Quote from jprad:
Wrong! Which is quite surprising coming from someone who supposedly read the Federalist Papers.
It was the anti-federalists, who opposed ratification of the Constitution, that feared a tyranny of the elite.
Save it. I have no interest in discussing the fictional Lincoln that a bunch of ranting, paranoid gold-bugs have created in their revisionist history.
What an astounding idiot.
Notable Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton, were against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights because they thought it would be interpreted restrictively as the
only Rights afforded to the People. Their concerns were that a Bill of Rights WOULD LIMIT FREEDOM.
Anti-Federalists were against ratification of the Constitutions First Draft, a Constitution
that didn't include the Bill of Rights, but only those powers afforded to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Anti-Federalists felt Liberty needed to be enumerated, otherwise, Tyranny would result.
Both sides were 100% pro-Freedom and anti-Tyranny, dipstick. The only difference between either camp was
HOW BEST TO PROTECT IT.
Federalist thought States would be the best defenders of it. While Anti's wanted it defined in the Constitution.
What else.
The well-documented contemptuous smite the Founders had for Central Banks is now "fiction", huh? Now you're gonna protest that Lincoln wasn't a Founder so his assailing of Central Banks is irrelevant!!! LOL
As for the Constitution, its obvious to anyone with a half nut rolling around it was designed to thwart a Tyranny of the Minority, aka Government, aka the Powerful Interests that influence/control it.
Let me give you a clue. Special Interests weren't an invention of the 21st Century!
Google General Smedly Butler and take it in, nice and deep.
