[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the delegates, no doubt, did not maintain a consistent opinion as to what the Constitution meant or what they wanted the federal government to be- not even in the short time between the Convention and the completion of ratification. Randolph did not support ratification, but he did support the Constitution once it was ratified and in operation. At the Convention Hamilton proposed ideas that none of the other delegates took seriously, but he eventually supported the watered-down Constitution that was ratified.

Original intent cannot be consistently and reliably found outside of the Constitutional Convention, and Madison’s Notes are the main record of what was actually discussed and approved by the Constitutional Convention- but they were not published until decades after the Convention meaning no one had a reliable record of original intent.

BTW: The official Journal of the Constitutional Convention essentially didn't record anything but the votes that were taken, and I gather that the Journal isn't always supported by Madison's Notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

the position you take on a policy almost irrelevant. when you discuss a policy, (federalist, anti federalist), it gives a deep understanding of the issues and how the issues were thought of.

your position is not that we don't know exactly the disposition of favoriablity of the policy, your position is that we today *cannot* know what they were even talking about. which is clearly incorrect.