The Executive Department
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 11, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #67

Alright, new topic on the Executive branch!!

"Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy"

Here is where I put George Washington above the rest.  He could have been a king, yet he refused.  He could have kept the presidency for himself until his dying day, yet he refused.  What he did was exactly what was needed, at that time, for our government to turn out like it did.  Imagine had he run for a third term and died while in office.  Adams would have taken over and then Jefferson after that.  What would have happened after that though?  Jefferson had the popularity to continue and he may have been president for another 20 years or until his dying day.  Would we be the same country today?  All presidents before FDR stayed at the two term limit because Washington began with two terms.  Most of the time those best fit to lead are thrust into the position, rather than those striving for the position.  Reagan had to be talked into running for president by his friends and look how that turned out.  We need to find that person today that we know possesses the leadership qualities as well as the intelligence and integrity to lead this country.  Thrust them into power by vote! 

"in all the supercilious pomp of majesty"

HBO had a series on John Adams and at one point Adams tries to add a title to the Presidency, much like they did in Europe at that time.  I forget the exact names, but I thought that was interesting.  (Now, I haven't checked this on any other source, so take this for a grain of salt, but most of what they did in that show was pretty truthful so I figure it probably did happen.)  One thing about our government that had survived until now is that they were never above the people, but an extension of the people.  Many other governments around the world are not like that.  I do love being in a society where there is no noble class.  I suppose that is why the democrats have created class warfare in its place.

"It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States."

This is what the conservatives have to deal with on a daily basis.  Some of the things being said being said in DC I simply laugh and think there is no way they actually believe what they are saying.  I look at this economic crisis and for anyone to say the CRA bill did not have a major effect is deliberately spewing biased views on the subject.  I look at Obama implementing these policies that are so far away from common sense that I feel he cannot possibly believe what he says.  A good tell should be the teleprompter.  Think to yourself, if you were going to make a speech on some economic policy and believed it to be the correct course of action, would need a teleprompter to remind you what to say?  If you actually feel passionate about your point of view there is no way you would need a teleprompter.  If I am ever asked a question on an economic policy I can give an answer without hardly thinking and my life isn't even focused on politics.  How can these career politics need a reminder of what they believe in?  Lying.  Now don't confuse this with giving a general speech.  Organization is important, but for Obama to be followed around by his teleprompter, that is a major tell for me.

"The President shall have power to fill up ?? VACANCIES that may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE AT THE END OF THEIR NEXT SESSION.''

Can you think of another such part of the Constitution that has been ripped apart like this?  Anyone for the 2nd amendment?  How anyone can possibly believe the government has any right to try and remove guns is beyond me.  And let us not forget ammunition!!!  That will be very important as they will move on that first being it won't be as obvious.

Here is my paper on the 2nd Amendment if you choose to peruse through it:  http://educateyourself.blogtownhall.com/2008/06/29/the_right_to_bear_arms.thtml

I was surprised by this paper.  The whole second half was constituted to defiling a lie.

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

Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, March 11, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #66

"that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive."

Here is the rub with switching this power over to the Governors.  This is a major check against the executive branch by the legislative.  Unless things were to be rearranged, it would eliminate this check and things could to unbalanced, even if these particular checks are not used very often.

"if, say the objectors, to these prerogatives is added that of deciding in all cases of impeachment, it will give a decided predominancy to senatorial influence."

He basically dismisses the argument here as saying that impeachment can hardly give the senate an upper hand.  I will agree with him, however, the objection stated nearly happened to GW Bush.  How often did liberals call for his impeachment over an unjust war?  How often were the "war crimes" screams heard with talk of impeachment?  There was no rational case in which GW Bush had any chance of being impeached.  There was no evidence of any kind leading to either of their arguments.  There was not even the slightest bit of logic connected with any talks of them.  It was purely based on Bush leading us into a war that the democrats first voted for, but then were swayed by the people to be against.  The democrats were so entrenched on us losing the war, they were thinking of impeaching our president.  An impeachment trial is hard to force through and it never would have worked, but you can see where the objection would come from.

As I read some of the next paragraphs, I began to think on his statements of the HoR being more powerful than the senate since they are so close to the people.  I believe that because of how the senate has elections, we could not sweep back the senate until 2012 since 2006 was the year we started losing so many seats.  The HoR is the body we need to gain in 2010.  Being so close to the people, these seats will be most easily won as well.  The democrats are already losing popularity, just imagine in another 18 months when elections are coming around again.  This is where a new conservative party must make some headway being there are so many seats.  If the GOP doesn't want to come back to the base, then forget them and lets support another party.  If they can win even 1 seat it will put them on the map.  All cable news will cover that one seat being won by that party and other conservatives will be given hope that they can support that party without fear of wasting their vote.  They cannot be independent, but must be a labelled conservative party.  It can be done in my opinion.

"After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of the nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve, when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?"

Now this would have been the perfect, and I mean absolutely perfect, sentence that could have been used in the case that the democrats felt the need to impeach Bush.  They voted for the war yet they decided to impeach him for it?  My this is an ironic quote with what I just covered lol.  Anyways, his reasoning makes sense, but the people could hold the government accountable and, in that time call for a change in the seat, and now vote him out in their next election. 

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

The Powers of the Senate Continued
From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 7, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #65

"and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

Now of course he is talking about impeachment, but why stop there with his reasoning?  This has been happening for decades now in congress pertaining to the laws that are put into place.  A good example of this is the GOP vs Dems the last few years.  It cannot be argued against that Bush spent like a fool.  It cannot be argued against that democrats were constantly shouting about the cost of the war in Iraq.  With that it means democrats were shouting at Bush for spending too much, all the while, when Obama got into power, he sent forth the largest budget in history.  What I am trying to prove by this is that democrats were only arguing against Bush because it was their duty as democrats not because they opposed most of what he did.  They have continued the Iraq war in spite of all they said.  They have run up the debt in spite of complaining about it during Bush.  It is not whether he was making the right or wrong choices, but it was the fact that he was George W. Bush.

"What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?"

Good question.  This uses multiple bodies of people to essentially make the decision.  I think a better way could have been someone outside the federal government.  A body of Governors may well be the most neutral.  They do not have to work with the President or Judiciary branch as directly as the Senate.  They are also already elected by the people which should show some public trust.  Each one represents a state, much like the senate is represented.  Just an idea anyways.

"Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description?"

In the following sentences he describes how if they went against public opinion, it could be dangerous to public tranquility.  Could this not be looked upon on the social issues that the Supreme Court feels their need to insert their voice?  Abortion for example is not something that should be decided upon by the Supreme Court.  It has the same effect on the people when a body of 9 makes a decision on something they have no jurisdiction over.  How would public tranquility be affected by a wrong decision in an impeachment trial?  And how on a social issue?  Are they that different?  It could be argued that any decision they make could have that effect, but then we must remember what they are there for.  They are there to interpret the Constitution and keep the rest of the government within its bounds.  Any social issues have a very similar feeling to an impeachment trial where their is a moral decision to be made.  The courts have no authority to tell any person how to live their lives except if it is already against the law.  They are not able to create laws from thin air, requiring the people to vote twice on the same proposal!(Prop 8)  If they are able to decree anything according to their moods, what is to stop them from doing anything they please?  Where is the line drawn?  Perhaps one day they rule that it is illegal to wear orange because it offends inmates.  Or it is illegal to wear a baseball cap because it doesn't allow the public protectors to recognize you from across the park.  Do you see where I am going with this?  Interpret the Constitution and leave all else alone!

"The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union"

It seems he brought up something like my suggestion with the Governors.  His main reason for avoiding this possibility would be the time it would take all those around the Union to get together.  With our current technology, we can safely say that would not be a problem.  I believe a body of Governors would work better. With that some of the checks and balances would have to be slightly changed since that is one check against the executive branch by the legislative. 

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

The Powers of the Senate From the New York Packet.
Friday, March 7, 1788.
JAY

Federalist Paper #64

"and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures."

I just cannot understand why we changed this.  Im sorry I keep coming back to this, but each and every word in the Constitution was thought through, including the choosing of senators.  I understand where people might want more direct power and to garner more votes some legislature decided they would switch this rule, but thinking logically rather than emotionally, people can be fooled easily by anyone with a slick tongue.  On a national stage it is easier to get away with that as you do not necessarily need to personally meet millions of people.  On a local stage you may well have to meet a good portion of your voters and there is a better chance of them seeing through your BS in my opinion.  I think our Constitution was meant to keep all voting local in a sense.  Vote for your state representatives in a local manner.  Vote for your HoR in a local manner.  The only exception would be voting for Governor.  So in essence, many many slick tonques would be needed for a corrupt person to be set in the position of power. 

"As the select assemblies for choosing the President, as well as the State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens"

Dare I read that again?  Im so lucky I am not eating anything as I reminisce of all the corrupt allegations of tax fraud that have headlined the news for the past couple months alone.  Again, it would be more funny if it wasn't so sad.

"The duration prescribed is such as will give them an opportunity of greatly extending their political information, and of rendering their accumulating experience more and more beneficial to their country."

Does anyone get the feeling that those who have been in the senate the longest have accrued anything more than the ability to increase the depth of their corruption without being caught?  It seems that every month a new investigation is launched on these veteran senators because of some law-breaking adventure they partook in.  Pitiful.

"Thus we see that the Constitution provides that our negotiations for treaties shall have every advantage which can be derived from talents, information, integrity, and deliberate investigations, on the one hand, and from secrecy and despatch on the other."

Granted this is about treaties, but I think I can understand how Hillary Clinton did not know what she was voting for when we went to war in Iraq. *rolls eyes*  I can't believe she actually said that before.  It is funny that the democrats are always trying to run from the fact that they voted to go into the Iraq war.  They blame it all on Bush, but the vote stands.  77-23.  Somehow liberals always seem to forget that.

"and the government must be a weak one indeed, if it should forget that the good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole."

Here is a core belief of conservatives.  Liberals believe in giving everyone an equal slice of the pie, while we believe in making a larger pie.  We believe by giving the most economic freedom possible, each person will thrive, which will in turn boost our economy.  How a conservative belief works at a macroeconomics level is very easy to understand.  I have done a piece on it before...you can check my old posts before the Federalist Paper posts if you choose.  It had to do with the trickle down effect. 

"As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained."

I believe when that day comes...it is time to take back the government and no Constitution could do anything against such corruption.  If one believes it possible to find a government free of any form of corruption, they are dreaming.  Socialism is the utopian dream for liberals as they believe it would be the perfect society, though they forget, we are not robots.

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

The Senate Continued
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #63

"Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power"

Say limited to within the Constitution?  I will just make a quick note here as it gets repetitious, but their powers are limited to the Constitution!  How often they stray from that commitment! 

"And yet it is evident that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the final result"

And yet those failed policies of the 60's are still haunting us to this day!  It seems that those in our current congress are no longer a single link or two in the chain, but are a chain unto themselves!  40 years in the Senate?!  They ought to be answerable after that long and well before that in my opinion.  When a policy turns south and is obviously a failure, why leave it in there to suck away our money.  The lies coming from the democrats keep them firmly in place.  If they are so worried about the poor, why do conservatives give more to charity than liberals?  Why is Obama reducing tax deductions on charitable giving?  Why does Biden give less than 1% of his income to charities?  I find it funny how conservatives are always the "selfish" ones, yet we give way more in charity.  What a load...

"that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."

Here is where I think it necessary to keep the senate a representation of the state instead of the people of the state.  The people will still indirectly control them by electing those of the state representatives, but with a link in the middle, it changes the dynamics and acts as Hamilton says here.  I mentioned this yesterday I think. 

"or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn."

It almost makes me want to start singing about Obama eh?  I feel this will definitely happen and the backlash of the people being fooled will be powerful.  We shall see.

"the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act."

Here he just restates why I think the states should appoint the senators.  Though all at least indirectly elected by the people, it is important to have at least one house not directly elected by them so as not to be swayed on a whim of the people.

"Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large."

This does lay it out nicely.  On the contrary, if the people elect every one of those institutions then all that is needed is the sly tonque of men to get their way.  That may happen in the HoR here, but the senate is a different task.  With enough honest men in the state legislatures, they will appoint honest men to the senate.  Really one way or the other, if the people get fooled, all is lost, but with the senate being appointed by the states, it will take a bit longer for it to reach the senate if it originates with the people. 

I would like to point out how he formed his arguments.  First he started with conjectures then used history to prove his point and then again came back to his conjectures for the final point.  Using history as he did in this paper is very tough to argue against as he didn't just bring up one example, but multiple examples that correlated precisely to what was being written.  It takes lots of research, but it pays off in the long haul.

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

The Senate
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #62

"It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."

This is probably a reason why the Feds have encroached on the States powers so much as of late.  Since the senators are no longer put there by their states, we have basically made our Federal government a national government.  The states no longer have any representation in the government and as such, the Feds believe they can run anything they like, instead of allowing the states to do their own work.  Our 1D elections have been apart of the Federal government takeover essentially imo.

"against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. "

This is what I believe is happening ever so slowly.  Without the states representation, the senate is nothing more than the HoR with each member representing a different number of people.  The states have no more say there than they would in any other branch of government.  I believe this was a good check for it allowed the power of the federal government to come from different places directly and still indirectly all come from the people.  It would stop decisions being made on emotion since on at least one crossroad along the way, if one uses logic rather than emotion, then a good person will be chosen.  With all coming straight from the people, they can simply vote with emotion once and thats that. 

"and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable"

You can say that again!!!  Wow can you ever say that again.  How many unnecessary laws do we have?  They no longer try to keep them simple either, but in all probability, make them more complicated so as to create intentional loopholes.  Excess of law-making....I almost laughed out loud when I read this. haha

"First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust."

Hamilton is just on the money with this one!  A second sentence that made me laugh.  Do you think our congress has done this to the people?  Maybe with how they handled Fannie and Freddie?  Or how they forced the hand of the banks?  Or how they pass wasteful spending on a daily basis?  The list goes on, but our patience does not.  Trust...simple word eh clyde?  Easy to lose, hard to gain.

"An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly."

I will close Gitmo!  I will invade Pakistan!  I will lower taxes on 95% of the people on their income tax that is.  I will lower our dependence on foreign oil!  How many times do the democrats make promises without any way of following through?  Alternative energy is not ready to take the brunt of our system!  Where are we going to put the detainees from Gitmo?  Invade Pakistan?  He is raising taxes on everything else, so I can hardly stop from laughing when I hear him say that!  The empty promises get old and I cannot understand how any person can take them seriously.  I certainly get a kick out of watching them though.  It would be more funny if it wasn't so sad.

"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

That entire paragraph sums it up nicely I think.  The guys writing the tax codes are breaking them because "they didn't know".(Though Im pretty sure they did)  Why do so many people need to hire tax consultants?  The government just keeps getting worse and worse and soon it will be time to start with a clean slate I think. 

"This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY. "

I wonder how many democrats have a hand in Picken's energy company.  They want to shove alternative energy down our throats, and force us to use his company to do it.  Its been said that democrats together in congress could have a majority share in the company.  *cough* corruption *cough*  sorry, bad cough today.

"No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability."

And here we are today.  What the people will do in this situation remains to be seen however.

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

The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members)
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 26, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #61

"It may readily be perceived that it would not be more difficult to the legislature of New York to defeat the suffrages of the citizens of New York, by confining elections to particular places, than for the legislature of the United States to defeat the suffrages of the citizens of the Union, by the like expedient."

Proof by induction.  Most every argument against the Constitution can be fought back with a proof of induction.  Why are all those against the Constitution so trusting of the States?  Each state has Constitutions that are even less careful when it comes to many of these same subjects.  Time after time Hamilton and Madison use that argument and there is no way to combat it other than saying you don't trust your fellow man.  At that time it would be ludicrous for all those who just fought together to free themselves to turn around and admit they do not trust each other.  Today however those leading are, more often than not, people who have been raised with a silver spoon.  They have not sacrificed in any way(not that it is necessary), they have not started out on their own with a regular job, they do not know what it is to live paycheck to paycheck.  Most of them have not proven that they deserve to be trusted and that is before all the constant allegations that are ongoing in congress.  Its getting almost as bad as the NFL lol.  I can openly say that I do not trust my fellow man to lead our country.  I do not trust my fellow man to lead my state.  I do not trust my fellow man to make a decision in voting for a person based on their principles rather than their looks.  I do not trust my fellow man to lead my city.  I do not trust my fellow man period anymore and with good reason.  I look over all the people that have screwed over investors or constituents or even friends and how can anyone trust others to lead this country with what our leaders have done already?  I trust in myself first and very few others around me.  If I cannot trust others enough to keep my doors unlocked even in my neighborhood(which is in a suburb), then how can I trust those in congress?  They and particularily the GOP have lost my trust.  It is going to take more than 2 years to get it back and they haven't even started to try getting it back.  They do not stand on anything but are swayed by polls and the media.  Instead of bashing Jindal, lets jump behind him!  Instead of allowing Palin to be thrown to the wolves, lets make our own voices known!  The GOP has lost so much ground in the past few years...sigh...its like watching a car accident.

"If each State may choose its own time of election, it is possible there may be at least as many different periods as there are months in the year."

I do hate the primary system.  It allows for momentum to be built up that has nothing to do with actual policies.  This isn't a hockey game in which the team with momentum is pressuring while the other sits on defense to tries to hold on.  Politics should be emotionless for people to make the most beneficial decision for the country.  Primaries have ruined that and now anyone able to sway a few in Iowa and New Hampshire now have a chance at winning the primary election.  What a travesty.

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

The Same Subject Continued
(Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members)
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, February 26, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #60

"The improbability of the attempt may be satisfactorily inferred from this single reflection, that it could never be made without causing an immediate revolt of the great body of the people"

A reoccurring theme it seems is that the people would remove those elected officials from office, as soon as they saw something like this aspiring.  The truth of the matter is that the people no longer keep close tabs on the government and major stories like the Roman Catholic Church in Connecticut being trampled on, aren't even noticed except by a few who it directly affected.  For any revolt of the people to take place, all those it MIGHT affect in the future would have to step forward and on a case such as what Hamilton is covering, I don't see it.  He says in a following sentence that he cannot see how it would not happen, well...how about this.  Congress notices that a certain district could be a battleground district for a democratic congressman and they want to help this guy win.  They see that there are definitely two sides of the town, one republican and one democrat.  They decide that each voting station should move 48 blocks towards the democrat district by federal law.  Do you think that would affect the election at all?  Or maybe they decide that a republican one is not needed, so they gets it removed.  Do you think there would be an uprising of the people?  I don't see it.  Sorry Hamilton, can't back you up here.

"The House of Representatives being to be elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people"

It was set up like this for a reason.  The HoR are voted by the people because they are the closest to the people.  Their districts are the smallest and to win, the reps would need to have a personal relationship with those voters.  The senators have a much larger area to cover in many instances(I am aware of those in "flyover" country that do not) so they are not as close to the people.  The 6 year length brings them further still from the people, so the state legislatures would vote to bring in the best as they see it.  The President is further still and local electors are chosen by the people to vote for the person who represents their values the best.  As we have it now, feelings get WAY to involved and we have a single person wooing crowds to get elected instead of bringing policies.  Our election process is too one dimensional and it does not improve it at all in my opinion. 

"is it not evident that the policy of confining the places of election to particular districts would be as subversive of its own aim as it would be exceptionable on every other account?"

It isn't necessarily about the rich and poor here though in my opinion.  It is about voter blocks.  How come the Duluth Area and north in Minnesota is almost purely democrat, yet they are not rich or poor, but simply smaller towns up in the northern iron mines?  In smaller districts, voter blocks separate districts and by placing the voting locations strategically, you could acheive what Hamilton says will not happen.  Not too hard in my opinion, but times have changed on this front.

"Would they not fear that citizens"

In relating this entire paper to today, I am not in agreement with how this would play out if it happened now.  Back in their time, the people kept a closer watch on the government and protected their own freedoms.  The government feared backlash by the citizens if they tried anything to take away even the smallest of freedoms.  Today we willfully give our freedoms away without a second glance.  The government knows if they just rename the bill, the populace will have no idea and wouldn't care if they did.  So all in all, not a very informative paper on the whole, except maybe their descriptions on the voting blocks for HoR vs Senate vs President.  I am all for a 3D version of voting instead of this 1D version we have now.

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

Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 22, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #59

"It will not be alleged, that an election law could have been framed and inserted in the Constitution, which would have been always applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country"

This is why the Constitution can never be called outdated.  It was setup in such a way that the generalities it used were enduring truths.  Right to bear arms?  Always!!!  Not once upon a time, or for hunting, but for the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government that will inevitably try to overtake the citizenry at some point in our future.  Currently, Freedom of Religion is being attacked in Connecticut as they try to take over the Roman Catholic church!  Check that story out if you have not!  We must defend our rights!!!!

"It is to little purpose to say, that a neglect or omission of this kind would not be likely to take place"

With how the federal government is continuing on, can you see this being too far out?  Somewhere in the country may try to take a stand lol.

"will be a never failing bait to all such influential characters in the State administrations as are capable of preferring their own emolument and advancement to the public weal"

Well, this has leaked into the national stage, if it did not occur there first.  Lets say, for the sake of argument, there are a ratio of people that move into public office for their selfish rise to power.  With how long each of those types are staying in power, and I say this with an assumption that those where the office matters more than the public good will stay longer, more and more of them comparatively fill our national seats.  Yet another reason term limits should be implemented.

Ok, so there wasn't much to talk about here, so Ill add in a bit of current news.  In Washington DC, they currently have a voucher system so kids who want to actually learn can go to private schools and advance themselves.  The public schools have utterly failed as they have a proficiency rating of 36% in Math and 39% in reading in DC.  Can anyone actually say that if we had these kids just sit at home all day, they wouldn't be able to conjure up scores like that without education?  Im not sure anything can be labelled a failure above our public education system.  So, moving on, it costs them 13,000 per year for each public school student and only 7,500 for each voucher, making it cheaper to give vouchers than teach them in the public arena.  Yet it has been decided by the democrats, that they will remove the voucher system starting next school year because..............well frankly, I can't think of anything, but corruption.  Its cheaper and they get a better education.  The conservatives MUST take advantage of this!!!!  We have been harping on vouchers for years and know they are better.  Well here is our chance to prove that democrats do not care about education!  We have an example where they would rather spend more for a worse education than spend less on a better education.  Blatant corruption!!  Anyone with common sense can see this!  We must blow this out of proportion!!  This can be a poster issue for them not caring about our education!  Centerpiece issue! 

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

Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the
Progress of Population Demands Considered
MADISON

Federalist Paper #58

"or from a jealousy which discolors and disfigures every object which is beheld. "

This just brings to memory all the times the liberals lied about Bush because they simply did not like the guy for beating Gore.  His Foreign policies were the most hammered on and yet, Obama is doing what differently?  Putting more troops in Afghanistan?  Insulting Britain?  Mistranslating Russian?  They all love Obama's foreign policies, yet they are the same as Bush's and he is an amateur at it as well.  Why?  They insulted Bush time and time again, without actually stopping and thinking about the actual policies.  It matters not what they are, just who is implementing them.  What a bunch of sheep on the left.

"There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter."

Not that I am going to say that there are too few in the HoR, but does anyone actually think that the people are keeping an eye on anything the government is doing these days?  We hear the outcrys only because we are conservatives and are part of it.  If we were part of America that watched CNN daily for our news, we would hear nothing of any outcry, or of the suspicious activities the Obama administration does.  Much of America still doesn't care. 

"but justified by equity and the principles of the Constitution."

We've gone over this many times.  The Principles of the Constitution!!!  Not hard to understand.

"The utmost degree of firmness that can be displayed by the federal Senate or President, will not be more than equal to a resistance in which they will be supported by constitutional and patriotic principles."

That is exactly true!  This is why all those that are conservatives must shout their displeasure from every mountain top!  We have the Constitution on our side and it is our duty to prove that to every person that will listen.  Where would we be without the Constitution?  Would our country be even near where it is now had many others before us strayed from it half as much as we are?  How do we benefit from having the Constitution?  etc etc.

