Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Bill of Rights
Amendments 11-27

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"

You know, when I first heard that Obama was not born in America, I doubted there was any truth to that claim.  However, as time passed and he still did not show any proof, I am beginning to wonder if he was indeed born in another country.  Why would he not come forth with proof if he has it?  If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true and it doesn't make sense to withhold information of him being born inside the country if he was born here.

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

All that ranting and raving about citizens vs other states and they change the law within a decade.  So their powers are now even less than during the Federalist Papers and during that time I couldn't find where all these social programs would fall under. 

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Could anyone find a way to put what Fonda did during Vietnam, not in the basket of treason?  Clearly adhering and giving aid to our enemies.  I could certainly twist other things to appear as treason as well, but I won't for now. lol

"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution"

We must hold them accountable to this oath!  WE must!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Make no law...establishing or prohibiting.  It says nothing about public displays having anything to do with religion.  I believe that public displays should be able to have religious symbols is the majority of people approve of it.  This offense taken by minorities must stop.  It does not take away any freedoms by a majority of the town approving a manger scene.  There is no wall of separation between church and state either.  That is all smoke and mirrors.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You go Texas!!!  It is about time a state stood up and said they aren't going to take it anymore! 

"XVII - U.S. Senators to be elected by direct popular vote

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913."

Democracy is just a prelude to oligarchy which means that it is not sustainable and hence is why our founders did not choose a democracy, but a Republic.  I do like having many different ways our representatives get elected.  1913 is a time when Wilson was president which means his progressive movement towards oligarchy was in motion.  This just reasserts to myself, that my first intuitive belief on this subject is correct. 

"XXIII - Presidential vote for the District of Columbia

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961."

Why?  Is St. Paul separate from the rest of the state when voting for Governor?  Why should DC be "special"?  Elitists I tell ya...

Well, that was all for the Constitution.  Time to start some research!

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

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Article 1 Basically a summary of the legislative powers.

"and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal."

I found this to be an interesting statement.  What if a party somehow took hold of 81 senators or 80% of the House?  They could vote on anything they choose and withhold the votes from the public.  At that point it would be clear which party was doing the damage, so it might not matter much, but this is an interesting law.  I wonder how often they do withhold their votes from us.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office."

I remember, I wondered about a person holding a state office while holding a federal office.  It seems by this wording, because the state offices are not under the authority of the United States, it is lawful for a person to hold two such offices.  Not that I would personally want that, but it is possible.

"If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law."

I was under the impression that liberals were constantly complaining about Bush doing something of this sort.  What did they call it....I forget, started with an 's' I think.  It seems he simply cannot pocket the bill, since it would therefore go into effect. 

"To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:"

I am going to try and find some reasonings that Congress cannot tax a certain individual at a higher rate than others.  Im talking about the AIG bonuses here, not progressive tax rates.  This doesn't seem to cover it completely.

"No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Is this it?  It says proportion, but it seems to put this direct tax as a tax to the States.  But, alas...

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

It would have nothing to do with a certain person...this is not it.

"or law impairing the obligation of contracts"

This would force the AIG bonuses to go through essentially.  They were contracts and the government cannot intervene here.  Im not all for these bonuses, but once congress gave the money and put the wording for them, nothing they can do about it.  Don't give them money in the first place!

Ok, so the rest will be done tomorrow night.  I haven't actually read through the entire Constitution before.  I have read much of it at different times through researching issues, but never all the way through.  It is incredibly easy to understand after reading the Federalist Papers lol.

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

Before I begin with my remarks, if you look back to the first paper I wrote on, I asked you to keep in mind how the second amendment was parsed.  Is it any easier to decipher?  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Here is my analysis of the second amendment: The Right to Bear Arms?

So what did we learn from the Federalist Papers?  One thing is for sure, they thought through just about everything imaginable at that time.  Not only that, but they specifically said things would arise they had not thought of, so for that reason they left the Constitution open for amendments by the government.  What does that mean to us? It means that everything specifically put into the Constitution, was put there as an unchangeable law for the duration of our republic.  The only types of things that were put into the Constitution were those things the founders knew would never be outdated, and with that it makes those mentioned all the more powerful.  So on the basis of all those in the Constitution are undoubtedly the final arbiter of our country, lets delve into what they covered throughout these papers.

A quick summary of topics:
Foreign influence
Intra-relations
Reason for a Union, covering many reasons for it
Removal of current Articles of Confederation
Powers for Defense
Taxation
Republic reasonings
Powers in the Constitution
States' powers
Structure of new Government
House of Representatives
The Senate
Executive Branch
Judicial Branch

As you can see they covered a wide range of topics, which spread to all things and reasons for why a republic government, the way our Constitution was providing it, was best for our country.  Inside each reasoning, PUBLIUS took the time to cover the objections against the Constitution.  Do you believe Obama is bringing up objections to his stimulus plans and then reasoning as to why his plan would work over another plan?  He has done nothing of the sort and with that, the people do not trust him.  PUBLIUS pitted his reasonings against their arguments and presented both to the people, which let them decide where their loyalties would lie.  They didn't coax the people into making a quick decision even though the current government was in shambles. They allowed the democratic reasonings to see through to the most logical solution and they simply put the facts out on the table for all to see.  I dare say it would be tough to get the authors of these wasteful bills in congress to write a 5 page paper describing why they believe this spending is better for our economy than saving that cash or using it on something that actually needs it, and then dispersing it to the people for their decision.  Obama began his campaign talking of transparency, but I have seen nothing of the sort.  Instead I hear a bunch of double talk and lies, while covering up all his misgivings.  The people are beginning to get angry and that feeling will continue to grow as Obama continues down this path of corruption. 

Lets pick apart some of these issues a bit.

They began with all the reasons a union was needed.  What would go wrong without a union?  How would a union benefit all the states?  What would relations be like between the states, with and without a union?  How would other countries perceive us, with and without a union?  A union would bring like minded people together in a republic that would strengthen our power around the world, while removing strife between the states.  They also mentioned how the states would become part of a larger puzzle and would need to follow an all encompassing Constitution.  They covered the positives and negatives, though the negatives were few and far between if the Constitution was created solely for the good of the people.  This is where he went into how the Constitution would work.

Powers of Defense was covered first because that is the most important.  Without a way to defend what you have, how can any country expect to thrive economically or otherwise?  They talk about being able to create a military in peacetime, though the people were largely against it.  They(and when I say they, I mean PUBLIUS) didn't just say it was needed, like those in our government would today, but they explained, with well thought out reasonings, why we would need a military at all times, whether war or peace.  We must be able to strike at our enemies before they fire the first shot, or we will be at a disadvantage immediately.  Today liberals would rather us not fire a shot, whether we have been fired upon or not.  Already I see on these TH boards, the liberals talking of the 2nd amendment "be damned" because one day humans will realize we shouldn't fight and we will unequivocally throw down our weapons.  I swear that person is still searching for the tooth fairy.  Our founders knew that evil would never diminish and we must be able to fight it. 

Taxation was covered next and it mostly pertained to the States rights to taxation vs the federal government.  They knew that taxes was necessary as it obviously is to all governments.  These taxation papers were directed at the people concerned with the States losing their rights.  Of course a government needs revenue, but where should the line be drawn?  The Constitutionality of all programs should be called on to be proven.  Everything in these papers alludes to only those things which are found in the Constitution, because to go outside of it, would not be lawful by the federal government.  So, by and large, this portion of the papers can be ignored today because these forms of taxation are to be used, but only in a wise fashion and our government has failed to do that.  Our founders believed in a person receiving the fruits of their labor, but today we believe in everyone enjoying equal fruits without regard for the labor and that will result in a fall in productivity that only preludes a crash in the economy.  Responsibility can be the one thing pulled from this portion of the papers because they believed our government would do its best to tax only when needed, unless our government was run by a group unfit for office and with that they believed the people would vote them out.  Today we are too set on name recognition that the incumbents win most of the elections without too much trouble.  With responsibility of the government comes a responsibility of the people to hold THEM accountable.  We must do our job, so as to push our representatives to do theirs.

The reasonings behind their choice of a republic are explained and given reason to next.  The founders gave ample evidence going back through history as to why a republic would do best.  In my own knowledge of history, I believe the Roman empire can be the best example.  Before the Caesar's took control, they were a republic that was the envy of the world.  Somehow it seems that republics always turn out to be the envy of all others.  Why?  A republic brings all the best possible combinations to a form of government.  Laws rule the land instead of people.  With laws, a country can be stable and not depend on the opinion of a few for its wellbeing.  Freedom of the people is always a must for a positive form of government and a republic gives that better than any other.  We are free to choose our representatives and because we are a nation of laws, our personal freedoms will not be taken away whether by rulers or mob.  A republic also rewards those who put forth the most effort and thus becomes an economic behemoth which gives great prosperity to its people.  The highest standards of living will be found in republican governments.  What more could be wanted from a government?  It doesn't falter on any other issues that any other government would provide either.  For example the national defense will be as strong as any other, which has been proven by none other than the United States.  In this portion of the papers they also went through exactly how they would implement the republic and the small changes they would make where others went wrong.  It explained the checks and balances that would be formed in a circular manner to hold all those in power, in place by another.  With examples of past successes and failures they outlined how our government would be formed and, in extensive detail, why it would work.  Can you expect to hear that from Obama on the stimulus plans?  No, he is rushing them through before you get a chance to question it.  Why?  Because he knows there is wasteful spending, but he just wants to pass through his agenda whether wasteful or not.  Obama's agenda is all that matters now.  Our economy only comes second because the longer it stays depressed, the more time he has to infuse his programs into place.

An overview of the Constitution is reasoned next.  They look at if any powers given are wrongfully given or if the sum of them are dangerous to the people.  A run through the powers will show that the States still hold a major portion of the powers.  The people still hold the trump card on the federal government as well, and with that, the government would only be able to oppress the people if the population willingly votes for it.  I would venture to say that is happening now, but that is just my opinion.  Each and every power is defended if needed or explained if not.  The major reasons for having our government was mentioned and a liberal would find that the list is fairly short.  Only 6 items on the list with 4 of them being very specific, leaving two for all this wasteful spending to fall under, if you can even say they do.  In this portion, someone reading would find that the government is actually meant to do very little in our lives.  A major portion of its powers actually lie outside our borders while it either deals with foreign countries, or defends us from them.  Somehow today these powers have been magically expanded to include social programs that should have nothing to do with the government.  I believe that for any of these programs to pass, an amendment must be put into place, since its powers do not fall anywhere else in the Constitution.  At least then it would be constitutional and the people could see what is going on by a permanent change to the Constitution.  With that, this portion of the papers will give reason to those powers which are Constitutional, and by omitance, we can conclude those powers our government enjoys using today, that are not Constitutional.

With a federal government, the States would give up some rights, though a majority of them have to do with foreign relations as the States would not be individuals anymore, but part of a group and any State should not be allowed to deal with another country without speaking on behalf of the whole.  This is where it is considered whether a sum of the federal government's powers would be detrimental to the States or the people.  Being how few powers the federal government are actually able to hold by law, it is easy to see that it would not change much of the powers the States hold, besides foreign influence, and in that manner it only strengthens our position. 

The actual structure of the government is gone through from here on out for the most part.  Each part of the branches are gone through and reasoned as to why they were formed in such a manner.  The HoR are there to represent the will of the people, while the senate is the stabilizing factor with the same in mind.  The president is to represent the country and make decisions that only a single person can make such as military decisions or treaties.  The judicial branch is to keep our country in line with its laws, which all fall beneath the Constitution.  Their first and foremost job is to uphold the Constitution.  All branches have checks against each other to keep one from overwhelming the others with power.  The plan is for the HoR to have a major influence with the will of the people behind them, so when the government acts in a disingenuous way, it can be reeled back in.  However, if the will of the people is temporarily strayed by passion, the senate is to hold steady so as not to have the government changing on the whims of the people.  There is ample reasoning given for each branch on why this form will work best.  So far so good, yet the people have not held up their responsibility so how can we expect the government to do the same?  Hold them accountable and they will fall back in line.

After reading through these papers, it is hard to look past our Constitution ever again, if it ever was the case for yourself.  The wisdom of the people involved and time given to them to conceive such a document should give confidence to anyone doubting our Constitution.  The scrutiny of the people was high and it still passed the test.  Ample evidence was given in support of the system chosen for our government.  Human nature was taken into effect at every corner and it cleared those obstacles with flying colors.  The key to it all is the people.  We held the power then and we still hold the power.  We can vote out over half of all the representatives in our government today within 2 years if we choose.  If we are in such contempt with our government, why don't we?  I'm almost willing to vote for a new democrat, if I am not satisfied with my current republican representative.  Perhaps we should all be willing to vote out our incumbents if we are unsatisfied, whether they are part of our party or not.  Without the people holding the government responsible for its actions, how can we expect them to hold themselves accountable?  We are giving them a free pass right now and they are running with it beyond what we could have imagined a century ago.  These Federalist Papers clearly outline what our government is supposed to represent and what powers it is supposed to follow, and it is not hard to see our current government is well beyond those boundaries.  It is clear that the founders EXPECTED us to vote out those who were not representing us, not just vote for the lesser of two evils.  It is time to vote for someone that actually represents you, instead of not representing you less.  It is time for all Americans to be willing to vote third party if that is where their beliefs lie.  As Glenn Beck has been pushing for, it is time to stand up for your principles.  These Federalist papers count on us standing for our principles, so lets not back down. 

Thank you for reading.  This concludes my Federalist Paper series.  Time for the Constitution first and conservative values after. :)

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

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

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

The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury
 From MCLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #83

"Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide difference between SILENCE and ABOLITION."

Now I agree with him, but there is also truth to what they are trying to argue here.  I take it to our current situation of the Treasury department taking over businesses.  If there are not specific instructions which limit his power to an exact reason at an exact time, it ALLOWS for the government to twist the meaning of the power and use it for other reasons.  I think that is the main argument of Hamilton's time for this abolishment.  If the government has a way to avoid it, then they will pursue that in time.

"The rules of legal interpretation are rules of COMMONSENSE, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws."

Tell me...when you read the 2nd amendment, what is the first thing that comes to mind?  Is it that they can ban guns from non-militia men?  Is it anything other than the founders trying to engrave the right of gun ownership in our country?  Upon first read, common sense tells us that they put this law in place just so we could protect ourselves from external invasion.  The second is from internal tyrants.  Common sense tells us that much.  Only when lawyers come in trying to twists its meaning for their agenda's do we have this problem with guns.  What a travesty.

"The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived."

Which means that we interpret them how?  We apply them just as when they were put into place.  That would mean we apply them with what our founders had in mind.  Which would imply that reading such writings as the federalist papers or Annapolis Convention debates would yield the meaning of our Constitution.  It would also mean that our Constitution is not living and breathing, but a document that is to be followed in its original form.  There is small leeway where the government can add amendments, but they cannot change any other portion of the Constitution. 

"the former regard it as a valuable safeguard to liberty; the latter represent it as the very palladium of free government."

I have not researched the exact arguments Hamilton is speaking against, but I can imagine what they would entail.  A government not FORCED to bring civil cases to trial by jury, may ignore them all together.  I do not believe they all need trial by jury, so I can see his point in saying that the law will not change from what it was.  Civil cases brought to trial by jury would no doubt bring lots of unneeded wasted time to many citizens, for reasons they do not care about.  I believe criminal cases do need them, so in essence I agree with Hamilton.  It seems like the arguments he is reasoning against here are more fear mongering than anything else.  It is obvious that the Constitution would not force the courts to trial by jury for civil cases.  It would be absurd to do so.  Clearly abolishment is not in the Constitution either.  Why he spends so much time on it...must have had quite an opposition as he stated in his opening sentence.

"The sheriff, who is the summoner of ordinary juries, and the clerks of courts, who have the nomination of special juries, are themselves standing officers, and, acting individually, may be supposed more accessible to the touch of corruption than the judges, who are a collective body. It is not difficult to see, that it would be in the power of those officers to select jurors who would serve the purpose of the party as well as a corrupted bench."

Im just bringing this up because it brought the acorn allegations to mind.  They set up fake protests by hiring people for example.  It seems more corrupt than any other organization.  People believe they aren't corrupt because they are simply signing up voters.  The truth is finally coming out and they will burn for this I think.  Obama may or may not be linked, it doesn't really matter, but next election acorn will be on the outs.  The democrats will still have other outs for them to attempt for cheating, but I think people will be much more weary of them now and this will hurt them in voters who believe in honesty.  I can't wait for the trials to start on acorn.

"The minority of Pennsylvania have proposed this mode of expression for the purpose "Trial by jury shall be as heretofore'' and this I maintain would be senseless and nugatory."

It may have been nugatory at the time for many of the things he thought obvious.  Today we have liberals attacking the 2nd on a daily basis, yet at Hamilton's time it was probably nugatory to include any other forms of thought to the law.  Imagine if we had a paragraph explaining the law, right in the bill of rights.  Would that not make it impossible for the liberals to take away our guns at any point in the existence of our country?  Sometimes things are unneeded at the time, but as time passes, they may have been needed to fully put to rest their intentions.

I notice throughout how much power he gives to the states.  Instead of putting a law into place that would order the states to act in a certain way, he allows the states to create their own laws and says by leaving the Constitution open, the states are free to do as they please on the subject.  Today we micromanage everything, but a good leader knows how to delegate off, and not just to someone who works directly for them.  Governors should have much more power in their respective states.  I guess I would interpret that as the feds would have less power and Governor the same power making his more in comparison. 

"but will tend gradually to change the nature of the courts of law, and to undermine the trial by jury, by introducing questions too complicated for a decision in that mode."

Imagine, being how complicated many of our civil case laws are, a jury taking control of these cases.  It would be nearly impossible as the people would need to research the law most of the time and probably wouldn't be able to completely comprehend it anyways.  It seems this is already done just so the populace won't understand what the laws are and we don't even use trial by jury for these laws.

"I answer that it is not very probable the other States would entertain the same opinion of our institutions as we do ourselves."

This type of attitude is needed all over the place in our federal government.  Education for example is pretty much universal because the feds give major guidelines on what schools must do.  If we allowed each state to independently run schools, we may see some competition.  A voucher program would work even better, but independent schools of each state would be a start.  Each state is different and our federal government needs to allow the states to make their own decisions instead of making up their minds for them.  I also hear Obama is not allowing Governors to refuse the federal money.  Why would he do such a thing when the money he is forcing at them is only going towards wasteful spending?  We are a federal government, not a national government.

"I suspect it to be impossible in the nature of the thing to fix the salutary point at which the operation of the institution ought to stop, and this is with me a strong argument for leaving the matter to the discretion of the legislature."

The founders knew that things would change and leaving things as open as possible would never allow the Constitution to be dated.  For this reason I find those laws that are explicitly set in place to never be dated as well.  The bill of rights will never go out of date.  The rest of the Constitution will never go out of date.  Why can people not understand that they constructed this document in such a way that it will never go out of date! 

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

The Judiciary Continued
 From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #82

"The principles established in a former paper1 teach us that the States will retain all PRE-EXISTING authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head"

I cannot help but remember those authorities he spoke of in the last couple papers.  Not once did he mention a citizen vs their own state.  Yet another way of saying that these moral issues should not be brought to the supreme courts.

"Those of Japan, not less than of New York, may furnish the objects of legal discussion to our courts."

My how the opinions of our leaders have changed.  Back then it was our law being supreme.  If a foreigner uses our court system, the case will be tried according to OUR laws.  Now we have judges who want to use their laws for our local cases!  Two neighbors suing each other could be swayed by Italian law by their standards.  Does that make much sense?  It bypasses our Constitution and I think they are pushing for this because it is getting ever harder for these liberals to defend their ideas against the Constitution.  So they are trying to use this as an excuse to work around the Constitution.  How anyone in their right mind can support this kind of thinking in beyond me.

Sorry it was a short one today.  Short paper and lots of stuff reiterated throughout the paper anyways.  Tomorrow should be a nice long one.

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

The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority
 From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #81

"In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution"

But wait...wouldn't that cover the judges making up any law they choose, simply because....well because?  I look to proposition 8 in this case and see judges trying to find any way they can make up yet another loophole so as to stop yet another vote by the people.  How a judge was able to overrule the people in the first place....  The courts do not make laws!  The citizens of this country need to get that through their heads if we are to fight back against these activist judges.  When a judge makes up his own law, we, by law, do not have to abide by it.  He has no rights to create such laws in the first place.

"From a body which had even a partial agency in passing bad laws, we could rarely expect a disposition to temper and moderate them in the application."

Basically, if a legislature passes a bad law, how can we expect them to moderate the law at all?  If we give the treasury power to take over any business, how can we expect them to moderate themselves while using this power?  We simply cannot.  Social Security is another example and one that has already shown this statement to be true.  It is a bad idea for the government to take control of people's retirement.  People trusted the government though and at first it was in a separate fund, which the congress couldn't touch.  I believe it was...LBJ?...who put that money into the general fund and all heck broke loose.  So, looking back, why would the government get involved in our retirement?  They don't believe people can save their own money?  They don't believe we are capable of saving without their help?  These things should have been thought of to stop this ridiculous program from going into effect.  This "bad law" was then expanded and it completely ruined the program and now we are trillions in debt there with no way of paying it back.  I have to pay in and most likely we will be bankrupt before I can even collect any social security.  Couldn't moderate their bad law because they got power hungry and needed OUR money for the general fund.

"In the former, as well as in the latter, the impropriety of the thing, on the general principles of law and reason, is the sole obstacle."

We have supreme court justices who wish to use international law in their cases!  Their sole job is to rule by our Constitution and any law found underneath it, inside our country.  The reasons they give are not based on law or reason.  They want us to be more like the rest of the world.  They don't give a why or any other reasons really, but just think our traditional ways are so barbaric basically.  I repeat from yesterday, if we go this route, we are all screwed.

"There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption"

This is one place in which I agree that the judicial branch is weaker.  If the people are against the government taking power, the legislature will have a stiff advantage on the subject.  The HoR will have the most power when it comes to a power that the people are sided with the legislature on.  In a quick 2 years, the entire HoR can be changed to echo the sentiments of the people and put a halt to what is going on in the other branches.  The will of the people is the strongest and I think we are about to see that happen.  Check up the great depression and tell me how the stock market did after its huge drop in 1929.  It rallied, oh yes it rallied, but then it plummeted again.  These programs Obama has put into place have rallied the markets in the short term, but look for the house of cards to truly fall.  The will of the people will shift overnight and it could get ugly for Washington.

"It is therefore necessary that the appellate jurisdiction should, in certain cases, extend in the broadest sense to matters of fact."

How often do we hear that some liberal has been ruled against at the state level, but now seek the court of appeals?  I hear it all too often, yet whenever I do hear of overrulings (usually on moral issues), how can they possibly come up with a matter of fact to overrule the states?  The way I see it, there is never a matter of fact when it comes to moral issues.    With that, I can never see how a court of appeals would EVER overrule the state courts on these issues.

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

The Powers of the Judiciary
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #80

"1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation
2rd, to all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union
3rd, to all those in which the United States are a party
4th, to all those which involve the PEACE of the CONFEDERACY, whether they relate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, or to that between the States themselves
5th, to all those which originate on the high seas, and are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction
lastly, to all those in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased"

The only possible one that any moral issues could possible come under would be the 3rd reason in which the United States is a party.  They clearly do not fall under any of the other, besides the last one, and in that one the States CAN be impartial so it doesn't fall under that either.  Basically what is SUPPOSED to happen here is that a person sues the State in which she lives to have her right for abortion, for example.  The State is clearly impartial in each case where a moral issue like this would come up so there is no need for any of these cases to rise up into the supreme court.  What the supreme court is mainly for is to keep the rest of the government in check, as per the Constitution, and to settle arguments that are outside any states jurisdiction.  High seas is an example of that, as are intercourse between the states.  It is wholly unneeded to call on the supreme court for any other reason than those.

"Controversies between the nation and its members or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals."

That argument is the last stand of where these moral issues would fall.  However nothing more is to be gained by the citizen in bringing the suit to the national level rather than the state level.  Sure it FORCES others, on an moral issue, to follow a set of judges where it is unnecessary.  These cases are meant for say a citizen bringing some cargo across state lines, or maybe his business is say a railroad company and he is located in multiple states.  In that case the lawsuit cannot be brought to any state level court and must be brought to a higher power.  Moral issues can be easily held to the state court system without fail because moral issues have no state lines and each state is obliged to the powers put forth in the bill of rights 10th amendment.  On an issue such as abortion, the right has not been granted to the federal government and it therefore falls to the state governments.

"The power of determining causes between two States, between one State and the citizens of another, and between the citizens of different States"

I notice that he does not mention a state and its citizen, for that would be a state issue.  Just another point for states handling the moral issues.

"yet it is warrantable to apprehend that the spirit which produced them will assume new shapes, that could not be foreseen nor specifically provided against."

Ah, but here is the saving grace of the democrats.  They always pass a law with "good intentions" right?  Well, they make us think so, but then they turn the law into something that was not intended (at least publicly) and we have problems.  Take this new power Geithner wants where he can take over businesses.  Sure it sounds like a good idea if, and only if, the person with the power uses it wisely to help businesses get back on their feet.  It would work if that person actually knew more about the business than the people running these companies.  Unfortunately, our government knows nothing more than those who are in these businesses and it won't help at all to give the government these powers.  The person in charge, Geithner, will not use this power wisely and will soon be confiscating businesses simply because he can.  This law will be used in a new way, not foreseen because it would not be specifically provided against.  Every law that comes to our attention must be investigated in this way.  What COULD they do with this law, not what they claim to intend on doing.  If it can be twisted, it will be, you can count on it.

"To all cases in law and equity, ARISING UNDER THE CONSTITUTION and THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. "

Remember, the Constitution is the ULTIMATE law of the land.  Always remember that.  We do have those in our government that wish to sign over our freedoms to a global community in which our Constitution will not be the supreme law of the land anymore.  An international government will take precedence over our Constitution in cases which they do not match.  Think about how our freedoms would be overrun.  Think about having a government who we do not directly elect, governing over us as well as the rest of the world.  Imagine how inefficient our current government is and think they only cover a single country on a single continent.  How would a government do when it is micromanaging the entire globe?  Anyone with a hint of sense can see that this will not work.  Sure in a PERFECT world it would, but then so would communism, but human nature does not allow it to work.  Human nature cannot be disregarded as that is one thing that will never change in this world.

I wish he could bring up some moral issues.  I'm sure they had their fair share in his day, but he did not directly bring them up.  The judicial department continues tomorrow, but since this was the paper concerning their specific powers, I doubt he will cover them.

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

The Judiciary Continued
From MCLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #79

"In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL."

Well, well, well, look what we have here.  Once again our founders take human nature into effect, while our current leaders have done nothing of the sort in their lives.  What do you believe the true cause of instilling the welfare programs?  Is anyone cynical enough to believe it was to control that part of the population?  Does it take cynicism to believe that?  Or just a logical approach?  First we must ask if the poor in our country were suddenly in more peril before they enacted that social programs, than before that time at all.  Clearly they were not.  The 60's is when much of this was put into place.  What has happened since then?  The welfare programs have only increased the amount of people that fall under that category!  When you enable people to get along while doing nothing, or close to, they will do nothing.  Human nature at work.  With the clearly negative impact, what would be the alternative intentions of the program?  If it was to solely help the poor, the programs would have been removed long ago because of their failure.  I can only see one possibility and that is control millions of votes.  That answer is plain as day. 

"What might be extravagant to-day, might in half a century become penurious and inadequate."

One thing that irks me is how we always take inflation of currency for granted.  Why we ever left the gold standard is beyond me.  It would force our government to act responsible because they would be unable to print money at will.  Inflation would be non-existent, but I don't see any problem with this.  Market patterns would be easier to see I would suspect, because with the currency on a constant, a change in prices would be ever more noticeable.  I know they can monitor that and have algorithms to convert currencies from years, but take this housing crisis for example.  If for a hundred years the price of housing never changed(as it didn't in adjusted currency for the most part, until recently), even the average American would have noticed something was wrong when prices went up.  Right now only the "experts" know what is going on, but simplify it a bit and everyone can be on their guard.  Seems to streamline the process in my opinion.

"As the President is to be elected for no more than four years, it can rarely happen that an adequate salary, fixed at the commencement of that period, will not continue to be such to its end."

Are we about to see history in the making?  As our government decides to print off billions, our dollar will slowly lose value.  If the G20 decides to start moving away from the dollar, it will plummet in value.  Bada bing bada boom, and the Presidents compensation is worthless as I drag my barrel full of cash for my loaf of bread.

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

The Judiciary Department
From McLEAN'S Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #78

"impartial administration of the laws. "

I have had enough rulings based on agenda's.  If there is no law in place for the jurisdiction of the courts to make a ruling, then they cannot rule based on their opinion!  This activism that is a constant must stop if we are to ever keep our freedoms.  Little by little these judges overrule the people, or produce new laws based on nothing.  To take this a step further and move to the Attorney Generals, Glenn Beck had the AG of Connecticut on his show today and was grilling him on the bonus pursuit he is engaging in.  The guy is trying to force the bonuses out of the AIG employees, yet when asked by Beck which law enabled him to do so, he couldn't name one.  On a side note, the guy talked extremely slow and you could tell he was a total bureaucrat in the way that he never gave a direct answer.  Beck got pretty worked up, but he made his point clear and I feel the same way he does.  I am against the taxpayer money going to these guys in the form of bonuses, but we CHOSE to bail them out and these bonuses are protected by law.  Now that we have chosen the path we did, we are obligated to follow through. 

"from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

I believe he is wrong here.  Jefferson makes numerous statements about how the judiciary department is the MOST dangerous branch of the government.  In all other parts of the government, there is a check against them, in the immediate, if they decide to do something.  If the president decides to sign a law into effect that the legislature passed through, but the law is unconstitutional, the judiciary department can IMMEDIATELY stop them in their tracks.  If the judiciary begins making activist decisions that remove freedoms from the people, or are otherwise detrimental, the impeachment process could take a while, and during that time, there is nothing to stand in the way of the judge.  Once a ruling is made, it is tough to reverse the consequences.  I remember Hamilton speaking on how uncommon the use of the impeachment powers against the president will be used, well, I believe the same can be said about the judges.  What would it take to remove them from their positions?  That is the only check against them.  In the other two branches, they must rely on each other to be the checks, but the judiciary can make any ruling they please and claim it is an interpretation of the constitution.  I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment of the power of the judiciary branch of the government.

"For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''

I suppose this is where my argument may fall.  It could be argued that the courts may only pile upon an already existing problem.  They may not begin the sequence of events because the other branches would not follow their lead on the rulings.  What is happening today is the abuse of the court system.  The courts are the final arbiter when it comes to the law and the liberals are using them to their fullest extent.  It first starts with the respective legislative and executive branches of their states, but when they find they cannot get the job done, they find a single judge who will side with them on that issue and suddenly that is the new law.  So I guess I can compromise with Hamilton here.  If the political winds are pushing the way of freedom, the judiciary department will not be able to stop it.  I will add that there is no other branch that may do so either in any case, so I find this a reason for the weakness of the branch to be a moot point.  However if there is a slight push for activism, the judges are the most dangerous as a single person can create laws from thin air without punishment in many cases.  There is no prerequisite for how they can use their powers as they do not rely on the other two branches when it comes to ruling on the law.  They can take away sweeping powers in a single swift movement.  They can turn a mild case of usurpation into a free for all of power grabbing, if they choose.  I still conclude that they are the most dangerous of all the branches of government.

I would also like to make the observation that there can be no total usurpation of power without the judiciary department on the side of the usurpers.  The only way to take control of liberty is to do it quietly or by force.  There can be no talking people out of their freedoms with the people being fully aware of the consequences.  By force would be impossible in our country as set up by the 2nd amendment, so we can dismiss that case altogether.  Taking our freedoms quietly can only be done if the judiciary department takes part in the objective.  If the judiciary does their job, they can alert the people to the agenda of the government.  They are the holders of the laws and with that they can decree the usurpation of powers to be unconstitutional and preserve liberty where the other branches could not.  They could also take part in the coup and the subtle exchange of power would go unnoticed.  Since they are the final word on the laws, they must take part.  This could be said of all the branches, but this just proves that they are no weaker to any usurpation of power than any other.

"No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm,...that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves"

How many laws today can be found in the Constitution?  How many laws must be removed because of the constitutionality of them?  To allow the government to pass unconstitutional laws is to affirm what Hamilton says here.  They are NOT above us!  They work for us!  For some reason people believe those in our government to be above the rest in some way or another.  They are just other people in this country, same as your next door neighbor is.  They were voted into office, just as you could be if you chose to try.  They are no smarter than anyone else, simply because they are in that position.  In fact, some of them have never done anything but hold public office and I cannot imagine how that would help them in any way to create estimations on what their ideas will do to the economy.  They all have certain areas they are more educated in, just as we all have interests and with that they do not know everything about everything, or anything for that matter.  Just as I do not know much about details on how to run GM, neither do they!  I can tell you generalities, just as they can.  Why do we put so much trust in our elected officials?  I will never know.

"If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers"

It is said...who in the heck would say something like that?  Thats like telling me that I create my own laws for myself and if I break them, I will throw myself into jail.  If you had the power to create your own laws, only for yourself, and you broke them, or wanted to do something, tell me you wouldn't change the law for yourself.  I know I would.  A check from another place is always a good idea.

"that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature"

The legislature creates the laws, courts check them and the executive enforces them.  For the courts to go activism and create the laws themselves is to remove the legislature and put those powers in the judiciary.  For the judges around the country to do as they have is to usurp the power of two branches into the judiciary.  A breach in the Constitution.

"If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

Just some more backup on how we must hold within the Constitution, even if the people believe otherwise in their fad of beliefs.  The Constitution is very open ended intentionally so as not to handicap the country in any way in the future.  To breach the Constitution means doing something explicitly prohibited.  So how can anyone argue against anything said in the Constitution?  Such as the 2nd amendment?

"These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws."

I wonder if the courts will do anything when the legislative branch passes a law of a 90% tax rate on the AIG bonuses.  We will see I guess.

"who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts."

I know that the courts are there to keep them in line, but I believe that each law passed must prove its constitutionality.  This would remove many laws that could come to pass simply because the current situation brings a bill to pass on a whim.  We are a country of laws, not men.  Prove your new law is constitutional, or it shall not be voted upon is my belief.

"Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day."

Here is my argument against the supreme court ruling on abortion.  It is not the role of government to rule on a moral subject such as abortion.  That issue should be sent to the states independently for ruling.  The pro-choice crowd may cheer today, but they may be ruled against on another issue and whine about it then.  Its that old saying about the people in Germany before WW2.  First they came for the gypsies and I was not one, so I didn't say anything.  Then they came for the polish and I was not one, so I didn't say anything.  Then they came for me and there was nobody left to speak up for me.  Issue by issue with a small opposition.  Even if we get a ruling we agree with, we must all fight against all rulings that do not fall under their jurisdiction.

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

The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered
From the New York Packet.
Friday, April 4, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #77

"Where a man in any station had given satisfactory evidence of his fitness for it, a new President would be restrained from attempting a change in favor of a person more agreeable to him, by the apprehension that a discountenance of the Senate might frustrate the attempt, and bring some degree of discredit upon himself."

I think that he is underestimating the power of the parties in this situation.  Sure in ones eyes a person could be doing a fantastic job because they are more conservative, but then another comes into office and decides that socialism is the way so he will replace him.  At the time of Hamilton, there were different parties, but the overall position of each party, along with the people were not all that different from each other.  Both had a real sense of freedom since they just fought a war over it.  Imagine Adams and Jefferson being the heads of their parties after Adams first term.  Were they so different?  The small changes in their beliefs would be changes nonetheless, but none would entirely reshape society.  Today it is much different where we have conservatives who still believe in that freedom.  We have ultra liberals who want communism and they are no small number anymore.  In DC we have two parties and while their platforms are miles apart, their actual actions are much closer.  I would venture to say that there is more diversity in the beliefs within the Republican party than the differences between the two parties as a whole.  With the vast differences being, a number of far left liberals and a smorgasbord of Republicans, there can be a major difference in how a president would appoint.  Clearly with Obama in there, he would remove as many Bush appointees as he possibly can, for example.

"the circumstances attending an appointment, from the mode of conducting it, would naturally become matters of notoriety; and the public would be at no loss to determine what part had been performed by the different actors."

It seems that Hamilton did take the people into account.  I mentioned last paper that in their time a person in NC might not get the news of the nominations until after all the decisions had been made.  Certainly within a state the people would see how things were being done, as it was happening.  If the people decided to educate themselves and started singling out people for the things they did, their power would grow exponentially and overnight the government would adhere to our wishes.  For now we only have a few million that choose to research the issues of why things are happening and who is creating the problems.  I wonder how many liberals even know about all the tax fraud nominations Obama threw up?  I remember on election day some pollster asked indepth questions about all 4(VP's included) candidates and the liberals couldn't answer most of the negative questions about Obama, but they could answer them about Palin.  Funny how selective the liberal media is...

"or whether he prostitutes that advantage to the advancement of persons whose chief merit is their implicit devotion to his will, and to the support of a despicable and dangerous system of personal influence"

Well...I can think of no other reason for an obvious tax fraud to be leading our Treasury department.  Why take the chance on that nomination?  Because he knows that Geithner will comply with his socialist wishes no matter what.  Take over private businesses?  Sure!  Thats not radical at all right?!  Next thing you know they are confiscating small businesses by the hundreds because all together they pose a risk right?  Anyone who cannot see the obvious ability to abuse these powers is intentionally ignoratnt on this issue.  It hardly even takes any common sense to come to this conclusion.

"All the advantages of the stability, both of the Executive and of the Senate, would be defeated by this union, and infinite delays and embarrassments would be occasioned."

I do agree with his point, however if this were apart of the process today, I do not think anything different would happen.  Congress votes on the party lines so often that it probably wouldn't even delay the process.

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

The Appointing Power of the Executive
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #76

"the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration"

Is anyone laughing or even possibly rolling on the floor laughing.  ROFL!!!  How many candidates has Obama put up that had tax fraud on their record?  Geithner committed tax fraud himself and now he is in charge of our financial markets.  Here is what he did:  Working for the IMF they make it possible for all employees to work essentially tax free.  They are an international company, but they do offer some paperwork that allows for the person to pay in to their respective governments without paying out of their own pockets.  This is probably so they can be on record for having made the cash, but not be penalized for doing it.  What happens is the IMF allows them to fill out all this paperwork and it then gives the person the amount needed for taxes in that persons country.  Well, Geithner filled out all the forms and then kept the cash!  Can anyone actually believe it was by accident?  Even the IMF claims it nearly never happens, while democrats try and cover up saying it is common.  It was obvious and intentional tax fraud.  This administration is also full of lobbyists when Obama specifically said he would not allow for them.  How anyone can give these guys a free pass in Washington is beyond me and beyond common sense. 

"He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled"

How are people not questioning Obama's decision making abilities, or the company that he keeps?  What was it, like 5 people that he nominated that had tax fraud?  Seriously, imagine if this had happened to GW Bush.  The wolves would have been out for his head already.  Since it was their lovely Obama who sent shivers down their legs, they let it slide and looked the other way while the corrupt were awarded positions in his administration.  He then slides lobbyists into positions where they have something to gain by rewarding certain employers.  Could it be any more screwed up?  I would have thought that his decision making would have been shot after choosing Biden as his VP, but clearly it takes much more for the dirt to stick, much much more.

"They contend that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the appointments under the federal government."

Thank our lucky stars for not allowing our founders to go through with that decision.  Can anyone imagine the people that would fill Obama's administration?  Perhaps Ayers would find himself a position.  This tax fraud would have been hushed up more than it is now, because the senate would not have had a voice in who was put into the positions.  Lobbyists would be the norm rather than the exception.  Corruption would have gone unchecked, not to say is really checked now. 

"to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."

It not only does that, but it allows the people to vet those being nominated.  I suppose at the time these papers were written, it did not allow for that because news did not travel as fast.  Decisions were made faster than the travel of news in many cases.  Not that those in NYC(capitol) wouldn't know, but those in NC, for example, might not until after the decision. 

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing."

I do wonder why Obama set those people forward, knowing they had some problems such as tax fraud.  Was he arrogant enough to believe that the American people would just allow it because Obama nominated them?  He must have known what would happen in this case.  The fact that he did not is quite telling.  I have heard conservatives say that Obama is intelligent and that his IQ must be above 150 or whatnot, but I for one believe none of the above.  He is simply a puppet to the puppeteer in Soros.  Obama is good at selling, but he has no idea how an economy works.  Being President, a large issue is the economy.  Many issues are moral issues and that is all opinion, but how an economy works is right and wrong.  To be wrong on so many issues, it brings to light his lack of understanding and comprehension skills.  The fact that he cannot go through a simple short speech and Q&A without a teleprompter means he doesn't know himself what he is talking about, but rather he is being fed the information.  When I am talking about an issue I am familiar with, much of what I say is on the tip of my tongue the entire conversation.  If I am talking about an issue I am not familiar with, I can copy anothers opinion, but I can form none of my own.  I usually just keep quiet and listen in those instances.  Obama needs a teleprompter at every turn meaning he doesn't understand what is going on himself.  He cannot comprehend the problem and can not understand a solution being fed to him.  If he cannot understand it, how is he to explain it to anyone, without a teleprompter?  Without his talking points straight in front of him, he can scrap the surface and do nothing else. 

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

The Treaty-Making Power of the Executive
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #75

"while another part seem to think that nothing more was necessary than to have substituted two thirds of ALL the members of the Senate, to two thirds of the members PRESENT."

I wonder why anyone would actually argue for this case.  Why would anyone want a number fewer than a full representation of the states to vote on whether a treaty is to be formed with the whole?  Treaties are not to be taken lightly and especially since we are dealing with foreign nations, all checks need to be kept in place to ensure that a majority of the states agree with the treaty before it goes into effect.

"point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions"

Yes perhaps our agent can send DVD's to any allies we may have. lol.  I still cannot believe he actually did that.  To think that people believe he is brilliant!  The only thing the guy can do is sell.  He is about as useful as a car salesman running our country. 

"it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration."

Can you imagine if Obama had full control over our treaties right now?  Israel...out.  England....out.   France...strengthened by our socialist ties.  Russia...new found trust.  Saudi Arabia...Full defensive pact.  Australia...will maybe renew in 4 years.  etc etc.  The checks and balances our founders put into the constitution are always perfect if they are followed to the letter. 

"An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth."

Sure it might not be foreign powers so much, but what about lobbyists?  I think that campaign contributions need to be dropped exponentially.  How about a max of 5,000 for any person or company.  It would stop banks going into bankruptcy from giving hundreds of thousands to Obama.  It would stop quasi-government agencies such as Fannie and Freddie from giving hundreds of thousands to the party that gives them the most money back.  Our government has betrayed our country in favor of lobbyists.  There has to be a law that can be put in to plug this loophole, while allowing campaign contributions to flow from the people still.  hmm...

One thing to add.  Apparently the War on Terror is over!  The Obama administration has decided that it is to be called the "Overseas Contingency Operation".  How lovely of him to end the War on Terror.  I cannot believe democrats are acting like 3 yr old children when it comes to naming things.  We can't call them Islamic Terrorists because it offends these people or those people.  We must call them radical militants, or whatever they chose to call them.  Now the War on Terror is too much.  When will these people grow up?  I tell ya.  Remember what I said about Nuclear power being called New Age Power?  lol  Conservatives need to start playing the same game here.

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

The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 25, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #74

"The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

I wonder how many lives have been lost due to our legislature waffling on how to fight a war and the President giving in to their wishes.  Vietnam cost us thousands of lives and we didn't even defend South Vietnam.  We could have easily defeated the Vietcong with our full force, but we decided to play cat and mouse in the jungles.  Our media also had a huge part to play on this as well.  Had the President(any one of them) gone in hard and flattened our enemies, South Vietnam would probably be free today and we wouldn't have lost nearly as many men.  Now in Iraq the legislature and the media have done it all over again.  Bush did waver, but he didn't pull back as much as those during Vietnam did.  We would have won this war months or years ago had it not been for our congress and media giving the enemies daily hope. 

A rather short paper that didn't bring much to my mind.  I will take this opportunity to tell what I will do after I am done with the Federalist Papers.  I'm partial to series as you may be able to see by now.  I will take a day or two on the Constitution, depending on how much I write about it myself.  After that I plan to do some research on some topics.  What it means to be a conservative.  I found a site that is pretty thorough on what a conservative is.  http://conservativehq.com/conservatism-101/sja-definition-of-conservative/

I will go through each topic and research WHY that reasoning is correct compared to another way.

For example:

"* A conservative has compassion for the poor and opposes policies, such as those based on socialism and on opposition to new technology, that cause or extend poverty."

I will research charitable givings by conservatives vs others.  I will research how welfare hurts us and why charities do a much better job than the government.  It won't go one paper per day, but I hope to put two up each week or so.  This will be a much more informational series I think in terms of facts. 

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