Posted by
CKHustler on Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:02:01 AM
Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 11, 1788.
HAMILTON
Federalist Paper #66
"that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an
essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the
executive."
Here is the rub with switching this power over to the Governors. This is a major check against the executive branch by the legislative. Unless things were to be rearranged, it would eliminate this check and things could to unbalanced, even if these particular checks are not used very often.
"if, say the objectors, to these prerogatives is added that of deciding
in all cases of impeachment, it will give a decided predominancy to
senatorial influence."
He basically dismisses the argument here as saying that impeachment can hardly give the senate an upper hand. I will agree with him, however, the objection stated nearly happened to GW Bush. How often did liberals call for his impeachment over an unjust war? How often were the "war crimes" screams heard with talk of impeachment? There was no rational case in which GW Bush had any chance of being impeached. There was no evidence of any kind leading to either of their arguments. There was not even the slightest bit of logic connected with any talks of them. It was purely based on Bush leading us into a war that the democrats first voted for, but then were swayed by the people to be against. The democrats were so entrenched on us losing the war, they were thinking of impeaching our president. An impeachment trial is hard to force through and it never would have worked, but you can see where the objection would come from.
As I read some of the next paragraphs, I began to think on his statements of the HoR being more powerful than the senate since they are so close to the people. I believe that because of how the senate has elections, we could not sweep back the senate until 2012 since 2006 was the year we started losing so many seats. The HoR is the body we need to gain in 2010. Being so close to the people, these seats will be most easily won as well. The democrats are already losing popularity, just imagine in another 18 months when elections are coming around again. This is where a new conservative party must make some headway being there are so many seats. If the GOP doesn't want to come back to the base, then forget them and lets support another party. If they can win even 1 seat it will put them on the map. All cable news will cover that one seat being won by that party and other conservatives will be given hope that they can support that party without fear of wasting their vote. They cannot be independent, but must be a labelled conservative party. It can be done in my opinion.
"After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of
the nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there
be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve,
when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against
them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?"
Now this would have been the perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect, sentence that could have been used in the case that the democrats felt the need to impeach Bush. They voted for the war yet they decided to impeach him for it? My this is an ironic quote with what I just covered lol. Anyways, his reasoning makes sense, but the people could hold the government accountable and, in that time call for a change in the seat, and now vote him out in their next election.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke