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

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