While reading this I came upon an idea that could help solve the problems of the rich taking all the spots in the HoR, or of term limits etc etc.  Every time we have a census, radically change the number of those in the HoR.  For example.  Right now, lets say we are at 400(I know its not right, but for argument here).  This next census will double our number to 800.  This will open up so many new seats that it will open the door to anyone willing.  Many uncontested seats could be taken by people who were forced into contention by their peers.  After 10 years, we would then halve it, and raise it slightly to account for the population.  In other words, we would keep a running count on what we think the HoR would be and every other 10 years, we will have double that instead of only that number.  At the end of that 10 years, the incumbents will be forced to run against each other and it will force out those who could not do their job effectively. 

It is a radical idea, but I think it would solve many problems.

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

The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the
Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 19, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #57

" that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people"

I already went over this before the subject about the House of Reps even came up.  Too many lawyers running around up there.  Not enough problem solvers.

"obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society"

Wisdom?  Is insulting our best ally wisdom?  Virtue?  You call all this double talk hypocrisy virtue?  Bush at least acted Presidential, no matter what things you hated about him.  He did not lower himself to the bickering of the media.  He was cultured enough to know that sending back a gift is an insult.  Obama has no clue what he is doing.  What a travesty of a President.  We should also make sure he doesn't pull a Clinton and try to take the gifts given to the GOVERNMENT while he was in office.

"The most effectual one, is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people."

Today we vote in people based on name recognition and because of this, our reps can pull off nearly anything while in office and the voters will not get rid of them.  Notice how long some of the most incompetent representatives stay in office.  Clearly there is something wrong here.

"No qualification of wealth"

See, here is another problem.  For any of these guys to run for an office, they must spend lots of money and it turns out that the wealthy have a great head start and with an already ignorant populace, that ground is nearly impossible to make up.  I am wondering how he came to the conclusion that this would not happen to be honest.  It is inevitable that the wealthy would eventually make their way to the top of this representative scheme.  Not only does money buy many things, but connections do as well.  In any case, this has happened in our society.

"would have more to hope from a preservation of the favor, than from innovations in the government subversive of the authority of the people."

Why is Obama trying to shove through all these bills without the public being able to properly criticize it?  He knows they are subversive of the authority of the people.  It seems to me that something like national healthcare, is an obvious failure.  Common sense just takes a look at all our government does and anyone with a head on straight can see they will not succeed in this venture.  I cannot see how Obama could see it differently than that.  To me he must know that it will be a failure, yet he wants the government to have more power over the people than they did before.  Is there any other reason?  If they take on national healthcare and it fails, which it will, we will be in a much worse situation for it and many more millions will be without.  Expand too much and everything falls, which leaves all without the benefits.

"that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Well, well, well.  I see that the DC gun ban would go against this measure.  Congressmen can still carry guns if they choose, while us lowlife citizens cannot.  I am going to keep an eye out for that in the Constitution as well.  This is a classless society and to keep it one, all laws must pertain to everybody!  His following paragraph outlines his disgust for governments that do as our congress has.  Wow, would he be pissed today! hehe

"Is it supported by REASON?"

How many arguments did the liberals come up with about Bush that were not supported by REASON?  How many arguments did they make about Rush or Coulter or Malkin or Hannity etc etc.  How often do they even have arguments supported by reason?  I would take a gander that more likely than not, if they have a problem, it is not a reasonable one.  Lies are the majority of the crap coming from the left.  You see it here daily on TH with the liberal posters, stopping by to claim a lie, and running off afterwards.  The problem is people are easily manipulated and so they hear the same lie enough and they believe it.  This all leads back to the ignorance of the populace because an educated population would not allow this to continue.

Each and every counter argument that could be brought would go back to the people being ignorant of the people they raised to power.  A republic cannot survive with an ignorant population as they will eventually elect their downfall.  Had our founders known how incredibly uninformed we would be today, they may have chosen a different form of government, though they would have probably put up safeguards against education instead of doing that.  What a pickle we have gotten ourselves into by voting blindly.  Are we past the point of no return?

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

Just thought I would put this up.  I was searching around today trying to find the ratings for Glenn Beck since I know his popularity has skyrocketed.  For a little fun I found this.

February Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined in Total Viewers

Fox News was the ratings leader during prime time and total day during February 2009 — its 86th month on top. FNC averaged more Total Viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and total day.

FNC had nine out of the top 10 programs in cable news last month in Total Viewers. The O'Reilly Factor was #1 for the 99th consecutive month, and was up 33% in Total Viewers compared to February 2008. The other top programs included Hannity (up 38%), Glenn Beck (the 5pmET hour was up 100%), The FOX Report with Shepard Smith (up 30%) and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (up 24%).

On the Record also reclaimed the lead in the 25-54 demographic, up 4% year to year. At 7pmET, FOX Report was up 28% in the demo, The O'Reilly Factor was up 44% and "Hannity" up 34%.

FNC's third newly launched show, "Special Report with Bret Baier," was up 38% in Total Viewers and the demo compared to last year. Baier's new program, Beck's and Sean Hannity's solo hour at 9pmET beat CNN and MSNBC combined in Total Viewers during their respective time periods.

