The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #46

"but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other."

This would probably be the closest reasoning that would answer my question from the last paper, so apparently, the question I asked was close to one asked in its day.  However, one may shoot back that regardless of whether they are enemies or merely coordinated entities, they do have powers that overlap and are adverse to one another.  One does not need to be an enemy of another to take advantage of them.  The Federal government, as seen by liberals, is constrained by the constitution.  Obama is on record on some issue that escapes me at the moment, about how the constitution limits what he wants to do(I thought it had to do with some sort of redistribution of wealth).  With that, he will go as far as the PEOPLE let him and forget the constitution.  If our presidents followed the constitution we would have many policies that would not have been enacted.  Obama knows that the people are not in tune to what the constitution actually reads and he is acting fast before anyone notices.  To get back to the original point.  If any person, or group of people, know there is a way to gather more power, they will do it.  By the Federal government pushing the states powers aside, they gain more for themselves.  After going through all these papers, it is clear what human nature sees as the fate of this scenario.  I am sure the founders saw that as well and knew the people would be the last stand.  They also knew that there wasn't, and isn't, a better way of fulfilling the requirements of government.  They knew that it wasn't perfect though the actual constitution may be, they knew that human nature would venture beyond it and the people would be the only ones to enforce the constitution indefinitely.  Time after time they come back to the people having the power by electing those in power.  If one decides against the will, they are voted out.  Today too many politicians have done things that a regular citizen would be imprisoned for.  The people are not being the backbone they need to be and therein lies the lack of accountability for our government.  If the people are not keeping an eye out, then nobody is.

"These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other."

And the very next sentence outlines his belief.  I guess I was correct lol.  Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile eh?

"that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor"

As I read about how the people felt then, I get a feeling that we have already passed the point of no return.  I do not feel as if the people actually want a capitalist form of economy.  So many have been tricked into thinking that the USSR way of doing things is better.  Too many do not see the problems Europe is having.  Too many cannot see that universal healthcare will not improve the care we get.  Too many only voted based on TV commercials.  Too many rely on the federal government for their living.  In all of that, it is going to take more than a political figure to bring the herd back around and towards home base.  It is going to take a pack of wolves.

"because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered."

Micromanagment.  To sum up why our federal government is so wasteful...micromanagement of the economy.  How is it that so many people can take advantage of our welfare, or disability systems?  A large entity such as our federal government cannot oversee such a large group of people.  Private businesses specialize and make it their priority to get things done right as cheaply as possible.  If you work for the government and you realize that you have $5,000 left over, you know that you must spend it or you won't get it next year.  So you go ahead and spend it.  That is $5,000 in wasted cash.  If you work for a private business, in the same situation, you would let your supervisor know that you have the extra cash, knowing full well that next year if you need it, you can talk to them about getting it.  By giving that money to your supervisor, you are not shorted next year, as with government, but rewarded and sometimes you even get a bonus for it.  It encourages efficiency, whereas government encourages the opposite.

"whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government."

Unless the state government are turning to the teat of the federal government as well.  How many governors are clamoring to get the money from the federal government?  Not only are the citizens dependent, the states are too!  What a twisted turn of events...

"The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union"

If Obama gets his wish on his socialist agenda, it may come to this....be prepared.

"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm."

Little by little is the receipe for success in this arena.  Put a frog in boiling water and he will jump out.  Put him in warm water and heat it, he will burn to death.  If these policies of Obama's were brought on 50 years ago, he would be laughed off stage.  If the Federal government tried enacting these things 50 years ago, there would be some major uprisings.  Little by little they have conditioned us to socialism and they are striking now while the iron is hot.  General alarms will not sound.  Opposition must come straight from the people.  Our state governments are no longer a voice to oppose the federal government.  The people are the only stand here.

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Tell me that with today's laws that 1/6 of the population could do that.  Do you think 50 million Americans could rise up with arms?  That number is shrinking due to new guns laws daily.  Unconstitutional

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

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #45

"It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object."

Here is where the rubber hits the road.  The liberals believe that all these stimulus plans will spend us out of this recession.  I got news for them, it didn't work 70 years ago and it won't work now.  There MAY be some ever so short term gains, but I doubt they will last long enough to even see a different president.  Socialism only leads to bankruptcy and with our country so close to it already, it won't take long. 

"Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."

With Obama implementing these changes, I see no end in sight for this recession.  When it becomes clear to the brainwashed that Obama and his socialist policies will not get us out of this recession, they will start thinking about whether our government really is good for us.  Once there is a flicker of discontent in the liberal number, I could see some major problems occurring.  Many of the inner city voters vote democrat so they are taken care of.  When Obama cannot do that, riots could ensue and the military would be called in to quell the riots.  At that time if the conservatives chose to act as one, with say the NRA, you could see a revolution.  Not a civil war type either, but closer to the french revolution.  Bloody.  Ill keep up hope that it doesn't happen, but be prepared for the worst is something I live by.

"The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States."

Now I know there are still way more working for the states, but consider how many are working for each of our congressmen.  I wouldn't doubt that each of them has hundreds of people working underneath them, each with a particular task.  Are they needed?  No.  Why then?  More waste....

