General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #41

This ought to be interesting.  A general view of the Powers...

"to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. "

Can it possibly be defended that our government has acted in the best interest of the people in the past 50 years?  Very few times throughout that period can anyone pick out a policy that the public has actually benefited from.  Sure Reagan lowered taxes, but they never should have been that high to begin with.  Instead they have added an ever increasing load of spending on the people.  The only time spending was lowered was when Newt was in charge of the budget.  Lowering the spending is crucial if we are to ever leave this recession/depression.  Today Glenn Beck had a great show on what if's.  What if our economy collapsed?  What if people started banding together in defiance of the government?  What would happen to the power vacuum if we fell from power?  It was very entertaining show to say the least and informative to say the most.  Some of the scenario's he put forth were not that far from probable in my opinion.

1. "Security against foreign danger;
2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations;
3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States;
4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility;
5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts;
6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers."

Now...isn't that just the best list anyone can possibly imagine.  Where does the majority of our budget come under?  One would think 1 and Im sure our founding fathers thought so, but instead 4 takes the crown.  Ever notice when someone puts something under miscellaneous, it is there because it is such a small amount it doesn't deserve its own group?  How can social security, medicaid and welfare take up 1.3 trillion and be mentioned under misc.!?  I also notice that welfare is not a general utility, nor is medicaid, or social security.  I will go my entire life and not use welfare, so why should I pay in for it?  Am I going to get a check later?  I also do not have the choice to use it at anytime I like as with other such utilities that one could argue.  I can use the freeway system anytime I choose, or the USPS and hence they can be called general utilities, but I cannot use welfare unless I qualify, but I pay in all the same.  Such a travesty.  Hamilton mentioned the 4 reasons a government should be formed in the 23rd paper, but I believe this list takes the cake on bringing the lack of constitutionality down on the democrats.  I have said it before, all bills passed should be proven to be constitutional, not the other way around.  Do I go about proving that 2+2 does not equal 5?  or 6?  or 7?  no...One proves 2+2=4.  Proving in the negative is counterintuitive and shouldn't be done.  You are not, guilty until proven innocent.  A prosecutor must prove that you are guilty.  A congressman must prove that his bill is constitutional before it can even be voted upon.

"It will present liberty everywhere crushed between standing armies and perpetual taxes. "

No one doubts why he would include standing armies in this context, but perpetual taxes?  If that be true, we have crushed our liberties without the standing armies forcing us into submission.  We have gone gladly into the pit and are now awaiting execution by our enslavers.  Years ago, we were once partners, or possibly even the superior,  with our enslaver instead of being whipped like today.  The government has ever so slowly closed its grip around the people of this nation and we are now in the midst of socialism and nationalization of the banks.  How many companies does the government now own?  Obama is silent on the issue and Gibbs won't answer questions, yet we all know what they are thinking on nationalizing the banks.  Government is the answer right?  How wrong.  On the Glenn Beck show tonight, he had on many experts talking about these doomsday scenarios.  One mentioned that we are not in a situation that has never been seen before.  Other countries have been in our same situation and each and every time the government went for socialism/communism and the country ended up in chaos.  We are now following in the same footsteps.  Check out foxnews.com and find Glenn Beck for the videos.  It was under the war room and it has 3 videos on the worst case scenarios.  http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/index.html 

"The power of levying and borrowing money, being the sinew of that which is to be exerted in the national defense, is properly thrown into the same class with it."

It seems that every time PUBLIUS, being Madison or Hamilton, give reason for indefinite taxes, they use the military as the reasoning.  Perhaps that is a typo and they meant social programs instead?  Had the military been taken out of the equation, they would have been hard pressed to find a reason to give the government an infinite limit on taxation, yet our government spends most of its money on other means.  It is too bad that they didn't put a limit on the spending that could be done on non-military items, but I suppose they didn't want the constitution to be outdated in any way at any time. 

"Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  So basically a militia is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, with the reason for it not being infringed is that it is necessary for the security of a free state.  I cannot understand how anyone can possibly not understand that.

He will continue on those 6 classes of powers in the next paper.  I can't wait to see what #4 holds. 

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

The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #40

"We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction."

Just some more proof that congress has no jurisdiction over powers not enumerated in the constitution.  The States have the power to make many of the decisions that are being forced upon them by the federal government.  If a state wants to ban the murder of babies, they should be able to do so, for example.  The supreme court is not meant to intervene in cases that do not belong on a national level.  There are state supreme courts for that purpose. 

"precious right of the people to "abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness"

That time may be approaching, but I hope not yet.  Alter, yes, abolish, only if need be.  We are at a crossroads here in the US.  We can either move more socialist, or more capitalist.  There is no middle ground here because if we do, it will cripple us and failure is nearly absolute.  Moving socialist, we are also doomed to failure, yet there is a certain draw the people have to it.  No socialist state has ever avoided bankruptcy.  Europe is now moving back towards capitalism with the last batch of elections since they couldn't handle it anymore.  If this choice prevails, an abolishment of our government will be necessary.  Capitalism is the only way to free ourselves from the grasp of bankruptcy.  Ill sit tight for now and be optimistic, but I do not have confidence in the American people anymore.

"If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy"

President Bush was utterly hated by the left for who knows what reasons.  Obama is loved by them.  What has Obama really done that Bush didn't?  Obama has not closed down Gitmo.  Obama has not ended the Iraqi war.  Obama is pushing for stimulus bills.  Obama is for amnesty.  Exactly what did they hate about Bush that they like about Obama?  It seems to me that just because Bush was a republican, they hated him, even though he was probably the most bipartisan president in recent history.

Sorry, there wasn't much I could draw from that related to today.  Interesting how there were talks of a usurpation of power, when they had no constitution holding them back.  They did much less than our congress does today, and our congress DOES have a constitution that they should be abiding by.  Clearly if one is overstepping it is today's congress. 

Just a last thing.  If you have not seen:


We need more people who will just speak common sense.  Rick was simply saying what was on his mind and guess what, the people will eat that up.  Thank you Rick!

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

The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #39

"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."

During good behavior and for a limited period are two things mentioned.  I have often wondered why our founders did not put a term limit on the offices.  They went through example after example of how power corrupts humans.  Could they not see that if a person is in the senate for 40 years, that they become disconnected with their people?  This problem had not arisen until recently where many in the senate have been there for over 30 years, and previously very few had made it that far.  Funny how at the moment when we have all these, "5th year seniors" Ill call them, in office, we are suddenly in a world of hurt.  Im pretty sure that corruption had a major part to play in our recent economic downturn and I believe a majority of it came within the congress.  The time is long past when these congressmen represented their people.  They are now only there to represent themselves and nothing else. 

"It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."

And the very next sentence gives another blow!  A favored class?  Tyrannical nobles?  Oppression by delegation of their powers?  Well, lets walk through them.  The favored class of lawyers has been gone over in here recently.  Has trouble written all over it when a single profession holds so much power over the country.  Especially a profession for the silky smooth liars.  Our leaders have turned into tyrannical nobles in a sense that many have been in power their whole lives.  Over 40 years of a senate seat and you will begin to think you are invincible.  They have no sense of responsibility left after being away from it for so long.  When a first term senator comes in, he is usually trying to prove to his constituents that he is there to represent THEM, not himself(Obama apparently excluded with his shenanigans he pulled).  Somebody like McCain doesn't have that sense anymore and believes their opinion trumps the peoples opinions.  Such a shame.  And Oppression by delegation.  Does anyone think that the founders had in mind the social engineering by taxation that the democrats are gunning for?(Clydes terms in comments past)  I hear Massachusetts is now planning on trying to tax people per mile they drive.  A chip in their car and a bill comes in the mail.  Let alone all the workarounds people could come up with, this is an insane idea, not to mention the legal ramifications.  What about out of state?  If I am driving out of state, I shouldn't have to pay for my mile tax, if that state does not have the law.  I don't pay Minnesota sales tax in Wisconsin do I?  Well, for them to handle that problem, they would have to add a GPS signal to your chip and would therefore be tracking your every move.  Invasion of privacy?  To top it off, they will probably start handing out speeding tickets using this chip.  And I wouldn't doubt that they could find a way to receive a signal if a phone dialed in, from a certain portion of the car (which BrianR had in his blog a while back about tickets for talking on the phone while driving).  So many legal problems, I hope for the sake of our government that this measure is not voted through.  A workaround would probably be powering up the chip in your house.  Its powered and giving a signal, but it isn't moving anytime soon.

"The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior."

Many saw a problem in Obama electing judges.  I think there could be loopholes if this is the exact sort of wording in the constitution(I didn't check for writing this).  Good behavior is very...relative.  If conservatives make a major comeback, we will have popularity much like Reagan did.  Democrats can almost never get that because common sense will not allow it.  Conservatism is common sense, so when we finally get a good speaker, we will win over the voters in droves.  Once in power, we could go over the clearly unconstitutional rulings of the liberal judges.  Gun banning rulings for starters.  2nd Amendment protects our rights, yet some voted against that and chose gun control.  Could anything be more clearly unconstitutional?  That is not good behavior, they are gone. 

"They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.''

I just thought this a bit humorous.  Madison disproves it being a national government and says we have a federal to mixed government.  Now, back in that day, even the founders did not want a national government.  They wanted the states to keep their powers, but knew a federal government to control certain duties would be necessary.  Today we have liberals pushing for everything national, from healthcare to welfare, from social laws(abortion) to drilling permits.  Yesteryear they didn't even want the government to be considered a national government, and today we are national everything.  And republicans are the ones stomping on the constitution. lol *rolls eyes*

"since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects."

A specific argument Madison uses to prove our this government is federal is that the constitution binds the federal government to enumerated objects.  The states were supposed to retain most of their power, but clearly they do not anymore.  The states are at the mercy of the, now, national government.

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

The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 15, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #38

"What degree of agency these reputed lawgivers might have in their respective establishments, or how far they might be clothed with the legitimate authority of the people, cannot in every instance be ascertained. In some, however, the proceeding was strictly regular. Draco appears to have been intrusted by the people of Athens with indefinite powers to reform its government and laws. And Solon, according to Plutarch, was in a manner compelled, by the universal suffrage of his fellow-citizens, to take upon him the sole and absolute power of new-modeling the constitution. The proceedings under Lycurgus were less regular; but as far as the advocates for a regular reform could prevail, they all turned their eyes towards the single efforts of that celebrated patriot and sage, instead of seeking to bring about a revolution by the intervention of a deliberative body of citizens."

This is exactly what the liberals want with Obama.  They want him to "rebirth" this country in a new fashion, a socialist fashion.  Taking a look at the corruption linked to him though, just imagine if any of these guys mentioned had any sort of alternative motives.  Im sure they had some in it for themselves, but how do you think it would turn out if Obama was given full authority?  Do you think a mere 93k petty cash would suffice?  Heck, thats less than the amount of taxes his friends haven't paid. 

"should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected? These questions cannot be fully answered, without supposing that the fears of discord and disunion among a number of counsellors exceeded the apprehension of treachery or incapacity in a single individual."

This is yet another reason why our constitution is so unique.  Somehow we had a body of delegates that could agree on what SHOULD rule our country.  With that, they were able to contrive a constitution that has yet to be bested and is now a rule of thumb for any emerging republics.  Why stray from it?  Why not stick to the boundaries that are specified?  Why why why?  These questions must be asked of any in the current body of government.  Time after time they have overstepped their bounds and I have had enough.  If they continue it will be our downfall.

"The physicians attend; the case of the patient is carefully examined; a consultation is held; they are unanimously agreed that the symptoms are critical, but that the case, with proper and timely relief, is so far from being desperate, that it may be made to issue in an improvement of his constitution. They are equally unanimous in prescribing the remedy, by which this happy effect is to be produced."

This is where it is a travesty that so many lawyers are in power.  Look how many lawsuits are filed across the country.  Do you think the way laws are made would have anything to do with it?  How many times does a prosecutor get the short end when they don't win their case?  They have nothing to lose by frivilous lawsuits, so they continue to try.  Nothing to lose has become a cornerstone of the democrats.  Nothing to lose by staying at home instead of working.  Nothing to lose by claiming disability pay.  Nothing to lose by not being a skilled teacher.  Nothing to lose if you don't perform in your union job.  Nothing to lose by losing a frivilous lawsuit.  If there is nothing to lose, then people will flock in hordes and now we have a problem on our hands.  Thank you democrats.

On the other hand and to his point here, conservatives must band together.  We come out here and there, but whenever liberals do something that we don't like, but its not too important, we just sit back and complain.  We wait until they go for amnesty and then we finally show our faces.  We have to stay atop the political discussions so we make our voices heard!

"No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold, because the latter had some alloy in it."

Has anyone started hearing liberals ask conservatives if they want Obama to succeed?  I thought it funny since they were bent on destroying any chance Bush had of succeeding in Iraq by fueling the enemy.  See, we don't want him succeed, but not for the reasons liberals think.  It isn't that we don't want to be proven wrong or anything like that.  If he succeeds, that means that we are socialist.  Our freedoms would have been constrained upon.  The chance of moving up the economic ladder would have declined considerably.  Our standards of living would have gone down with all the "climate change" BS put into place...etc etc.  We want capitalism and if Obama succeeds, we can kiss capitalism goodbye.  If he can succeed without pulling his socialist crap out of the bag, then Im all for it. 

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

Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government
From the Daily Advertiser.
Friday, January 11, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #37

"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good"

Palin anyone?  That woman had to endure an insane amount of criticism simply because she was a conservative.  Notice the "troopergate" charges were dropped?  Today O'Reilly had whoopie on his show and she claimed that all candidates had the media treating them equal to each other.  What a load.  The only station treating every candidate by the same standards was Fox News.  Obama had softball questions lofted at him like it was a homerun durby while Palin had to hit 95 mph fastballs from 30ft(instead of the normal 60ft) from all other stations.  Can anyone remember an administration that had so many shady cabinet member appointments?  Im still wondering how he can know all these terrorists, racists, tax evaders, corrupt and not think he isn't one of them.  Yet MSM will still not vet him properly.  Lunatics...those are the only people left that could believe the crap spewing from his mouth.

"...should find or excite dispositions unfriendly, both on one side and on the other, to a fair discussion and accurate judgment of its merits"

I notice that everytime liberals want to shove something down our throats, the discussion is already over.  Climate change?  Nothing to discuss right?  Stimulus?  Well, I can't fault just liberals here, republicans did the same thing with Bush.  But they scream that it must happen instantly or we are all doomed!  Nothing is too important to discuss openly and allow it to be scrutinized.  By doing so, it allows us to take the time needed to make the correct decision regarding these situations.  Right now I believe the government is hiding much of the problems our country faces, or they are just lacking all common sense.  These stimulus bills will do nothing and will only put our government further in debt, only to delay the inevitable, unless major changes are made.  Obama is not making changes, let alone changes in the right direction.  Lowering taxes would act as an immediate stimulant.  If people are able to start paying for their houses again, that is the stimulus needed by the banks, no assembly required. 

"that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents"

History, history, history!  Why do liberals continually ignore history?  Did the great depression teach these limbos nothing?  Work programs do not work, raising taxes does not work.  FDR lengthened the great depression until WW2 finally dug us out.  Obama is looking for something of the same nature I presume, given he seems to be following in FDR's footsteps.  Perhaps that is why democrats are trying to remove the term limits on the president.  They want him in there for 4 terms like FDR as well.  I can't wait for Obama to introduce the LoN lol.  I can imagine Obama creating some treaty to band some like minded countries to himself. 

"Not less arduous must have been the task of marking the proper line of partition between the authority of the general and that of the State governments."

I haven't kept up to date on the 7 states who are introducing bills about the federal government usurping power, but I hope they are not dropping them easily.  I line was drawn, and the federal government has crossed it.  The 10th was that line.

"Experience has instructed us that no skill in the science of government has yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty, its three great provinces the legislative, executive, and judiciary; or even the privileges and powers of the different legislative branches."

It is unbelievable the amount of ingenuity our founders had.  Today common sense eludes most of our congressmen on even the most basic of problems.  Our founders came up with a government that had yet to have been seen on our planet and to this day I still believe it perfect.  As I said before, had we stayed in its boundaries, we would have avoided many of these problems. 

"It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution."

I certainly hope that he isn't talking about God, because we weren't founded as a Christian nation, right?  Just another example of how we were founded as a Christian nation!  Clues throughout speeches, papers, even constitutions, yet liberals continue to claim otherwise.  Lost cause if you ask me.

"The first is, that the convention must have enjoyed, in a very singular degree, an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities the disease most incident to deliberative bodies"

It is beneficial that we had this constitution written up so soon after the war.  There was not yet time for deep ingrained ideological differences to take root.  George Washington isn't even considered to be a part of any political party.  Had parties been established, we most certainly would not have come out with such an incredible document in the constitution.  Banish parties from our country and we may get back to discussion that actually benefits the country, instead of only the congressmen.

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday January 8, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #36

"The door ought to be equally open to all; and I trust, for the credit of human nature, that we shall see examples of such vigorous plants flourishing in the soil of federal as well as of State legislation"

How many in DC are now lawyers?  Hold a second, Im going to do some quick research... Of our senate 60% have a law degree.  On the site I found that info, a question was asked of the bloggers..."Seems to me that having so many lawyers in the Senate is clear evidence that this body is not representative of its citizens, nor is it attracting the best, brightest and most accomplished Americans, by any stretch of the imagination."  In the HoR, according to yahoo answers, is 132.  Still way too many.  What say you?  We have been going on about how people will not be equally represented, but it shouldn't be this lopsided.  These lawyers all think alike and they know how to take advantage of people.  Not a good idea by anyones admission.  If our founders wanted it this way, they would have added some prerequisites to running for US offices, but they did not!  Why do I not see a successful HS grad in the senate seats or doctors, engineers, scientists or accountants?  These lawyers have for the most part been fed on a silver spoon and can therefore have no idea which laws actually help the poor and which laws hurt them.  They have no idea how a person lives when they have to choose certain things over other since cash is low.  These are the exact reasons why our congress cannot hold down their spending.  Since they, in their own lives, have never had to struggle or watch what they spend, they don't do it with the taxpayers money either.  Major problems, and this is probably a root of many of our problems in congress.
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/05/lawyers-in-the-us-senate-quiz-the-answers/

"No doubt from the information of the members of the county. Cannot the like knowledge be obtained in the national legislature from the representatives of each State?"

clyde, here is a great debate strategy.  Chose a circumstance that is already happening, and compare it to what you are talking about.  Careful not to choose too polarizing of an issue to compare with.  People tend to turn off their ears when they hear hitler for example. 

"the frightful forms of odious and oppressive poll-taxes, have been played off with all the ingenious dexterity of political legerdemain."

I had to look that word up. legerdemain.  Slight of hand.  Basically he says that people are being stirred up by a false sense of panic.  People may be...politicizing the entire thing.  My how that happens today on a daily basis.

"in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society."

Not only do democrats want to diminish the necessity, they want to pay people for simply breathing.  I think I want in!  What Hamilton speaks to here is each paying their fair share, but a progressive percentage tax is not what he is talking about.  A flat percent tax would still levy the majority of the taxes on the wealthy and the poor would not pay very much.  What the government would do is put a 10k write-off for everyone so people at lower incomes would pay less in taxes, but the percent is the same all the way up and the rich get that same 10k write-off.  It won't affect them as much, but all is fair there and it diminishes the need for the money from the poor. 

And so we have finished the taxation portion of the Federalist Papers.  Thank you come again! :)

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #35

"it would naturally occasion an undue proportion of the public burdens to fall upon those objects...the oppression of particular branches of industry; and an unequal distribution of the taxes"

So I know he was talking about restricting them to certain items and whatnot, but how could those comments not be different for taxing all items?  Oppression of industry?  Unequal distribution?  Well first let start with unequal distribution.  Does anyone think we have unequal distribution of taxes in this country?  Maybe against anyone that is picking themselves up?  It seems to me that all of Obama's "tax breaks" are going to people who do not pay taxes.  Is it possible to give tax breaks to people that didn't pay taxes?  Its shouldn't be called tax breaks, but socialism/redistribution of wealth/inequality.  I remember the day when democrats were trying to hide the fact that Obama mentioned redistribution of wealth during the election.  Now I hear it from all the liberals.  We used to have them covering up that they were backing socialism, now they celebrate an Obama victory with a hammer and sickle.  They are coming out in the open like warewolves during full moon.  Time to pick them off with silver bullets.  Single these issues out and focus on them.  If conservatives everywhere focused on how, for example, raising taxes on businesses will hurt our economy.  Only talk about that issue for a full week, or month, or whatever it takes for the entire country to know about the issue.  Only then will people turn on that issue and see the gaping holes in liberal logic.  Do that to one issue at a time and that is how you win.  Conservative need to get on the same page though, or it will never work.  Oppression of industry falls under that a bit too.  For some reason everyone is against big business.  What do you think made America so great during the industrial revolution?  Do you think if the government held down US Steel that we would have grown to what we are today?  Of course not!  Why are people against big business?  Class warfare that the liberals have jammed down everyones throats and since human nature is to be jealous, it plays right into the liberals hands.  What a bunch of sheep people are.  So easily manipulated by such small things.  I have heard it before, and Ill reiterate it. The person is smart, but people are stupid.

"be tempted to extend these duties to an injurious excess. "

I see income taxes going the way he imagined import duties here.  Liberals think they have the neverending waterhole.  They are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.  Once the people leave, they will not come back.  Once the rich go to China or Japan, they will be gone for good and China will become the next world power.

"which, for a time, would have the intended effect, till there had been leisure to contrive expedients to elude these new precautions."

Here the people would have the option of purchasing a different object to elude these higher taxes.  What if the people do not have a choice?  The people are already strapped for cash, and now taxes are higher, whats going to happen?  They will be forced to buy less obviously.  So then the businesses will sell less for less profit and will be forced to lay off people who will have less money to buy less etc etc and the cycle continues.  Big spiral into depression.  That should sound familiar to FDR's solutions to the great depression.  Didn't work here, didn't work there and it won't work in the future either. 

"The idea of an actual representation of all classes of the people, by persons of each class, is altogether visionary."

That idea is democracy basically and nothing can ever get done in a democracy.  To represent all people equally the representing body would be in the thousands and it would be just like a democracy.  Although with how congress misrepresents the people on a daily basis, a democracy doesn't sound too bad from my standpoint. lol.  In all seriousness, the people would just start voting themselves money and it would be destroyed.  Democracies aren't a very good idea.

"The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue."

