Comments on: Classical Republican-ism v. Liberal-ism: Not The Ratification Debates http://www.matthewjpeterson.com/2009/08/04/classical-republican-ism-v-liberal-ism-not-the-ratification-debates/ Matthew J. Peterson, ABD Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:18:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: matthewjpeterson http://www.matthewjpeterson.com/2009/08/04/classical-republican-ism-v-liberal-ism-not-the-ratification-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-10 matthewjpeterson Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:59:19 +0000 http://matthewjpeterson.wordpress.com/?p=85#comment-10 Remember that our forebears saw executive power as a check upon the aristocracy and a necessary part of government (sorely lacking in the sparklingly new state constitiutions). As for "means, not ends," I will indeed blog more about it. Remember that our forebears saw executive power as a check upon the aristocracy and a necessary part of government (sorely lacking in the sparklingly new state constitiutions).

As for “means, not ends,” I will indeed blog more about it.

]]> By: Robert C. Cheeks http://www.matthewjpeterson.com/2009/08/04/classical-republican-ism-v-liberal-ism-not-the-ratification-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Robert C. Cheeks Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:54:21 +0000 http://matthewjpeterson.wordpress.com/?p=85#comment-6 But then, don't you think that the 'Constitution', established behind closed doors and in perfect secrecy, is a flawed document, unworthy of our forebearers because it fails at the first principle, namely to check the libido dominandi, by a disproportionate empowerment of the executive. And, I would be most appreciative if you might blog on this: "...it was because their dispute with the Federalists concerned means, not ends.”[1] But then, don’t you think that the ‘Constitution’, established behind closed doors and in perfect secrecy, is a flawed document, unworthy of our forebearers because it fails at the first principle, namely to check the libido dominandi, by a disproportionate empowerment of the executive.
And, I would be most appreciative if you might blog on this: “…it was because their dispute with the Federalists concerned means, not ends.”[1]

]]>