Posted by
CKHustler on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:46:41 AM
The Powers of the Senate Continued
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 7, 1788.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #65
"and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the
decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties,
than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
Now of course he is talking about impeachment, but why stop there with his reasoning? This has been happening for decades now in congress pertaining to the laws that are put into place. A good example of this is the GOP vs Dems the last few years. It cannot be argued against that Bush spent like a fool. It cannot be argued against that democrats were constantly shouting about the cost of the war in Iraq. With that it means democrats were shouting at Bush for spending too much, all the while, when Obama got into power, he sent forth the largest budget in history. What I am trying to prove by this is that democrats were only arguing against Bush because it was their duty as democrats not because they opposed most of what he did. They have continued the Iraq war in spite of all they said. They have run up the debt in spite of complaining about it during Bush. It is not whether he was making the right or wrong choices, but it was the fact that he was George W. Bush.
"What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN
SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary
impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?"
Good question. This uses multiple bodies of people to essentially make the decision. I think a better way could have been someone outside the federal government. A body of Governors may well be the most neutral. They do not have to work with the President or Judiciary branch as directly as the Senate. They are also already elected by the people which should show some public trust. Each one represents a state, much like the senate is represented. Just an idea anyways.
"Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description?"
In the following sentences he describes how if they went against public opinion, it could be dangerous to public tranquility. Could this not be looked upon on the social issues that the Supreme Court feels their need to insert their voice? Abortion for example is not something that should be decided upon by the Supreme Court. It has the same effect on the people when a body of 9 makes a decision on something they have no jurisdiction over. How would public tranquility be affected by a wrong decision in an impeachment trial? And how on a social issue? Are they that different? It could be argued that any decision they make could have that effect, but then we must remember what they are there for. They are there to interpret the Constitution and keep the rest of the government within its bounds. Any social issues have a very similar feeling to an impeachment trial where their is a moral decision to be made. The courts have no authority to tell any person how to live their lives except if it is already against the law. They are not able to create laws from thin air, requiring the people to vote twice on the same proposal!(Prop 8) If they are able to decree anything according to their moods, what is to stop them from doing anything they please? Where is the line drawn? Perhaps one day they rule that it is illegal to wear orange because it offends inmates. Or it is illegal to wear a baseball cap because it doesn't allow the public protectors to recognize you from across the park. Do you see where I am going with this? Interpret the Constitution and leave all else alone!
"The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously
consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union"
It seems he brought up something like my suggestion with the Governors. His main reason for avoiding this possibility would be the time it would take all those around the Union to get together. With our current technology, we can safely say that would not be a problem. I believe a body of Governors would work better. With that some of the checks and balances would have to be slightly changed since that is one check against the executive branch by the legislative.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke