Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #84

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I believe I have brought this point up before.  What, if not treason, is Obama doing if he is freeing those from Gitmo that may be undeserving?  I believe the general attitude towards our enemies by the liberals of this country may not be found under treason, but they are definitely borderline.  To bring down our ability to combat our enemy could also be a form of treason if it helps our enemy in doing so.  Our soldiers have been fighting one hand behind their backs because of congress.  Could that not be a form of treason?  I do not believe they could be tried for treason, but think about it from a logical point of view.  Why vote these people back in if they are endangering our troops?

"This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself."

The Bill of Rights tells the government what they CANNOT do!  The 2nd Amendment is most fought over, but how can they possibly try anything?  Even if they try and say it was only for militia, some states do define militia to basically mean any able-bodied man. 

"Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John."

They were willing to fight for those rights.  Sword in hand they forced those rights to be kept with the people.  Can anyone see why our founders found the need to put the 2nd in place after reading about that?  They knew there would come a time when the government would try to remove the rights of the people and the 2nd would protect them.  Such a shame that people are willingly giving away the only right that protects them from total tyranny. 

"which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns."

Meaning our government is not meant to regulate our personal lives.  The government was put into place as a general interest government that regulated only those things which NEEDED oversight.  Only in places that could not possibly be provided for in another way.  Today the government trying to place itself everywhere except where THEY cannot possibly provide.  They are trying to micromanage our personal lives and control the decisions we make.  If only liberals read about why our government was set up.  Why the founders did what they did.  Why what they did was the correct way of doing things.  Liberals never care about the whys though, they only care about the whats.  Without knowing why things work a certain way, one can be easily swayed to believe another way works better.  That is a crux of the problem today.  Many do not understand why spending out of control will cripple us.  Nobody understands why healthcare is better in private hands, rather than public.  Most of the time when I bring the whys up, they jump out of the conversation.  I guess knowledge is paralyzing for them lol.

"They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

This just goes to show that anything not found precisely in the Constitution, the government has no rights to do.  I wonder if the government would have tried to remove arms if the 2nd wasn't around though.  They would want to, but would they risk the revolt that would ensue.  I am glad they put in the bill of rights, because it gives a list that the government cannot do.  Where it is not found to be prohibited, they will do all they can to usurp.

"The public papers will be expeditious messengers of intelligence to the most remote inhabitants of the Union. "

As he runs through these forms of communication, I cannot but notice how some of these have faltered.  Public papers for example are not the unbiased truths they used to be.  Almost nothing can be taken for truth anymore as an agenda is always behind the curtain.  Independent research is where the information can be found.  Take a look at the numbers themselves and make out where some of the problems are without anothers guidance.  Take what you see and try to find an alternative view and use your common sense to decide for yourself.  We cannot rely on a single source of information anymore as you will end up with a narrow understanding of the problems.

"Whence is the dreaded augmentation of expense to spring?"

He is only dismissing this argument because they could not prove the expenses to have reason to rise to such a high level.  Well, I believe we have done it.  Based on his writing I can conclude that if those arguments could be proven for expenses, Hamilton would not argue that large expenses would be a good thing.  He would have to concede the argument and find a way to fix the problem.  They could not prove the argument because the federal government was not supposed to do anything outside the Constitution, meaning they had to find something inside the Constitution that would allow the government to run up expenses.  That being the case, it is safe to assume that our current government is running up expenses by performing acts not found in the Constitution.  AB=C, a need of expenses and a proof of how would be needed to finish their argument.  They could not prove and therefore could only come up with A, meaning a Constitutional run of expenses(C) is also false.  With our expenses high, and C being false, unconstitutional is the only way here.  Its not even necessary to look at the Constitution for that proof lol.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke