Concluding Remarks
From MCLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #85

"Among the pretended defects are the re-eligibility of the Executive, the want of a council, the omission of a formal bill of rights, the omission of a provision respecting the liberty of the press."

Now, I found this interesting.  Of those listed 4 defects, 3 of them have been implemented with 2 of them in the Bill of Rights.  I believe of all the arguments he went through in the entire paper, these are some of the best.  A council, being to the President I am guessing, is the only one not implemented and it is also, in my opinion, the weakest of the 4.  I do believe a limit on the number of terms for the President is good and bad, and if it were up to me, I would remove that law and rely on the people to be smart enough to remove someone detrimental to the country from office.  A bill of rights is a definite in my eyes and the liberty of the press came right along with it.  His argument is that mentioning it will bring the government around for an excuse to regulate it, but I believe with it stated in words the people will be more likely to stand firm against one doing such things if they understand that the government is not to do that.  Without it being mentioned at all, the people will not know whether he is able to do such things and cannot stand united.  Our founders must have felt the same in the end as a Bill of Rights was put into place along with the Constitution.

"who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people"

Can anyone say Soros?  I do wonder how many democrats are on Soros' payroll.  If anyone has watched 24 this season, it has many high officials on the payroll of a genocidal country's leaders.  I am behind a bit, but that fact was found out in the first 9 or so episodes.  I am a firm believer that Soros does the same thing.  It is organized mafia really.  Legalized extortion. 

"Let us now pause and ask ourselves whether, in the course of these papers, the proposed Constitution has not been satisfactorily vindicated from the aspersions thrown upon it; and whether it has not been shown to be worthy of the public approbation"

Here is yet another difference between our founders and our current government.  During the time he wrote the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation were in effect and it was showing to be ineffective.  The government was falling apart and there was nothing anyone could do.  Sound familiar?  Though the circumstances are different, much of feeling remains the same.  Obama came into office and he was left a bit of a mess.  Bush coasted through his last year or so and brought on some liberal policies while the housing bubble popped.  What did each of these two groups do?  Our founders took lots of time coming up with a Constitution that was able to withhold months of scrutiny from the people.  It was able to be defended on all fronts because of how thoroughly it was thought through.  Every possible angle was thought of and in the end, a nearly perfect masterpiece was written.  Had they offered anything less to the people, it probably would not have withstood all the criticism and would in all likelihood failed to pass.  Obama came out with half thought out solutions and passed laws before the plans were made.  It would be like passing a Constitution into effect without having written it yet.  Does anyone else see the complete differences between a group that did great things for this country, and Obama?  What he will do to this country has yet to be seen by history, but based on his organization skills of these plans he has put into effect, it doesn't seem to be starting out on the right foot.  He just hoped all this money would give us short term gains while he thought through more options.  The propping up of the economy will slowly diminish and we will be trillions more in debt while back in our same position only worse.

"let him reflect that the object upon which he is to decide is not a particular interest of the community, but the very existence of the nation"

And along those similarities we just had our past election falling along these lines.  We are at a crossroads right now and Americans are too caught up in entertainment to notice.  Socialism will give us some short term gains, but what will become of our country?  What freedoms will you have tomorrow?  That is the plan the democrats are following and the Republicans are following suit.  Only recently have they changed directions, at least on the surface, and started back towards the middle.  I, for one, still do not trust them and I feel that most conservatives feel the same.  It is one thing to vote conservative when your party is the one in power, but quite another to do it out of obligation for the base.  What will they do if we vote them back into power?  Continue down our slow path to socialism?  Or bring us back right?  I am forced to conclude that the former would be the case and I doubt that any of you reading would feel different.  I am all for a third party and the only way to start that is to select conservative republicans to join it.  Conservatives are the ones who give money to the republicans and when they hear of a third party, their charity will change hands.  It would be a smooth transition from Republican to say the American Tradition Party. 

"The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations."

Hence why our Constitution was not a document that gave all power over to the federal government.  States can handle themselves much more effectively than the federal government can.  The Constitution just gives a broad stroke of what the States must follow.  Our government was supposed to be nothing more than a central point where all States could remain binded.  Their military protection would be taken care of, their foreign relations, the intra-relations and some small ins and outs.  On the whole the States lives would remain unchanged.  Imagine that today.  Within each state I would venture to say that the State held more power than the federal government.  Sure the feds could overrule the States, but the day to day living was largely untouched by the federal government.  *closes eyes and makes a wish*

"The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety."

One thing that largely separates our Constitution from nearly all others.  They had lots of time to perfect their ideas and run through as many possibilities as they could think of.  It has done so well that many other countries have their Constitutions modeled by ours.  To this day it is still a standard of what a Republican government should look like.  Lets not waste it.

And so that concludes my writings on each of the Federalist Papers.  I will do my own concluding remarks this weekend.  I do have 3 tests this week so I will take a short break.  I hope to do a fairly extensive conclusion to the federalist papers.  Check back then. 

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