• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions For Alexander Hamilton

Brown

Penultimate Amazing
Brown
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
12,984
TAM5 will feature Hal Bidlack as Alexander Hamilton. The purpose of this thread is to post questions that could be put to Alexander Hamilton.

(Sadly, it does not appear that I will be able to make it to TAM5. If I were able to attend, I would put some of these questions to Hamilton myself. Those who are attending should feel free to use any or all of the questions presented here.)

I urge TAM attendants: Make Bidlack do his homework! Don't ask him softball questions! Here are some questions that he ought to be able to answer:

**********

Mr. Hamilton, you once described Thomas Jefferson as a “contemptible hypocrite.” Would you please comment upon the circumstances that caused you to make such a remark about the third President of the United States?

**********

Sir: The United States Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President….” Although you yourself may have been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, you are a native of the West Indies. You were not born in what was then—or is now—the United States. As a person who would not be a “natural born Citizen,” what justification can you offer for such a provision in the Constitution?

**********

Whew! Didn’t they have deodorant in the eighteenth century??

**********

Mr. Hamilton, would it be fair to say that there was a considerable degree of uncertainty in the founding of the United States upon the Constitution of 1787; in other words, is it correct to say that the framers of the Constitution had serious doubts as to whether “any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure”?

If so…

Would you be so kind as to remark upon the judicial approach of “originalism,” in which today’s judges assume that the framers of the Constitution had every constitutional issue fully considered, and the role of the constitutional judge is to rule according to what the judges perceive to be the framers’ intent? As a lawyer and a "framer," is it wise jurisprudence to deem the framers as near-infallible?

**********

Jeez, didn’t they have mouthwash, either??

**********

Sir: In Federalist No. 65, you wrote about the subject of impeachments. You wrote: “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” In light of your remarks, would you deem it an impeachable offense for the President of the United States to engage in a de facto war against another sovereign nation, without overt provocation, without a declaration of war from the Congress, and wherein the President obtained public support for this war based upon false pretenses?
 
Mr. Hamilton, on each piece of United States currency—this ten-dollar bill, for example—the national motto of "In God We Trust" appears. Would you please comment upon the propriety of the government officially expressing an opinion upon the nature of the Almighty or His relationship to citizens?

**********

Sir: If I may be somewhat personal for a moment. Prior to your "affair of honor" with Vice President Burr, you were involved in at several other "affairs of honor" (at least eleven of them), which were resolved without gunfire. I expect that such "affairs of honor" would be alien to many of us in the audience. Could you please describe what sort of incidents could bring about "affairs of honor," and how such matters typically were resolved in your day without men shooting firearms at one another?
 
Mr. Hamilton—may I call you Al?—I would like you to address your views on national military defense, particularly the costs and benefits of a standing army versus the costs and benefits of—what you called in Federalist No. 29—a "well-regulated militia."

I might add that our Second Amendment likewise refers to a "well-regulated militia." What sort of regulations did you have in mind when using this phrase, and what body would act as regulator?

**********

It is my understanding that many of the Federalist Papers were prepared in a very short period of time. Would you deem, with hindsight, that any of those that you wrote were composed in undue haste, and that you perhaps should have given more consideration to the questions the papers addressed?
 
Brown said:
Mr. Hamilton—may I call you Al?—I would like you to address your views on national military defense, particularly the costs and benefits of a standing army versus the costs and benefits of—what you called in Federalist No. 29—a "well-regulated militia."

I might add that our Second Amendment likewise refers to a "well-regulated militia." What sort of regulations did you have in mind when using this phrase, and what body would act as regulator?
Click to expand...

I must confess I was thinking of a question in that area. Perhaps I should opt for the second part of yours ...
 
My questions...

...Mr. Hamilton, how to you respond to accusations of being

1. Jewish?
2. Black?
3. Gay?

***

Mr. Hamilton, what was the nature of your disagreement with Aaron Burr?
 
Mr. Hamilton: Aren't you troubled by the fact that you can't get anyone better than Hal Bidlack to represent your legacy?
 
A more serious question:

Mr. Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, you wrote about the importance of placing judicial power within a judicial branch, as opposed to making the legislative branch the final authority on judicial questions.

In light of these remarks, would you please comment upon the proposed doctrine of "court stripping," in which the Congress seeks to make itself the final arbiter of certain constitutional issues by depriving the judicial branch of jurisdiction to consider such issues?
 
I think we get the sexiest woman there (perhaps her name is Elaine?) to ask Mr.Hamilton if he will come up to her room and help her with her taxes....

It didn't turn out well for Mr.Hamilton when he said yes, but I think we can trust a skepchick beauty!
 
Mr. Hamilton, do you consider it fortunate that Cheney was a worse marksman than Burr, thus leaving your place in history as the only person killed by a sitting Vice President of the United States?

Follow up question: Is this going to be a trend - Vice Presidents shooting people every two hundred years?

@Kiwiwriter - I'd love to know the answer to the insult, too, but it's a question requiring creativity, not research. Smartass historians!
 
There's really no point in asking all these detailed questions. Haven't we learned from John Edward and Sylvia that the only things people will tell us from beyond the grave is that everything is OK, they love us very much, and that we need more lecithin in our diet?
 
Desktop Icon said:
There's really no point in asking all these detailed questions. Haven't we learned from John Edward and Sylvia that the only things people will tell us from beyond the grave is that everything is OK, they love us very much, and that we need more lecithin in our diet?
Click to expand...

In the 50s, they warned us all about a nuclear winter. In the 60s, they warned us about war. In the 80s, they warned us about overcrowding. In the 90s, they warned us about the environment and that we needed to save the planet. Now they are warning us about lack of lecithin??

(I don't remember what they warned us about in the 70s. It may have been Fleetwood Mac)
 
How about this one:

Sir, should the United States government ACT AS THOUGH there is no God who actively involves Himself in the affairs of government?

And if so, how would this be different from an officially "atheist" state?

(Feel free to quote from Federalist No. 51.)

Would you comment upon the jurisprudence of the following remark from the Supreme Court ( a remark which is currently accepted as a legitimate perspective in constitutional law by a majority of Justices on the Court): "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom