large/475/federalist_papers_librivox_64kb_mp3/federalist-papers_40_64kb_28
large/475/federalist_papers_librivox_64kb_mp3/federalist-papers_40_64kb
English
475
They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. Do they require that the members of the government should derive their appointment from the legislatures, not from the people of the States? THEY ARE SO REGARDED BY THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED DO THEY REQUIRE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DERIVE THEIR APPOINTMENT FROM THE LEGISLATURES NOT FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES
 alter old ones. Must it of necessity be admitted that this power is infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain? Those who maintain the affirmative ought at least to mark the boundary between authorized and usurped innovations; between that degree of change which lies within the compass of ALTERATIONS AND FURTHER PROVISIONS, and that which amounts to a TRANSMUTATION of the government. Will it be said that the alterations ought not to have touched the substance of the Confederation? The States would never have appointed a convention with so much solemnity, nor described its objects with so much latitude, if some SUBSTANTIAL reform had not been in contemplation. Will it be said that the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of the Confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? T NEW ARTICLES TO ALTER OLD ONES MUST IT OF NECESSITY BE ADMITTED THAT THIS POWER IS INFRINGED SO LONG AS A PART OF THE OLD ARTICLES REMAIN THOSE WHO MAINTAIN THE AFFIRMATIVE OUGHT AT LEAST TO MARK THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AUTHORIZED AND USURPED INNOVATIONS BETWEEN THAT DEGREE OF CHANGE WHICH LIES WITHIN THE COMPASS OF ALTERATIONS AND FURTHER PROVISIONS AND THAT WHICH AMOUNTS TO A TRANSMUTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT WILL IT BE SAID THAT THE ALTERATIONS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE TOUCHED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONFEDERATION THE STATES WOULD NEVER HAVE APPOINTED A CONVENTION WITH SO MUCH SOLEMNITY NOR DESCRIBED ITS OBJECTS WITH SO MUCH LATITUDE IF SOME SUBSTANTIAL REFORM HAD NOT BEEN IN CONTEMPLATION WILL IT BE SAID THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFEDERATION WERE NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CONVENTION AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN VARIED I ASK WHAT ARE THESE PRINCIPLES DO THEY REQUIRE THAT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION THE STATES SHOULD BE REGARDED AS DISTINCT AND INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS
large/475/federalist_papers_librivox_64kb_mp3/federalist-papers_40_64kb
file
download/librilight/large/475/federalist_papers_librivox_64kb_mp3/federalist-papers_40_64kb.flac