In total day, FNC is up 29%, MSNBC 17% and CNN 2% in Total Viewers, and FNC is up 24%, MSNBC 7% and CNN is down 14% in the demo.

In prime time, FNC is up 28%, MSNBC 23% and CNN is down 30% in Total Viewers, while FNC is up 21%, MSNBC 3% and CNN is down 44% in the demo.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/february_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_in_total_viewers_109560.asp

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

The Same Subject Continued(The Total Number of the House of Representatives)
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 19, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #56

"An ignorance of a variety of minute and particular objects, which do not lie within the compass of legislation, is consistent with every attribute necessary to a due performance of the legislative trust."

Our representatives will never be able to know as much as the body of the people.  Our government will never be able to keep track of all, while doing it efficiently.  This is the reason the private sector always outperforms the public.  That is one of the reasons our economy was so much more prosperous than the USSR.  When a private company has a few extra dollars they do not waste it on new computers that are not needed, or some others wasteful thing, just so they get the funding next year.  The government has that happen everywhere and it only creates inefficiency with money.  Just take a look at our stimulus bills if you are not sold on their wasteful spending.  When a private business has extra cash they only invest where they truly need it.  If they do not need it, they find a way to increase their profits with that money instead.  Everything is always done as efficiently as the managers know how.  To do otherwise would put the company out of business and a competitor would take over their spot.  The problem is our government believes they cannot go out of business.  It is true that they are under a non-competitive market, but they can surely go bankrupt. 

"and it may be expected that whenever internal taxes may be necessary, and particularly in cases requiring uniformity throughout the States, the more simple objects will be preferred."

I can see where our 16,000+ pages of our current tax codes would be simple right?  The more simple objects will be preferred!!!!  Sometimes I get the feeling that congress tries to word things in such a way that the average person would not be able to decipher what is being said.  That way they can claim it says something entirely different than what it actually means.  Simple simple simple.  I tell ya.

"The representatives of each State will not only bring with them a considerable knowledge of its laws, and a local knowledge of their respective districts, but will probably in all cases have been members, and may even at the very time be members, of the State legislature, where all the local information and interests of the State are assembled, and from whence they may easily be conveyed by a very few hands into the legislature of the United States."

I am going to go over the Constitution after these federalist papers and I will keep an eye out for this.  Can a person be a member of a state legislature at the same time as a Federal office.  That seems unlikely, but the way he worded this, it seems, at least, at that time you could. 

"can add any thing either to the security of the people against the government"

I found it rather fascinating that the first thing he mentioned would be the security of the people against the government, when this paper is not about that subject at all.  It just shows the amount of distaste the leaders of our country had for any kind of government, but knew that it was a necessary evil.  Today it is the exact opposite, where our "leaders" believe government is the end all, be all.  When anyone finally realizes the fundamental differences between our current leaders and our founders, it becomes clear why our current leaders cannot work with the Constitution.  The Constitution is meant to constrain them in every way possible, except for the few things necessary for a national government to run.  If we were to remove anything truly unconstitutional, over half our budget would probably be removed and we would have a surplus right now.  Everyone in government today believes the opposite and with those views, how can any of them stay within the bounds of a Constitution they believe is flawed?  Obama has said before that he believes the Constitution to restrictive on some of his agenda.  That was while he was a state senator I believe.  Im not going to waste my time finding the video, but I can tell you it was a video I saw of him saying that.

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

The Total Number of the House of Representatives
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 15, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #55

"thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many"

Ok, so many will say that our congress is not looking to elevate the few and oppress the rest of us.  Perhaps they should take a look at all communist societies.  Sure anyone can claim we are not headed there, but just take a look at all the nationalization talk.  Even the European socialism was not nationalizing anything until this global economic crisis.  Communism is the government owning the businesses and forcing their hand.  Communism has always claimed to be for the little guy, for labor unions for example, yet somehow every time communism is implemented a majority of its citizens are near poverty.  I looked this up months ago and at the height of the USSR power in the mid 80's, 60% of their population was within 2 times their poverty line which was at 7,000 Rubles(I think on that 7,000 number).  If my memory serves right, our poverty line is at $13,000, meaning 60% of our population would make below $26,000.  Do you believe that to be even close to the stats?  According to the 2005 US census bureau, 50% make under $44,389 and the 60% mark is at about $58,000.  How is it that capitalism not only increases the lifestyle of the poor, but they also give them a better chance of rising out it and yet people still think capitalism is all about the rich?  Our current congress has began corporate welfare, the exact thing that liberals are always against in all their "anti-rich" rhetoric.  I am 100% against all these bailouts of the wealthy that took a greedy route.  Had we allowed some of these mortgage giants to fail, other banks would buy the loans for pennies on the dollar and the debt would be gone.  The fall would have been sharp and swift, but the recovery would be all the better for it.  Instead we are propping up these banks, insurance companies, auto businesses, but it will do nothing.  GM will need money until the day they file for bankruptcy because the unions have them strangled.  The banking industry doesn't just have water over their heads, they are at the bottom of the lake.  Back to permanent elevation...it is not an elevation of the rich over the poor, but of the government over the people.  When a government is large enough to give it to you, they are large enough to take it all away.  And all this isn't even mentioning the reoccurring theme of bankruptcy following around socialism and communism. 

"I am equally unable to conceive that there are at this time, or can be in any short time, in the United States, any sixty-five or a hundred men capable of recommending themselves to the choice of the people at large, who would either desire or dare, within the short space of two years, to betray the solemn trust committed to them"

Ask yourself this question.  If we had just had a revolution and we needed to kick start our economy, do you think congress would be enacting these crazy spending sprees?  Do you think they would be filled with pork?  Do you think Obama would be worrying about enacting nationalized healthcare at that time?  The reason for the probable changes would be the fear of the people.  Just after our revolution from Britain, our government officials knew the people were keeping a close eye on them.  They knew how thin the ice was they were walking upon.  If they strayed and tried breaking into the freedoms of the people, they would be overthrown immediately.  Today our congressmen have no fear of the people.  Constant manipulation is first concern of our government.  Name the largest budget with "Era of Responsibility" and the people will not know any different.  Whether actual action needs to be taken or not, the fear of the people needs to return to our government, otherwise we will be at their mercy and soon all our freedoms will be taken.

"they had the fate of their country more in their hands than it is to be hoped will ever be the case with our future representatives"

Our government was meant to give us the freest country in all the world.  The fate of the country should not lie with the government, but with the people.  It seems that liberals have forgotten that it is the people that who should be making their own decisions.  The government should not be going beyond the basic needs of the nation.  The freedom of the people is what makes our country so great.  Our flag is a symbol of freedom around the world.  People fight tooth and nail just to get in the door to have a bite at our economic freedoms, our religious freedoms, our voting freedoms, our freedoms!  Why change that and give the ultimate power over to the government?  Has any nation ever prospered while the government held power over the people?  What makes anyone think that will suddenly change now?  Human nature will never change and that is a fundamental reason capitalism and republics work best.  It uses our personal weaknesses and turns them into economic strengths.  It pits power against power so that one may not rule all.  It regularily holds elections so as to remove any who have been corrupt or acted against the country's best interest.  It allows for the motivated to make the most of their possibilities.  It makes every working person more productive than any other type of society.  Looking back on the cold war, if you remove nuclear weapons, did they ever really have a chance?  Our only risk was that they may drop a bomb on us.  They would not have had a chance at invading us and could not possibly keep up with us economically.  Just another example of capitalism overwhelming communism.

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

The Apportionment of Members Among the States
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, February 12, 1788.
HAMILTON OR MADISON

Federalist Paper #54

"that representation relates more immediately to persons"

I have always wondered why we do not simply elect the president based off population.  I know they wanted an indirect election by the people, or something of the sort, but why not just have the people straight out vote?  When voting for a person in a district race, you do not tally the number of blocks each person won, you tally the vote count.  Same goes for state races.  They do not count the districts that each Governor has won, but the entire voting count winner.  Why then when moving towards president do they suddenly change the rules?  Im sure someone could tell me, and if you know, please do, for I am have wondered this before.

"If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice"

Respect for the person of fortune.  Boy has our attitude changed towards the people that make our country great.  We used to revere the people that stood up and made a success of themselves.  Now we tear down the person that was smart enough to start their own business and turn it into a multi-billion dollar business.  Why?  Liberals have created class jealousy.  Instead of the middle class looking up and thinking that could be them if they worked harder, they want to bring that wealthy guy down to their level.  They want each person to suffer as they suffer.  Is that not what communism is?  From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.  Here in America we have many many wants.  How much of our money goes to entertainment, fashion or expensive dining or others?  To each according to his needs...think about that.  The poor class in America still lives in the top 2% in the world.  Do they live according to their needs?  Do the poverty stricken in America only live to survive?  Food, clothing, shelter?  I think not!  Even the poorest of our country lives much beyond base necessities.  To rehash, to each according to his needs.  This means that we would bring everyone down to the bottom level until we are all equal.  Everyone lives an equal lifestyle under communism.  This is not a zero sum game we are playing here.  Without the "rich" to create jobs, the government will have taken full control of our lives and your freedoms are gone.  Voting?  bye bye.  Extra spending cash?  bye bye.  New sports car?  Bye bye.  You name it, if its a want instead of a need...bye bye.  Conservatives must focus on destroying the class warfare if they are ever to wipe out liberals.  Class envy is what other countries go through, when their are classes based on birth.  We here have the American dream in which any person can end up in any class they choose.  Instead of degrading the poor by insulting them with money for votes, lets empower them to reach higher and move up the ladder on the fruits of their own labor.  It starts with a good education...so I guess it goes full circle on where conservatives must go first to begin their ascent to power, but we must break it somewhere. 

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