitary government

This is such an interesting argument because Lincoln is saying because of ratification and non-mention of sovereignty for the states in the Constitution the states have NONE. That all states have come to the Constitution (or problem) meaning they have accepted the contract (bad or good). That the contract (Constitution) has not been forced on them but they have of their own will chosen to abide by it. And that Texas / California is the only states that could give a sovereignty argument for a right to nullify. And that any violation outside of the Constitution of article 6 is revolution.

Such interesting reasoning and casts a new light on the ideas of the radical republicans and the 14th amendment creating a new Constitution especially in regards to Madison's 20th proposed amendment from 1789 being similar to the 14th.

This has given me a new perspective on how the Constitution should have worked and its subsequent nullification by Southern states with the end of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the states rights argument. I am planning on adapting my 14th amendment lesson plan to reflect this idea

Used this before about sovereignty and the Constitution but now I have a quote but it brings up an interesting discussion about states rights in class and amendment 10.

It seems as this is a reference to Calhoun's argument of nullification and Lincoln's attempt to debunk it.

Also, I interpret this response to mean that the argument of nullification is of much greater importance as legal theory at this time in history then we currently give it credit. That said, understanding Calhoun's argument has given me new and significant insight into the continuing argument of states rights.

This seems short sighted and gives the president a great expansion of power.

This does not seem to be guaranteeing government but is that consolidation that was warned of. It is against the idea of divided sovereignty of the Constitution.

1. Governments need only one head and 2. There were/ are too many different cultures int the U.S to make it work.

Is this still true?

Do we expect too much of our government?

Especially, "but for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men", very Cicero and an attack on the Federalists.

It is these motives that we should look at when divining changes to the Constitution. This said, Richard Henry Lee, was from Virginia and concerned about keeping slavery. So, his motives are not entirely pure

What is the "National Council"? The inconsistency of the federalists and their constant changing of the operation of the Constitution is frustrating.

Was this PR by any means necessary, naivete, or ignorance? Was this the national council as illustrated by Federal Farmer, the constitution's government, meant to be an adjudicator of a confederation? Or.

As Federal Farmer points out, it seems the Federalist always wanted a consolidated singular government without states.

I believe the personal motivations of the framers can not be taken out of the consideration when thinking about the push for the Constitution and its design.

The hubris of this line is laughable

Curious, about this definition. Does "Honor" encompass self-interest as a portion of happiness?

Defining common interests is key but what well-being is and for who is of importance in getting to Artistole's "true" government

So interesting, as I read this I believe Cicero is saying the goal of a government is its end. And, that this end is dignity. Which, I agree with Julie can be interpreted as not causing humiliation.<br> But if this is the main point of government, then what is its purpose?<br> I believe dignity has a much wider meaning but I am uncertain of that meaning.

I find this interesting as an argument that lack of responsibility causes the downfall because the government over extends and begins to give power to the lower classes.<br> It is a current argument used against social welfare programs.<br> It seems problematic with the idea of equality or is Montesquieu worried about equal of outcomes and not opportunity

This notion seems very parochial. That a constitution is determined more by the geography.<br> So by Rousseau's reasoning the United States is and was a farming / agrarian and should be representative of that idea. The fact that the current society has not reflected an agrarian society for at minimum 90 years since urban population surpassed rural would I believe in Rousseau's ideas denote a change in government.

I find this idea intriguing.