Month: October 2021

This video is the first in a series I plan to do from time to time covering the particular issues during the ratification period between September 1787 and July 1788. That topic will be approached with the best, most influential, most commonly held beliefs that divided the Federalists from the Anti-Federalists.
Today we will be looking at A speech given by James Wilson on October 6th in Philadelphia. This speech was transcribed and reprinted immediately in newspapers, pamphlets & broadsides to be disseminated throughout the several States. It was the first great defense of the proposed Constitution. and a direct reply to many of the most contentious issues among anti-federalists. Including the accusation its aim was a new national government and not an expanded federal republic, this consolidated national government would require too much power to be overseen, its terms were far to vague such that no one could find a ground on which to stand against them, The Presidency was monarchy by another name & that there was no Bill of Rights.
Wilson’s speech then was akin to our notion of the Federalist Papers today. That is to say it was the most common and well known argument in favor of ratification. It is undoubtedly the most read and most influential of all Federalists at the time.
Following that I will be reading from articles & speeches that were written or spoken as a direct rebuttal and refutation of James Wilson’s October 6th speech.

CHAPTERS

►00:00 – 08:32 – Introduction
►08:32 – 21:02 – James Wilson – Everything Which Is Not Given Is Reserved
►21:02 – 33:26 – A Democratic Federalist – What Shelter From Arbitrary Power?
►33:26 – 44:14 – Centinel II – To Avoid The Usual Fate Of Nations
►44:14 – 50:43 Cincinnatus I – How To Defeat A Monstrous Aristocracy?
►50:43 – 58:20 – An Officer Of The Late Continental Army – A Set Of Aspiring Despots Who Make Us Slaves
►58:20 – 1:04:23 – Plain Truth – I Have Answered All Objections
►1:04:23 – 1:10:11 – Cincinnatus V – Sense Where Is Your Guard! Shame Where Is Your Blush!
►1:10:11 – 1:13:16 – Conclusion

Follow & SupportTo find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:

LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a
Odysee – https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a
Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/
Anchor.fm – https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives
Libertarian Institute Contributor Page – https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/
Substack– https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/
Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page – https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/
Twitter – https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal
Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/

How to support the channel:
Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives
PayPal.Me – https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ
Venmo Donations – http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made
E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.

The upcoming fall term for the Supreme Court has a number of important cases on the docket, including two very important Second Amendment cases. The first case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen. The case will decide whether the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” is an actual right. Or conversely, if law-abiding adults who pass a biometric background check and safety training can be denied a concealed carry permit simply because permitting officials only issue concealed carry permits when they feel that the applicant has a special need.
Oral arguments for this case will be happening on November 3rd. Today I will be laying out the background on this case, we will go into detail about the question presented by the appellant as well as discussing why it is that no matter what the outcome of the case is, it will almost certainly be a true landmark case & is the first new case the court has granted cert on since McDonald v Chicago in 2010.
I will be making a couple more episodes about this case between now and when it is scheduled to start, so make sure you are subscribed to the channel and have that notification bell checked so you can follow along with me as this case progresses.

Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html

Follow & Support
To find the show on other platforms, find the articles I publish about law & moral philosophy or follow me on social media:
LBRY – https://lbry.tv/@CategoricalImperatives:a
Odysee – https://odysee.com/@CategoricalImperatives:a
Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/user/ReverendBob23/
Anchor.fm – https://anchor.fm/categoricalimperatives
Libertarian Institute Contributor Page – https://libertarianinstitute.org/author/bob-fiedler/
Substack– https://categoricalimperatives.substack.com/
Tenth Amendment Center Coontributor Page – https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/bobfielder/
Twitter – https://twitter.com/LockeanLiberal
Bitchute – https://www.bitchute.com/categoricalimperatives/

How to support the channel:
Come join me over on Patreon right now for as little at $2/month -: www.patreon.com/categoricalimperatives
PayPal.Me – https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ
Venmo Donations – http://www.venmo.com/LockeanLiberal

Show Suggestions, Ideas, Questions or Topic Request : These are best made
E-mail the Show: CategoricalImperatives@gmx.com

Categorical Imperatives is a podcast that applies legal theory and moral philosophy to discussions of current events in law, politics & culture.