Class warfare shows its ugly head again.  The liberals have tried to sacrifice the wealthy for the general welfare, only they do not understand the principles of taxation.  It is a wonder that such..."smart"...people can be so stupid when it comes to macroeconomics and taxation.  Common sense can explain much and that is basically all Hamilton uses in these papers to describe taxation.  I guess our congress is running low on common sense. 

"It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome."

Most productive is least burdensome.  Now how would that come to pass?  Could it be that if you tax the people too much, you will get a lower amount in revenue?  The idea of taxation is not to burden the people, but to supply the federal government to carry out its NECESSITIES.  Too long the federal government has thought of the people as a well to bucket money from.  If they keep up their pace on stimulus packages and whatnot, the well will run dry and soon.

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 4, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #34

"we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. "

Can anyone look at socialism and, without laughing, claim that it can work in the long run?  Each and every nation that is up to their eyeballs in socialism, is on the brink of bankruptcy and to take that further, take a look at the programs running us aground.  Welfare, medicaid and social security cost over 1.3 trillion a year.  Gotta hurt the pocket book there.  I gave my auto example yesterday which was looking toward the future, but what does congress do?  Look to next week.  Bailouts do not allow for a proper recovery and instead of the businesses cleaning house, they continue in their ways.  How are we supposed to recover if businesses keep on all the expenses?  FDR and his crap never got us out of the great depression and it actually made it worse, now Obama is going to do the same thing.  Very sad that the leader of the free world cannot learn from history.  Very sad indeed.

"Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages"

So basically this amounts to him saying that the constitution will never go out of style.  It was made for the reason of continually giving protection to the people, not to give protection to them for a couple decades.  Liberals will have you believe the constitution is old news in one breath and blame republicans for stomping on it in another.  If only people were not sheep...

"Admitting that we ought to try the novel and absurd experiment in politics of tying up the hands of government from offensive war founded upon reasons of state"

Now I would put Iraq into this equation.  Preemptive strike is the word Im looking for and that is exactly what the United States has done overseas.  Liberals also throw Israel down the shoot for doing the same thing, though they actually were attacked first.  I wonder why Israel doesn't just clean house of the Palestinians unless they cease and desist all attacks on Israel.  The US is still behind them, but it may not always be that way.

"A cloud has been for some time hanging over the European world. If it should break forth into a storm, who can insure us that in its progress a part of its fury would not be spent upon us?"

Even during WW2 the US citizens didn't have this kind of foresight(for the most part).  Many thought, its their war.  Guess what would have happened, one of two things...Germany would have cleaned house over in Europe and come to our house and fought on OUR land with OUR children dying, or USSR would have taken over most of the rest of the world.  Two very positive outlooks, don't you think?  Good thing we acted when Germany DIDN'T attack us, don't you think?

"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option...To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace"

Can someone blare this from the loudspeakers?  Every loon needs to hear this so they can see that this world is not a utopia.  Fairy tales are just that.  Bad people are in this world and they are out to attack the United States, no matter how many friendly words we use.  On that second part, war have more sway than peace?  Who woulda thought?  Obama doesn't realize that as soon as he bends over backwards for these terrorists, they will have him bend into a pretzel for his next act.  Until all infidels are dead, these insane lunatics will not stop.

"In the kingdom of Great Britain, where all the ostentatious apparatus of monarchy is to be provided for, not above a fifteenth part of the annual income of the nation is appropriated to the class of expenses last mentioned; the other fourteen fifteenths are absorbed in the payment of the interest of debts contracted for carrying on the wars in which that country has been engaged"

Now, he mentions war, but our expenses over time have not come from war.  The war in Iraq is petty cash compared to the war on poverty or other social programs.  Soon we will be paying most of our government revenue to pay off debts.  Thank you socialism!  *rolls eyes*

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the Daily Advertiser.
January 3, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #33

"to make all laws which shall be NECESSARY and PROPER for carrying into execution THE POWERS by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof''

Who gives power to the government?  The Constitution!!!  The government should not need each and every negative proof in the constitution for them to avoid.  The constitution should not need to have "the government shall not nationalize the auto industry by bailing them out".  It shouldn't have to!!!  The founders relied on the American people electing non-idiots when they wrote the constitution and figured common sense would take over much of the proceedings. 

Lets just ask this question of the auto bailouts.  Was it good for the industry?  I would take a gander at no.  First of all, they are in a downward spiral because the unions are suffocating them.  They pay about twice the amount Toyota does to create cars INSIDE the country.  How can they be expected to compete if Toyota doesn't even have to ship over the cars and they don't have union labor?  So the unions have screwed them.  After this bailout, will the unions still be there?  Of course!!!  They will never get out of this spiral and will continually need government money to keep afloat. 

Now for door number two, we don't bail them out.  They go into bankruptcy.  They get rid of the unions and start fresh.  Without the piano on their back from prior to bankruptcy dealings, they are much lighter on the expense side of the equation.  They can still create the cars with the same quality as they did before, only they are competitive in salaries with Toyota.  The business is able to recover and flourish once more.  What do you think is the better choice?  Door one bails them out in the short term, but never allows them to fully recover.  Door two lets them hit bottom, but recovery will be much smoother.  Its kind of like reinstalling an operating system on their computer.  They will be able to transfer off any important documents, such as brand or car designs and will be able to get rid of all wasteful files.  They can purge their system of viruses(unions).  Macroeconomics is not that hard, yet these "experts" just cannot grasp it.

"They are only declaratory of a truth which would have resulted by necessary and unavoidable implication from the very act of constituting a federal government, and vesting it with certain specified powers."

Again, certain specified powers!  Would you like the government to take control of the healthcare industry?  How efficiently do they handle anything they do?  Welfare has millions leeching off it, while the government is too unorganized to sort worthy from unworthy.  Social security was supposed to be an optional retirement plan that was not in the general fund...well, now that money everyone paid in is gone because the government is irresponsible.  Medicare already costs us billions upon billions, just imagine the rest of the country on national healthcare!  The IRS is doing a fantastic job at putting the lowlifes barely making their payment into jail, but what about Obama's cabinet members?  With how little the MSM has dug into Obama I wonder if he has any backtaxes to pay, though perhaps he probably owes them in Kenya.  Government housing has done a great job at cleaning up our cities...oh wait, those are usually the most dangerous parts of the city!  Does anyone honestly believe our government can take over our healthcare?! 

"What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the MEANS necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power of making LAWS? What are the MEANS to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes, but a LEGISLATIVE POWER, or a power of MAKING LAWS, to lay and collect taxes? What are the propermeans of executing such a power, but NECESSARY and PROPER laws?"

Now that is proof by induction...step one, step two....etc etc.

"that it could only have been done for greater caution"

The founders continally brought up how someone will one day try to forcfully take the country and turn it into a Tyranny.  They blocked every possible adaptation they could think of, about how it could happen.  Given how technology has evolved, there will be loopholes, but it is the job of the supreme court to interpret the constitution according to how the founders meant it to be enforced.  If the supreme court justices do their jobs, we wouldn't be having all these problems we have today.  They are the ones that oversee how things get done.  Once the supreme court is slanted, the legislature can do anything they please without one glance backward.  Though, we are doomed to fail with the lack of informed voters.  If we were informed, we wouldn't need to worry about the legislature in the first place and the supreme court wouldn't be nearly as important.  Since our congress is constantly trying to usurp power though, sadly the courts are important. 

"If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

Glennflwrs(I believe it's spelled like that) has something on his blog that was interesting, with a large organization who is serious about this.  There is a petition there with 90,000+ signers already.  How many times does "PUBLIUS" mention that the people must uprise against a government who breaks the bounds of its power?  The Declaration of Independence also gives us directions on what do to.  Guess what...how are we going to do that without arms?  2nd Amendment my friends!  Must not be regulated any more than it already is!!!

"If there ever should be a doubt on this head, the credit of it will be entirely due to those reasoners who, in the imprudent zeal of their animosity to the plan of the convention, have labored to envelop it in a cloud calculated to obscure the plainest and simplest truths."

I will use the 2nd amendment again...anyone who has read it can clearly see that it gives the PEOPLE the right to bear arms.  Anyone who says otherwise, is deliberately trying to go against the will of the constitution.

"but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution"

I hate to pry here, but once again..."NOT GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!"

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 3, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #32

"because I am persuaded that the sense of the people...would be a complete barrier against the oppressive use of such a power"

Well, I guess he must not have been talking about us.  We had deluded individuals screaming that they wouldn't have to worry about paying their mortgage or putting gas in their car if Obama won the election.  It is amazing how easily manipulated the masses are isn't it.  Obama makes a speech about the sea levels falling and the earth healing and people actually fall for it.  I wonder how many Obama voters are legally retarded.  Next election we should force each voter to take an aptitude test to see how well liberals do compared to conservatives. 

"they(The States) would, under the plan of the convention, retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; and that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it, would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution."

Remember this everyone!!  Remember!  Obama is a great usurper and we must remember this.

"the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States."

Just thought I should mention it.  We all know that the 10th amendment is what he alludes to here.

The rest of the paper is about semantic reasonings for state import taxes vs union import taxes.  I would have thought a couple sentences could do the job of what the second half of this paper did, but I guess it might leave loopholes eh? 

I would like to take this opportunity to bring up a recent event I wanted brought to the forefront.

I will even use huffingtonpost ;)
Obama Administration Halts Bush Expansion Of Offshore Drilling
And Washington Times for a less biased point of view.
Obama Blocks Offshore Drilling

Now, gas prices will rise at the sound of that coming out of DC.  We need to start getting this story circulating around so people see what Obama did BEFORE prices went up.  Cause and effect is huge here.  With the CRA bill we went from effect to cause and people didn't like that very much.  It is time to hold his feet to the fire and let him have it here.  Cause and Effect!

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

The Same Subject Continued
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 1, 1788.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #31

"IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend."

Whenever possible I try to use this form of argument when debating anything.  Start with something as basic as possible and go from there.  You can easily corner someone who is uninformed on the subject and just as easily force an informed person to twist words to come to their conclusion.  It also allows for fewer counter points since what you start with is a truth to both of you.  They won't begin to argue until they disagree and once that happens, and if you are leading down a closely knit path, they are easily dismissed.  The Federalist Papers do a very good job of this.  They even start this paper by doing such.  They start with the sciences and why people can accept the truths, then move to politics and why people cannot accept the truths. 

"How else could it happen (if we admit the objectors to be sincere in their opposition), that positions so clear as those which manifest the necessity of a general power of taxation in the government of the Union, should have to encounter any adversaries among men of discernment?"

Now this I just found a bit humorous.  He is explaining all these infallible truths, and asks why people cannot accept them in politics.  He comes to a conclusion stating that if they did, they wouldn't argue against his point.  I thought it was funny anyways.

"A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."

This is a rather vague sentence.  He has stated previously the reasons a government should exist, and more specifically ours.  Here he gives an all encompassing power to the government, which goes against much of what is written in these papers.  "Objects committed to its care"  is too vague to mean anything of note in my opinion.  He has not given a context for which objects would fall under and as such, he could mean that the government must do all it can, barring nothing, for the public good and sense of the people.  If that was the case, the government could decide that, for the public good, they will use the military to control the public.  Ever seen IRobot?  Im not exactly sure what he meant by that statement then since he obviously does not mean it in that way, since the rest of the papers would go against that very statement.

"It is not true, because the exigencies of the Union may not be susceptible of limitation, that its power of laying taxes ought to be unconfined. Revenue is as requisite to the purposes of the local administrations as to those of the Union; and the former are at least of equal importance with the latter to the happiness of the people. It is, therefore, as necessary that the State governments should be able to command the means of supplying their wants, as that the national government should possess the like faculty in respect to the wants of the Union. But an indefinite power of taxation in the LATTER might, and probably would in time, deprive the FORMER of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature. As the laws of the Union are to become the supreme law of the land, as it is to have power to pass all laws that may be NECESSARY for carrying into execution the authorities with which it is proposed to vest it, the national government might at any time abolish the taxes imposed for State objects upon the pretense of an interference with its own. It might allege a necessity of doing this in order to give efficacy to the national revenues. And thus all the resources of taxation might by degrees become the subjects of federal monopoly, to the entire exclusion and destruction of the State governments.'"

Is that not somewhat close to what our government is doing?  I agree that the national government should have a version of unlimited power since there may be cases where it is needed, but that argument there is not far from our current situation.  The national government has used the power of taxation to usurp powers from the states, and though they haven't abolished state taxes...yet...you never know with our current administration.  Though to be fair, the government, had it stayed within the constitution, would not have been allowed to do most of what it has done. 

"Every thing beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the people; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments."

The people have been left with lots of power since we could vote out much of the government in 6 years.  We have not held up our side of the bargain and kept track of our government.  Instead we had college students in the 60's who took over classrooms since they were afraid of serving our country.  We have millions of college students again who vote, but have no rhyme or reason besides their professors told them what to do.  So many uninformed people litter this country, it is a small wonder we have survived this long.  We must be the deal breakers and get back into the mix. 

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

Concerning the General Power of Taxation
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 28, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #30

"Who can doubt, that the happiness of the people in both countries would be promoted by competent authorities in the proper hands, to provide the revenues which the necessities of the public might require?"

I notice the use of "competent" in this sentence to describe the authorities handling the money.  I guess that does not apply to our government any longer.  Obama is now sending millions overseas for international abortions, for example.  How is that being responsible with our money?  The stimulus package had so much pork in it, can anyone actually say they were being competent legislators?  Even a raving lunatic liberal could not say so. 

"Congress, by the articles which compose that compact..."

I stop that quote there because he states that the articles of confederation is a compact.  The constitution is a compact as well then.  If you make a compact with a friend, and he does not hold up his end of the bargain, would you continue as if he did?  Of course not!  Right now, there are 7 states that are getting ready for their "big friend" to let loose on their end of the bargain.  We shall see how this plays out, but being suspicious of the national government is something that Hamilton thought would endure, which it has not.  We have given them free reign over the past decades and it is time to say, no more!  We will not be the beaten wife who returns to her husband.  We will not be the kid who continually gives lunch money to the bully. 

"but that of permitting the national government to raise its own revenues by the ordinary methods of taxation authorized in every well-ordered constitution of civil government?"

This means that everything that is not found in our constitution is not allowed to collect taxes in support of.  How many things do you pay taxes for, where it isn't in the constitution?  How can the government possibly, constitutionally, force us to pay social security?  A formerly optional retirement safeguard is now required and pays out to anyone, regardless of their contributions.  What is our world coming to...

"Thus far the ends of public happiness will be promoted by supplying the wants of government, and all beyond this is unworthy of our care or anxiety."

Taking a look at our current situation, can you possibly imagine our congressmen deciding that any more taxation won't help?  I cannot, for my life, imagine that. Pelosi would tax us 100% if she could.

"They would be made upon the same principles that usurers commonly lend to bankrupt and fraudulent debtors, with a sparing hand and at enormous premiums."

Why would a bank have enormous premiums for people who are more likely to (go bankrupt)/default on their loan?  Since more are likely to default, they are a higher risk and will pay back the loan less often.  To make up for the increased defaults, the higher premiums will balance out the deficit.  So what does our government force on our banks?  Loan to people who have a high rate of defaulting and giving them a lower rate as well.  Talk about kicking common sense out the door.  A double negative does not make a positive in this case.  How could our government be so blinded and ignorant to this problem up ahead?  Why should we trust them to handle anything having to do with the economy?  We shouldn't!

P.S.  Another reason for the government not having their full treasury dependent on tariffs would be that enemies could starve us out.  Right now we are a bit too powerful for this to happen, but imagine prior to 1812.  Britain could have simply paid off people trading with us, to stop for a period of time.  All funds would then cease coming in and our government would crumble.  Much cheaper than outright war against us, don't you think?  Its a possibility he could have discussed, even if it is not a probability.

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

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #29

"To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper."

Basically what he is getting at here is that if the militia can remove the need for organizing an army, then they won't have to worry about a standing army. 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious"

While reading the paragraph this falls under, I cannot help but think of Obama citizen army he plans on creating.  Is that not exactly what Hamilton is speaking against doing?  Just a thought...

"that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."

I guess the masses should be able to handle weapons eh?  They should be able to bear arms eh?  Otherwise, what possible context could Hamilton's statement fall under?  Time after time in these writings he writes as if it is a given that we have the right to bear arms.  He takes the time to meticulously argue point after point, yet he doesn't even need to mention why we should have the right to bear arms.  There is no opposition!  What sane person would oppose to people having the right to bear arms?  Only those wishing to control and overpower you.  If there wasn't even a reason to debate the right to keep and bear arms, while everything else was, why are we now debating the subject?

"Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?"

Here, I believe, is a major reason our country is falling apart.  We do not have common beliefs anymore.  We have thousands, if not more, in our country who call the majority infidels.  We have millions of illegal immigrants who care not for the good of the country.  We have millions on welfare that only care about how much the government is giving them.  There is no sense of nationalism at all anymore.  People immigrate in to our country and send much of their paycheck home.  They don't care about our country, they only care about getting theirs.  Half the time we cannot trust our neighbors or fellow-citizens anymore.  There are many relating problems, such as the absence of honor in our society that also could be grouped here as well, but Ill leave that be for now.

