Posted by
CKHustler on Friday, February 06, 2009 1:32:27 AM
The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #26
"A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of
the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a
repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and
ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to
another..."
As of late I have been reading that some 7 states are proposing bills that basically tell the Federal Government that if they pass a law that is seen as unconstitutional, they can ignore it. NH, Arizona, Montana, Missouri, Michigan, Oklahoma and Washington have all proposed bills that, in a manner, will do such that. Hamilton is stating that if they take too much power from the federal government, it will not sustain the test of time, yet if they give too much power to it, the people will not stand for it. These bills prove Hamilton correct in a sense that we are not standing idly by as our federal government usurps the last of the states powers. The federal government better be careful here because, even though nobody wants war, freedom is one of the few things worth fighting for and we will defend our rights.
"the doctrines they teach are calculated to induce us to depress or to
relax it, by expedients which, upon other occasions, have been
condemned or forborne."
History can always be learned from and in our case, socialism/communism is part of that history. A Republic government has only ever failed when military violence has broken between the states, or from external attacks and a capitalistic has not imploded economically. Socialism on the other hand has been shown to do just that. As it stands our constitution has been set up to give violence the smallest chance of victory. Even a civil war could not tear apart our country. The power by which we moved with during WW2 attested to the fact of external military attacks. Our main concern should be internal financial implosion. Socialism/communism have had those kinds of problems in the past. USSR went bankrupt as communist. Many European countries are on the cusp of going bankrupt in the form of socialism. We are moving towards bankruptcy with a push from socialism as well. If only we weren't so concerned about people who refuse to work...Welfare is probably the biggest waste of money our government spends. It removes the father from the home, it makes the "family", or whats left of it, dependent on the government and never allows them to get off the dependence. Such a cycle must end, but I see no end in sight with democrats heading the show.
What then (it may be asked) is the use of such a provision, if it cease
to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it?
I can almost hear him sarcastically saying that (even though he is writing). I may ask the same thing of our congress today. What then is the use of the constitution, if it cease to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it? How many unconstitutional bills are passed through congress each year? I believe that each and every bill passed should be required to be proven constitutional. Where in the constitution can that power be found?
"They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army"
Huh...I guess Bush couldn't have run this war by himself. Says right there.
"As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to
infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the
national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and
criminate the views of the majority."
I guess so...I wonder if Hamilton ever thought the minority party would try to incriminate the president on false charges? lol
"Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the
national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor
to his constituents and to his country?"
Ive been wondering that myself as of late. It seems that congress has deemed the war necessary as they continue to fund it. Are they not the same sort of "traitor" as Bush? People always forget the voting records to go into Iraq. 77-23 in the senate and 296-133 in HoR, hardly a republican only vote. So the question that should be posed to democrats is: "You have helped get us into this war, what is the best course of action for this country? Withdrawing to genocide, loss of global stature and terrorist breeding grounds, or finishing what is left of the war to gain at minimum a neutral democracy in the middle east?" I want to start asking them lead on questions so they are forced to answer them! If we simply ask the first part of the question, they can get away with a general and vague answer, but if we lead them on, the people watching will have already put those thoughts in their mind and if the answerer doesn't answer it, they will continue to think about it. Appearance is everything...
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke