I've just finished reading the most recently posted blogs about the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers. (and there was a fire alarm...aaargh!) Your posts look good overall, but some of you were very confused about what the papers actually said. I'm hoping that some of the incorrect summaries I saw on your posts were resolved in our class discussion today.
Some interesting points and/or topics for further discussion that were not mentioned in class, but were mentioned in your blogs are: 1. the necessary and proper clause - does this affect us today? in what way(s)? 2. the idea that the anti-federalist paper was less informative and more inflammatory than the federalist paper - what does this tell you about the authors? the audiences? Our class discussions develop organically. In other words, I don't usually have a set "lecture" or list of things that you "should get" from the readings. I let your comments direct discussion. In other words, if you have something you want to discuss...speak up!!!
See you tomorrow. Remember that all the readings "go together," or inform each other. Try to make connections when you can.