Posted by
CKHustler on Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:22:54 AM
The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #24
"It has indeed been brought forward in the most vague and general form,
supported only by bold assertions, without the appearance of argument;
without even the sanction of theoretical opinions"
Im going to go ahead and ignore the part about "appearance of argument" because you average liberal today shouts out idiocy like its going out of style. In congress they may follow the above quote to a 'T' though. Its all bipartisanship when they are in power, but when republicans are in power, they are blocking every corner and avenue. Republicans do it? How Dare They!!! How do they form their arguments? With "bold assertions"...global warming!, or "stimulus asap or we are doomed" approach etc etc. "Without the appearance of argument"...Obama is a uniter right? And even without "theoretical opinions"! They never fully think through anything they do. Instead of stopping and thinking about what might actually fix our economy, they are more worried about abortions worldwide. This quote could not have done a better job summarizing our liberal friends.
"that this legislature was to be a popular body"
Now I know he didn't exactly mean popular in a sense of how much people liked them, but in being elected to represent the people. It got me thinking about our "popular" legislature though. With such a high turnaround rate for elections in both the house and senate (being 1/3 the senate every two years is elected and all the house), how could they have such a low approval rating? I also noticed that it plummeted with democrats taking it over as well. Then this last election, the majority of the people up for election, get re-elected! Are Americans really so lazy that they cannot vote on anything besides party association? I for one believe that all candidates should not have "democrat" or "republican" next to their name on the ballot. If the person voting does not know which party that person stands for, then they shouldn't be voting. I could take this a step further and I have mentioned this before on my blog. Anyone who hasn't paid positive taxes during their life cannot vote, unless they are, or have been, in the military. Those sucking off the teet of the government are not fit to help make the decisions on where this country is headed. Voting for the person that will take the most out of the coffers for you will only end in bankruptcy and dependence. I could dive into how this plan could be done, as I do not think it would be too hard, but a better time and place.
Im going to be honest about the paragraphs describing the "impartial" person perusing through information about standing armies. I find it, rather unneeded. An impartial person could not come to conclusions pointed by Hamilton as he is already steadfast in his beliefs on the subject. I do not disagree with Hamilton in the least, but I do not think the story of a made up "impartial" will convince anyone. He would be better off going through each point without the story of this third party person.
As to the descriptions of the current dangers of the union, Hamilton does a very good job at painting the picture of reality for the reader. Most of which he speaks is common sense to anyone but the most biased readers. Enemies will attack and a standing army will be necessary to defend ourselves. As true then as it is now.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke