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

The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 21, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #73

"There are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils"

Bush did not perform as he needed to on the domestic front, but he did a good job on the war on terror.  He went through with it, even after the democrats demonized him.  With that, I would like to say thank you to him for doing what HE thought was best for this country.  I disagreed with him on some accounts, but I knew he was doing what he thought was best and not what was popular or easy.  I do not get that feeling from Obama in the slightest.  Heck, if it was Lieberman or McCain, Id almost have to vote for Lieberman knowing he would stick to his own guns, even though I detest many of his stances.

"and he SHALL NOT RECEIVE WITHIN THAT PERIOD ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT from the United States, or any of them"

I suppose the Clintons forgot about that as they tried to empty out the White House in 2000 lol.

"It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body."

Here is another reason the two party system is ruining our government and our country.  If people were actually voting on their personal principles, a majority being formed on a vote would truly be a majority for the people.  As it stands, people are forced to choose sides and we have many independents that believe just barely more of one side than the other or maybe they are a single issue voter?  In either case the person representing them, doesn't truly represent very many people and with that we only get two ideologies in DC.  Instead of the broad range of beliefs found around this country, we only get a couple and right now both are bringing our country to its knees.

"that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflexion, would condemn."

Wow, you can say that again!  This is pretty much our government summed up at the moment.  In the spirit of the democratic elite's agenda, the rest are helping force these bills through as fast as they can and without deliberations.  This may be the first time in history that the government is, in plain sight, intentionally forcing bills through without deliberation for the specific purpose that if the American people saw the bills, they would refuse them.  I cannot think of any, though I am young in that department.  Perhaps you can?

"The oftener the measure is brought under examination, the greater the diversity in the situations of those who are to examine it, the less must be the danger of those errors which flow from want of due deliberation, or of those missteps which proceed from the contagion of some common passion or interest."

What I find interesting about that last paragraph of mine is that we are on the brink of sinking into a crushing depression if we do not make the correct decisions.  We are at a crossroads and instead of deliberating to the brim we are acting in haste.  It is clear that Obama's agenda is much more important than our country's future.  If it was not the case, he would be backing deliberation until all has been discussed.  To act with haste, but in error would ruin our country for a long time, but to divulge the problems indepth and come to correct conclusions while taking an extra couple weeks would not change our situation, but for the better.  To me it seems to take any other course of action, other than full discussion, is to put ones own agenda ahead of the country.  Talk about arrogant.

"It is to be hoped that it will not often happen that improper views will govern so large a proportion as two thirds of both branches of the legislature at the same time"

Here is where I said above that the legislature doesn't really represent the people anymore.  Too many are forced to vote for someone that only agrees with them on few issues.  The American people need to make a pact to themselves that they will vote for the person that represents them best, no matter what anyone else says.  The problem is, people are sheep.  Some psychology experiment proved this very fact.  It brought a person to a group of 4(I believe), making 5 and with him being the only one unknowing in the experiment.  They were all asked questions and they all answered, in order, out loud with the single person answering last every time.  The other 4 gave the wrong answer to obvious questions on purpose(though sometimes answered correct to gain trust) and the last person had to decide what was right.  I can't remember the exact ratio, but it was something like 60% of the people followed like sheep and answered the questions incorrectly.  That is how people vote nowadays.  Like sheep.

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

The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 21, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #72

"the application and disbursement of the public moneys in conformity to the general appropriations of the legislature"

As Obama talked tonight and put blame on Bush, yet again, I found myself laughing as if it was a "Dumb and Dumber" style comedy.  First we have Bush signing onto stimulus plans that just props us up a little longer until the bottom hits harder than it would otherwise.  We have Bush and the Republicans spending like wild before 2006 which is why they were thrown out.  Bush did not use his veto pen enough when democrats were spending like fiends, beyond the republicans, but instead signed his name onto the budgets.  Bush in an economic sense, gets the title "Dumb" of the two.  Obama comes in and has nothing but blame.  He signs onto another stimulus which does the same as the first.  He signs an omnibus bill with thousands of earmarks to boot!  He is on track to nationalize the banks and wants the Treasury to have the power to take over private businesses!  Obama receives the title of "Dumber".  I remember hearing him talk about his inherited deficits, yet he talked as if republicans made the budget for the past two years.  Mr. President, you are mistaken!  Your own body of the senate were part of that budget production!  May the blame at least fall where it is deserved in this instance!  Bush did not produce the budget the past two years!  He did sign it and hence he received "Dumb", but he did not produce it, you did Mr. President.

"the person substituted is warranted in supposing that the dismission of his predecessor has proceeded from a dislike to his measures; and that the less he resembles him, the more he will recommend himself to the favor of his constituents."

See here is where there is a misunderstanding.  Bush was attacked more than ever because he had nobody on his back.  All presidents are attacked by the other side, but they must rely on their base to fight back.  Bush went liberal on us in enough cases, that we did not want to back him up.  We voted out republicans in 2006 to make the case against them, but they failed to listen.  Obama now wants to change how he does things to get away from the Bush era, only he has remained on the same road, only he switched into the left lane.  His polls are going down because a majority of what is being done would have been done under McCain or Bush.  The people are tired of the liberal policies, and were duped.  More people thought they would have lower taxes with Obama than McCain.  Sure they will get that small tax break, but their overall taxes are in for a rise at breakneck speeds.  Income tax is not the only tax our country pulls on the people for, as we all know.  Look for taxes on all consumption items to rise, on energy especially.  You will be charged more just to drive to work , so how will you have more money?  Add it all up and you will not.  They are picking and choosing spots to make it seem as if you will have lower taxes, but trust me, you won't. 

"The last is necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue him in his station, in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration."

Here is their reasoning for having no term limits.  I do agree, when the people are at least semi-educated on what is going on.  When the candidates are simply giving a shadow of the truth and the people don't know any better, then how can we trust the people to throw one out who is not doing a good job?  I reckon that Reagan could have won a third term even in the condition he was in(exaggeration of course :P).  I am finding it harder and harder to trust the American people right now.  These tea parties give me hope at least.  Our family just ordered a Gadsden "Don't Tread On Me" Flag.  We may have to make an appearance at one of those parties.

"There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantages of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period"

A valid point, yet do we not have the legislature to hold them steady?  I will have to think on this. 

"This position will not be disputed so long as it is admitted that the desire of reward is one of the strongest incentives of human conduct; or that the best security for the fidelity of mankind is to make their interests coincide with their duty."

Wait, what is?  Reward?  Ok, we can take a look at this from two points of view.  I will first look at success.  Would not rewarding success bring more people to strive for it?  Would not allowing those who do succeed to enjoy the fruits of their labor, encourage more to put their best efforts in to achieve their maximum potential?  These questions have obvious answers.  If you worked your hardest to be the best you can be and only ended up making 100k per year, would you do it again?  If you worked as hard as that and made 400k a year, would you do it again?  Or how about if you made 50k a year?  Based on taxes, the government can bring your earnings from 150k to 100k or less.  Where is the incentive, if you can work half as hard and make nearly as much?  There is none!  This is what socialism is!  This is why it fails!  Human nature is based on rewards and socialism does not reward success!  On the flip side we have those who take advantage and do nothing.  We reward those mothers who choose not to marry by giving them welfare to stay single mothers.  We reward illegal immigrants with in-state tuition, something I only get in one state, yet they get them where ever they are.  If you could work half as hard as your hardest and make 50k or work none and make 25k, what would you do?  Failure is being rewarded.  Human nature is based on rewards and as we are rewarding failure, it brings more to fail.  It draws more people to allow themselves to fall flat because it doesn't matter.  Can any of this be argued?  Obviously not.  Stats show that more are on welfare each year instead of less, simply because welfare enables those who want to do nothing, to do it.  We are rewarding failure and with that we get more failing.  We attack success and we therefore get fewer succeeding.  Common sense rules most subjects and it does not fall short here.

"to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory;"

To prop up the stock market as long as they can until it truly falls.  Socialism will bring on some short term stability, but we will soon fall into bankruptcy.  Obama is trying to make the harvest as abundant as possible with all these spending bills.  Healthcare, energy, education, banks, etc are all lumped in here because it is wasteful spending on all fronts, yet it brings some short term stability.  Soon we won't be able to borrow any more cash and the dollar loses all value and we collapse.  The harvest is therefore transitory in its short lived abundance.  The fall will be greater when we do fall, than if we just allowed the banks to fail.  The fall will be more strung out as well, as we saw with the great depression that lasted a decade.  May God have mercy on us.

"A fourth ill effect of the exclusion would be the banishing men from stations in which, in certain emergencies of the state, their presence might be of the greatest moment to the public interest or safety."

Here is a reason I brought forth in a past post.  Say if Lincoln was in his second term during his first and had to relinquish his seat during the civil war, what would have happened?  Good point here.

A possibility could be to allow all living former presidents to be put on the ticket without anyone running against them.  A yes or no would be presented on the vote.  If over 50% say yes to them, they will be allowed to stay in DC as an advisor to make their voices heard.  This would allow those who were removed because of their failures to be totally removed, but those who did a good job to give reason to circumstances.  I believe the liberty of the people would be better protected with a constant cycle of representatives.  The most ambitious may stay away from a job they can only have for a short period of time.  It stops, beyond doubt, a possibility of a single person taking too much power since he will only have a short period of time to usurp a large amount of power.  It removes possibilities where liberty could be twarted anyways.

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

The Duration in Office of the Executive
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 18, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #71

"It is a general principle of human nature, that a man will be interested in whatever he possesses, in proportion to the firmness or precariousness of the tenure by which he holds it; will be less attached to what he holds by a momentary or uncertain title, than to what he enjoys by a durable or certain title; and, of course, will be willing to risk more for the sake of the one, than for the sake of the other."

I use this not as an example to the President, but to the legislature.  Would one not say that they enjoy a nearly certain title with those who have been there for 40 years?  They have become attached to their seat at the table of power.  They no longer care about anything else, but keeping their jobs.  They will risk our economy to keep their jobs! 

"If the case should only be, that he MIGHT lay it down, unless continued by a new choice, and if he should be desirous of being continued, his wishes, conspiring with his fears, would tend still more powerfully to corrupt his integrity, or debase his fortitude."

See, I have asked about this before, why no term limits?  By his own admission it is worse to allow someone the option to rule for an unending duration.  What was their thought process?  We can only speculate now, but I would so have loved to have been there in the background as they deliberated all these issues.  Where is my time machine!? hehe

"It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD."

More often than not, with our completely ignorant populace, that intention goes nowhere.  I remember on election night a group of students waving a USSR flag out front of the White House on Pennsylvania Ave.  Do they have no idea what communism did this last century?  Socialism is but a hop and step away from communism as it slowly gives control over to the government.  The best governments are the freest governments as our founders have said over and over.  The generalities of the problems facing our country are nearly always simple from a high level.  Understanding the basic principles would not be hard for anyone who chose to do so.  If the populace did educate themselves, then yes, their intentions would be MORE worthy to follow, but as it stands, its almost like taking a look at the polls and going in the opposite direction would give the best results.

"it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection."

Imagine if Bush had pulled us out of Iraq back in 2005 when democrats were all up in arms.  What would have happened?  Our economy would have still failed as it did because the banks had nothing to do with the war.  Iraq would be nearly owned by Iran.  The terrorists would have gained much needed confidence and time to rebuild.  Israel would be certain they have no allies they can truly trust.  Millions upon millions would have been killed in Iraq for simply supporting us.  The middle east would again become the breeding grounds for terrorists.  Instead we have nearly won and created a democracy.  Millions are free because of us.  Terrorism is at a minimum in Iraq and we now have a neutral country in the center of the middle east.  What sounds better to you?

"In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision."

How does Obama stand on this ground?  He says no earmarks, yet signs a bill anyways.  Either he is liar or he has no spine.  Take your pick, but neither is something I want from my President.  I would tend to think he is a liar with no spine, but thats just me.  :)

"and in which he might reasonably promise himself, that there would be time enough before it arrived, to make the community sensible of the propriety of the measures he might incline to pursue."

Basically he is saying that 4 years is enough time for the President to pursue his agenda.  Obama is going for it all in 2 months.  Deliberation?  Who needs it?  We need to rush it through now before anyone notices right? 

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

The Executive Department Further Considered
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 18, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #70

I am only going to go off the first version for my comments.  Ill read the second version, but it will be similar my comments will be the same anyways.

" and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government."

A fine example of why I do not trust our government to take over healthcare.  I'll use examples of where they have lost my trust on issues such as this.  Take welfare or social security for example.  Welfare, the idea, is fine enough.  Help people that have fallen on hard times for a short period to get them back on their feet.  It was then expanded to giving extra to single mothers because they were in such need.  Soon we have millions living off of it and fathers leaving because the mothers wanted to get extra from the government, so they didn't get married.  In theory, it may be ok(and Im not necessarily saying that is true, but for the sake of argument), but in practice it has created many more problems.  Social security was supposed to be a program that would help people save for retirement basically.  You pay in and you get out when you retire.  The government then moved the funds to the general treasury and now all the money is gone.  People get money that have never paid in.  The program is slowly bankrupting this nation.  Two similar programs to healthcare where the government couldn't even hold their head above water.  Thanks, but no thanks.

"As far, however, as it teaches any thing, it teaches us not to be enamoured of plurality in the Executive. We have seen that the Achaeans, on an experiment of two Praetors, were induced to abolish one."

Obviously I do not care to have two presidents, but imagine for a second.  What if we did have two and one was Republican and one democrat.  Imagine the media and their reactions to anything that went on.  I'm almost laughing at the things that come to mind on the biased views the media presents.  Anyways, just thought I would throw it out there.  Though imagine if we could use that form to split the nation into conservative policies and liberal ones.  The nation would remain whole, but the policies would be different.  Ah, the thought of the conservative side totally kicking "butt" as we came back together as one nation after the liberal nation went bankrupt.  It would be a thought to keep the treasury split into two parts for the sake of experiment though.  Gosh I would love to see that done. 

"Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring...And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy."

That entire paragraph is kind of what is happening because of the two party system.  Sure we only have one president, but take a look at how the community is being split.  You think that if the two parties did not force us into camps that this would still be happening?  There is a gradual range of beliefs where people fall, not either conservative or liberal.  There are probably fewer total conservative AND liberals than middle of the road ideologues.  How is our country so split then?  These parties have forced people to move one way or another and with that they forfeit principles along the way.  If everyone stayed true to themselves and voted as such, regardless of party, we would have a wide range of parties filling the seats in the legislature and we wouldn't have this bickering.  I, for one, believe that ballots should not label anyone as democrat or republican.  The candidates name, and their name only, should be there.  If the person does not know the person well enough to know their values, then they do not deserve to party vote along the way.

"But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love."

One can sit all day and run through the failed policies of liberals, yet some believers won't bat an eyelash at it.  The blind following the democrats have is tough to beat.  I have said before that my dog would garner 40% of the vote if he simply put a D by his name.  I look to those in DC that have been apart of those policies and will still not remove failed policies.  It is painfully obvious how much harm the welfare system has done to this country.  It created the inner city we have now where they are littered with single mothers and graduation rates of 30%.  The CRA bill obviously started this crisis rolling down hill, yet the democrats will not admit it in spite of the overwhelming evidence against them.  Affirmative action has been shown to hurt minorities instead of help, yet that is still in place.  Pride is probably the best word to describe these behaviors. 

"In the legislature, promptitude of decision is oftener an evil than a benefit."

I wonder if Hamilton used the word oftener.  More Often?  lol, anyways.  We need the bailout and we need it now!  Banks are failing, quick the sky is falling!  Quick this omnibus bill needs to pass asap!  TARP2 cannot wait!!  Sound familiar?  When pushed through in these ways, more often(haha) makes things worse, rather than better. 

"But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility."

Obama is basically doing this now.  Bush was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time in my opinion.  The wheels of carnage were set in motion before Bush even took office.  There are some things he could have done, but I doubt any would have fully stopped this.  The prices of houses were much too high even before 2000 after the CRA bill shot them sky high.  The prices would need to stagnate until inflation caught up, or drop back to the intended levels prior to the CRA bill.  I showed that Glenn Beck video some time ago and he explains means housing prices in converted dollars to be 100k on average.  We shot up to about 200k and they needed to come back down.  That is just one example and there are more, but that is not the point.  Obama has yet to take responsibility of anything.  Everytime he opens his mouth about a new plan, the stock market plummets.  Is that not a sign?  Right now he can slip it by the people, but soon that will not happen.  I hope the American people are smart enough not to swallow any more BS than they already have.  When he runs for re-election he will pull out all the same lines about the economy from Bush and doing all he could under the circumstances.  He was elected on the premise that the economy was going south and he would fix it.  I don't want to hear about how bad it WAS anymore.  You get elected to do what you can given what you have.  FDR somehow kept getting re-elected, so I hope the American people are not that deluded.

"Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment."

I guess this is where we fall under for Clinton when we talked about his impeachment.  Lost trust, but not really impeachable.  It is funny how many in congress actually have broken the law, but remain in power due to ignorance.  I mean, Kennedy actually killed a lady!  How many of us would be in jail for that?  All the bribery?  Corruption?  Its legalized mafia!

I am surprised he spent so much time proving the pitfalls of having the executive branch's power held by more than a single person.  Clearly a nation needs a leader.  A united front is needed for many reasons, especially foreign relations.  He makes some other good points about being held accountable and the eye of the people being trained upon a single man rather than a group.  I guess since we have had it so long and common sense allows for it, I do not think to wonder why we do not have more than one.  Perhaps I would have in Hamiltons time.

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

The Real Character of the Executive
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #69

"That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence."

I do wonder why they would not apply a term limit.  The only explanation I can think of is that they believed the people would know when a person in power is not earning their spot anymore.  It turns out that those in power at that time, did not stay in office beyond two terms anyways.  Why?  I believe because of the disdain they had for government.  They knew it was a necessary evil and it had the power to corrupt.  They also followed the example of George Washington as I mentioned earlier, which showed that the government belonged to the people!  Can anyone see a difference from the people today?  The most corrupt are the ones that have been in there the longest.  Today our politicians make a career out of it instead of passing through.  I know all the conservatives can see the difference, but for any liberals reading, stop and think about it.

"The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses."

I have heard talks of enabling a line item veto before, but I believe it gives the president too much power.  He could change the bill entirely and when he is done it could do something not intended by the initial bill sent to him.  I believe he should be able to line item veto and send it back for a vote.  I am unsure about what he can currently do, but that is my opinion on the matter.

"He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States"

On a side note, I got to see Ramos and Compean on Glenn Beck yesterday.  They are not allowed to talk to each other and they just were released from house arrest.  I tell ya.  Guys are down there protecting our borders and they get this handed to them.  Our government is a bunch of hacks.

"to take care that the laws be faithfully executed"

I remember hearing talks of not removing people from their foreclosed upon homes in Chicago.  We are already not enforcing immigration laws as we have sanctuary cities.  How many people in Obama's administration alone had to pay back taxes, yet if they were you or me they would be in prison.  This week the house passed a tax bill where they would tax the AIG bonuses at 90%.  Now you tell me if that is unconstitutional!?  laws faithfully executed....yea right.

"DECLARING of war ...by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature."

I don't know how to break this to the democrats, but congress did vote to go to war.  Unjust war?  Ha!

"by the proposed Constitution, the offense of treason is limited "to levying war upon the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort''

Might I ask what we are doing with Guantanamo Bay?  Or how about giving enemies of war a trial outside a military tribunal?  Would our actions on those not constitute giving them aid and comfort?  Would visiting Hanoi during the Vietnam war as Fonda did not be constituted as treason?  Why do we sit aside during these times and allow liberals to commit treason.  We have a direct definition of it in our Constitution, so lets use it!

"The President is also to be authorized to receive ambassadors and other public ministers."

I wonder if we can get this changed.  If our sitting President is going to insult our allies, I think it better if we find another who actually KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING!! haha!!

"In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made"

I am going to show some ignorance here and ask.  What if say a Supreme justice dies and the senate cannot approve of any of the candidates put up by the President?  How long can they go without a justice?  Is there a temporary fill of the spot?  I just don't know here and figured I would ask.

His last paragraph just goes to show the complete thought given to how power can corrupt the human mind.  They put in as many checks against the president as possible.  We should keep an eye on Obama.  I have a feeling that some of those mentioned here will be tried by him. 

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

The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 14, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #68

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

The way he talks it seems like he figures we should vote on a person that would know who to vote for based on their intellectual abilities.  I know we still do that, to a point, but it is fascinating how it has just become that the state as a whole(except one or two) just puts all its electoral votes to the majority.  Much different than the fashion Hamilton hopes for in describing how it should happen.  Imagine for a moment if we voted for these electoral voters say a month ahead of the election day.  People would run local elections much like all the house members and we would decide who to vote for based on their intelligence and integrity.  After that the presidential candidates won't have much campaigning to do.  It would cut down on national politics by 10-fold.  Now I'm not saying this is a better idea or anything, but just imagine.

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

How does anyone feel about Obama's administration?  Even the liberals cannot be pleased with about half of his candidates needing to pay back taxes.  Or how about all the lobbyists that are supposed to have been banned from his administration?  Do they have no honor left in the democrat party or what?

I do like the old way of choosing a Vice-President.  Every candidate runs by themselves and the top two voter getters become president and vice-president.  Just seems to make most sense to me compared to what we have now.

Another thing I would like to point out for any liberals reading.  Bush may not have won the popular vote in 2000, but tell me how much he campaigned in California or New York?  See, he knew these large states were going democrat no matter what he did, so he just ignored them.  Its call strategery (haha).  That is how you win without getting the popular vote.  Only campaign in parts you know you have a chance.

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