National Leader of Yakutia G.V. Ksenofontov and Political Parties in 1917

The present study examines the attitude of one of the national leaders of Yakutia G.V. Ksenofontov to the political parties operating in the Yakutsk region in 1917. A lawyer and politician G.V. Ksenofontov became one of the founders of the national party – the Yakut Labor Union of Federalists, whose pro-gram combined the ideas of a federal structure of Russia, Siberian regionalism and popular socialism. The analysis of the archives and periodicals shows that the Yakut Federalists collaborated with the So-cialist-Revolutionary Party, were involved in a politi-cal struggle against local organizations of the Ka-dets and Social Democrats. G.V. Ksenofontov was nominated as a candidate for membership in the Constituent Assembly from the Federalist Party. During the pre-election campaign, an active polemic was waged, the Federalists criticized the Kadets and Social Democrats for their negative attitude towards the idea of federation. The Party of People's Free-dom was perceived as bourgeois, and in the ideolo-gy of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party the leaders of ethnic intelligentsia were repulsed by the orientation of the Social Democrats towards the proletariat, which was practically absent in the Ya-kutsk region. The bloc of Socialist-Revolutionaries and Federalists operated in the government bodies and in the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The election results showed that the union of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Federalists enjoyed support of the local population. As a result of the study, it was concluded that the history of Yakutia during the Russian Revolution of 1917 had its own characteristics. G.V. Ksenofontov contributed heavi-ly to the political development of the region, his activity as the leader of the Federalist Party and a candidate for membership in the Constituent As-sembly promoted an increase in the level of political literacy of the population, prepared the Yakut socie-ty for the transition to a new level of its develop-ment, for the formation of statehood, the creation of Yakutsk Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic.

The Scion

John J. Marshall was a brilliant lawyer, able circuit court judge, and promising politician whose career would be stunted by inconvenient political views and the grave misfortunes of uncertain economic times. The son of Humphrey Marshall, the lion of the Kentucky Federalist Party, he bore that distinguished family name and an onerous financial debt with equanimity and grace. This allowed him to remain in communion with an abolitionist brother-in-law and his pro-slavery family.

New Light on the Sedition Act of 1798: The Missing Half of the Prosecutions

Federalist enforcement machinery ground out at least seventeen verifiable indictments. Fourteen were found under the Sedition Act, and three were returned under the common law … .James Morton Smith A spate of recent books, and even a smash Broadway musical (Hamilton), have celebrated the Federalist Party for state-building, active government, decisive leadership, forward-looking plans, and other political virtues. However, the rehabilitation of the Federalists cannot succeed without successfully confronting the Alien and Sedition Acts, which the Hamiltonian Federalists sponsored and which the recent books tend to speak softly about (and to which the musical does not give a song).

Living Originalism

Until very recently, same-sex marriage would have been regarded as a contradiction in terms. Today, questioning the merits of this novel institution is treated as rank bigotry, and the extraordinary rapidity of the change has been widely noted. Another recent development, perhaps not unrelated, has been the marriage of originalism and living constitutionalism. As an academic theory, originalism arose to counter what was seen as lawless adventurism in the Warren and Burger Courts, displayed especially in opinions that invoked the Fourteenth Amendment without a meaningful effort to interpret its text or to show that the decisions had anything to do with the original purpose of the Amendment. As an academic theory, living constitutionalism, or noninterpretivism, arose in defense of these decisions, which were seen as worthy innovations. Advocates on both sides thought the two theories were irreconcilable. Originalists maintained that judges should respect the original meaning of the written Constitution, namely its text, read when necessary in light of its enactors’ purposes. Noninterpretivists insisted that the original meaning is often impossible to identify and frequently should not be controlling in any event. Professor Jack M. Balkin’s “living originalism” seeks to eliminate the opposition between these theories, and he is open about his agenda: “The notion that in order for liberals to believe in a living Constitution they have to reject originalism in all of its forms is the biggest canard ever foisted on them.” To adapt President Jefferson’s famous statement in his First Inaugural Address, Balkin exhorts us to agree that we are all originalists, we are all living constitutionalists. Perhaps he hopes to hasten the day when originalists meet the same fate as the Federalist Party. If so, he has already made substantial progress. This essay begins with a brief summary of the core features of Balkin’s theory. It then shows that one of his most prominent converts has abandoned originalism, mistakenly believing that Balkin has shown what originalism truly is.