"In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire''; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster."

Climate change, gay marriage, gun control, amnesty...etc etc, I already gave a list the other day, so if you want more example you can go there. ;)

Most of what he said here was common sense.  Half of the time he was mocking the opposing view for even introducing the argument.  Really if anyone is fearful of a militia being used by the federal government to take power, is there anything we could put in control of the federal government?  Its about as absurd as saying that by giving control of creating interstate freeways to the federal government, they will shut them down to separate the states, so as to divide and conquer them.  No possibility at all.

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

The Same Subject Continued
(The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered)
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #28

"If it must then be admitted that the necessity of recurring to a force different from the militia, in cases of this extraordinary nature, is applicable to the State governments themselves, why should the possibility, that the national government might be under a like necessity, in similar extremities, be made an objection to its existence?"

For some reason when I read this, a conservative point of view on taxes came to mind.  I guess since he is going about this in a way that says we don't need large standing armies at all times, but we will need a force that can take out an insurrection.  Liberals always think conservatives are against paying any kind of taxes.  Wrong!  We are against the government raising taxes according to their WANTS instead of their NEEDS.  How much of our multi-trillion dollar budget is actually being used for NEEDS?  I would venture to say we could cut over half our 3+ trillion budget by getting back to basics. 

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state."

Wait a moment here!!!  Reps?  Betray constituents?  What is the democrat congress basically doing right now?  This stimulus bill has so much useless pork it is amazing.  Billions upon billions are going to campaign contributors.  If one cannot call that betraying constituents, then what is?  I notice that he also managed to denounce the liberal perspective on gun rights.  The 2nd amendment is there so when these liberals get crazy in DC, we can wipe them out and start anew with the constitution again.  Has there been another amendment that has been encroached upon more than the 2nd?  The freedom of speech, press, even religion, along with search and seizures, etc etc are all well and good to liberals, but the 2nd is evil.  I suppose you could consider the 10th as being encroached upon as well, just not in the same manner.  The 10th is by the federal government taking power, while the 2nd is the government taking away our right.

Every "evil" government in history has taken arms from the people.  What do you think is going on when democrats talk about taking our arms? 

"The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

I think that quote speaks for itself.  The whole paragraph that sentence is found in is a great one for the 2nd amendment.

"Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate."

Right now, the states are just beginning to fight back.  The people must show their support for the states that are proposing these bills in defiance to the federal government.  As Hamilton says, we can tip the scales for the states and win the day if we choose to do so.

"Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large."

Here is where operation "manifesto" comes into play.  Plank 10 talks of taking the education system into the hands of the government.  They then use it to brainwash the children.  The usurpation has been pointed out by a "select body of men" aka conservatives, but plank 10 has achieved victory and the average American is no longer able to think for themselves and see through the smoke and mirrors. 

"When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?"

Our military might have a chance at doing so now.  With the technologies at their disposal, they could possibly subdue the entire country.  I doubt it though as many many Americans keep and bear arms.  The sheer numbers would probably overwhelm our military.  But just think if the liberals had their way and we didn't have arms to defend ourselves?  Whats to stop the current administration from simply saying, "no more elections" or something to the sort?  The military could simply keep him in power by controlling the entire population and there would be nothing we could do.  If liberals ever try to remove our right to keep arms, or if they ever find ways of making it nearly impossible to acquire arms, we most certainly should abolish our government and renew our constitution with a revolt.  Every day they take a little more from us, we must be aware of their progress and decide when to fight back with force.  For now, we must fight with words, but I believe the time will come when force will be necessary.

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

The Same Subject Continued
(The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered)
From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, December 25, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #27

"This, however, like most other things that have been alleged on that side, rests on mere general assertion, unsupported by any precise or intelligible designation of the reasons upon which it is founded."

Bush's War.  Bush caused this economic crisis.  Bush didn't regulate the banks.  We will be safer under Barack Obama.  Obama's policies will remove some of the hate the terrorists hold for us.  Gun control will make us safer.  This stimulus bill will help the economy.  This CRA bill will make more affordable housing.  We are losing the war on terror.  Palin is inexperienced, while Obama has enough.  Killing babies is ok, but the death penalty is not.  Republicans are trampling on the constitution.  Barack Obama is a uniter.  Global warming is man made.  Republicans are racists.  Affirmative action helps the blacks.  Welfare helps the poor.  etc etc...You get the point.  Democrats are always full of bump sticker slogans, but when asked to back any of it up, they cannot do so. 

"the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option, or latitude of choice, to the people"

As we came into the last election I couldn't help but think how bad the two candidates were.  On one hand we have a democrat that has never led anything in his life.  He has been connected to so many racist or anti-American people that it is crazy to believe he does not believe as they do.  He cannot even come forward with his true birth certificate for crying out loud.  On the other hand we have McCain who, while served his country proudly, does not stand for anything politically.  He is a "republican" yet he votes with the democrats most of the time.  He got his maverick name by snuffing the republicans multiple times.  He had no charisma whatsoever and always said "my friends"(haha).  He cannot understand a pivotal point about illegal immigration and its effects on the economy, while the platform of the very party he runs for is against him.  My how we have been blinded by the MSM.  It seems the conservatives have vowed, never again, and it is already showing in the lowering of popular support for Obama and his plans.  Let it continue...

"the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land"

Here he basically says that if the law of the confederacy is not enumerated, then it is not the supreme law of the land.  In other words, what some 7 states are doing in defiance of unconstitutional laws, is exactly what Hamilton meant with this statement.  States should not have to follow laws that are not given power to by the constitution itself.  Our government is ruled by the constitution and through it, they rule the rest of the country.  They do not rule the country by their agendas and hunger for power. 

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