Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

In the face of overwhelming evidence that a majority of the Founding Fathers were indeed big-government socialists, my opponent has resorted to semantic nitpicking and irrelevant arguments. As this debate is a staggering 5 rounds, I will try to be brief. Rebuttals:1. State constitutions are irrelevant in determining the political orientation of the Founding FathersIn the last round, my opponent claimed that "[w]e are a Federation of States, so the State Constitutions are equally important as the Federal Constitution." This is patently false, and calls into question whether my opponent has ever even fully read the U.S. Constitution. According to the "Supremacy Clause" in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." [1]In other words, federal laws always trump state laws, including state constitutions. This reflects the Founding Father's weariness with federalism and their desire to form a stronger national government in the wake of the disastrous disorganization under the Articles of Confederation. This is why the Preamble to the Constitution provides that the federal government derives its sovereignty directly from "the People of the United States" rather than the states themselves, [2] and why Hamilton and John Jay claimed in Federalist #20 that "a sovereignty over sovereigns, a government over governments, a legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals, as it is a solecism in theory, so in practice it is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity." [3]Given how hostile our Founding Fathers were towards state sovereignty, my opponent's citation to the provisions of earlier state constitutions is utterly irrelevant in determining the political values of the Founding Fathers, who - as we already agreed - are those who specifically drafted the federal U.S. Constitution in 1787.2. Compensating property owners after seizing their property by force is not a "purchase" In the last round, my opponent made an argument that, when the federal government takes property through the power of eminent domain, "they [do] not seize the land, they [purchase] it [because] just compensation is required." This is absurd. Taking property from non-consenting owners cannot be characterized as a "purchase" merely because the government provides some form of compensation. Purchases are consensual transactions; eminent domain has nothing to do with consent.On a related note, I agree with my opponent that the 5th Amendment is a restrictive clause. Because the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, [4], however, the 5th Amendment serves as proof that some other provision of the Constitution permits the federal government to actually use the power of eminent domain. Otherwise, the Takings Clause wouldn't make any sense, because there wouldn't be a reason to restrict a power that didn't exist.Thus, through his rebuttal to my point on the Takings Clause, my opponent has unwittingly acknowledged the existence of certain implied powers (like eminent domain) through the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article 1, sec. 8. Alexander Hamilton, for example, cited the implied powers of the Necessary and Proper Clause to justify the creation of the first national bank, [5] which, as I stated earlier, the First Senate unanimously approved. Yet more proof that our Founding Fathers were big government socialists.3. The Federalist Party's policies were socialistMy opponent claims that the Federalist Party "was not in favor of redistributive policies, they were for economic nationalist policies." This is semantic hairsplitting, given the fact that industry-specific subsidies ("bounties") and tarriffs are by their very nature redistributive. My opponent further cites the fact that some national banks "predate[d] socialism," but this is an unfair semantic loophole, given that the word "socialism" itself only became popularized almost 100 years after the Founding Fathers existed. Regardless of whether or not the word "socialism" actually existed at the time of the Founding Fathers, their economic policies were indisputably socialist. Given that Karl Marx advocated for the creation of national banks as a key plank in his Communist Manifesto, I think it is fair to attribute the Federalist Party's enthusiastic support for a national bank in America as evidence of their socialist views.Due to time constraints, I will reserve the balance of my arguments for Round 5, including a breakdown of the actual political orientation of the Founding Fathers my opponent mentioned in Round 2.Sources:[1] http://www.usconstitution.net...;(emphasis added)[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...;[3] http://thomas.loc.gov...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] http://www.constitution.org...;s