Most of this paper had to do with the States being able to hold their own against the federal government.  In theory he makes many valid points.  However I have an argument against him.  When you have two powers that are at odds with each other, will one not conquer the other?  Even if they have countering powers, will one not find a way to defeat the other?  In that sense there is no such government that can exist by using a confederate method.  Either the States will eventually overpower the Federal government and the system will fall apart, or the Federal government will overpower the States and a tyranny will rise.  There is no such thing as perfectly equal and if one side has even the slightest power over the other, it may take time, but it will win out and remove the other.  I believe we are seeing that today.  The federal government has the advantage over the States with the final say on all laws and they are now moving beyond the normal compliance of the constitution.  There is nothing to stop them from doing what they like as the laws they make are supreme to the land.  The Supreme Court is the only court that can reel them in, but with party systems, the court will always favor one side and when it favors the socialist side, then there is nothing to stop them.  The States have been dominated over the decades with little usurpations of power and now they have no authority to fight back.  It turns out that the federal government is on par to conquer the state governments in our situation.  The founders counted on the citizens to fight back by removing those from office that are not abiding by the constitution.  They figured since the States were much closer to them than the Federal government, they would be more apt to choose the States over the Federal.  The citizens are the last line of defense, but over half of them are willingly being rounded up and penned by the farmer.  Less than half of the citizens will be the true line of defense it turns out.  Whether it be Obama that will implement a radical change or a later president, it will eventually happen one day.  Two powers can not be at odds with each other without one dominating the other. 

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

Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
From the New York Packet. Friday, January 25, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #44

This paper covers:
5.  Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts.
6.  Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

"The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress"

Can you imagine if the states were able to create their own money?  The Fed wouldn't have to print all the money out and they could have a 2 trillion dollar stimulus rather than the diminutive 800 billion, don't ya think?  No longer would California be in debt!  All states would have balanced budgets against the newly printed money incoming.  In fact, they could probably do away with taxes altogether as they would just print off their revenues................With our current office holders around the country, I don't doubt what I said would happen if the states were allowed to print their own money.  The lack of fiscal responsibility would make this scenario seem like a dream come true to our liberal friends and many would take advantage of it.  Thank God the constitution does not allow it.

"power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof....Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter."

I guess that is an extreme of the government having no power and the Constitution therefore being a dead letter.  We are on the other end of the spectrum right now with the government passing laws that are not found under the powers listed in the Constitution.  I guess that would make it a dead letter right?  In the eyes of our government, it is a dead letter.  Only in the eyes of the conservatives is the Constitution still a document that should be the binding contract our government follows.  Too many people look at Obama and see prewar Hitler.  Remember, he did great things before the war and brought Germany out of the great depression before anyone else could get out.  In all fairness he did it by building for war, but he did it nonetheless.  Liberals are looking for Obama to do much of the same thing and that is why we heard quotes such as: "I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car" during the election.  Reality is quickly setting in as they lower the standards for their chosen one.  There have been two recent accounts that could be linked to this situation.  FDR came into a dire situation, but not only did he not succeed, he made it worse.  Reagan came into a horrible economy, on the brink of a depression and he did the exact opposite and brought us out.  Clearly a conservative approach should be the road to economic expansion.  Obama has come into a bad situation, but he was elected on the premise that he would be able to turn this around.  He sure sounded confident before the elections didn't he?  Where is that gleaming confidence now?  Why back down?  No matter.  He will be held accountable by the conservative media. 

"or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted."

This is an interesting statement.  During the course of these papers, we have seen them go over the powers that the government will have with the Constitution.  I am going to leave this sentence for now until I read all the way through and see if they connect any dots.  So far this sentence stands alone.  As far as our current situation on this front.  Most all of what the government is doing is not necessary and will probably just quicken and deepen our downfall.  This stimulus is not necessary and only puts us in more debt.  In another year we will be back where we started and loaning money to these industries again.  Not good business if you ask me. 

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

The Same Subject Continued(The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered)
For the Independent Journal.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #43

I will summarize the powers to see if we come up with anything unexpected.

1.  Power to create copyrights
2.  Purchase of property for governmental purposes
3.  Ability to punish Treason according to the given definition of the word
4.  Admit new States into the Union
5.  Ability to makes rules and regulations respecting territory or property belonging to the US
6.  Guarantee a Republic government and protection from invasion as well as domestic violence
7.  All debts from before are carried over
8.  Provide Amendments
9.  9 states to ratify the constitution

Did anyone find healthcare?  Welfare?  social security?  Laws on climate change?  I cannot for the life of me see how any of the governmental powers would even fit under any of these titles.  Perhaps PUBLIUS will continue on and find places for such things?  I doubt it, but I will make those remarks after all 85 papers.

"and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained"

I would have thought the same.  Instead we have democrats trying to repeal the amendment that limits the presidential terms so Obama can become a lifelong monarch.  Little do they know that he will be voted out for incompetency soon anyways, but they still try.  If they had their way, congress would be nothing more than the senate during the Roman empire(non-republic times).  Elected to represent, but without powers for the most part.  That way they would have full power to do anything right now. 

"May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents"

Ah, but this is why democrats are so bent on amnesty.  The new voters would put them in permanent power.  Though to be honest, if they had permanent power, the country wouldn't last another decade. 

"what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame?"

If I may ask a question in turn?  What if the two factions at hand are not merely local factions, but national factions by which an impartial judge could not be found?  That is where we stand today.  Because of how everything is now on a national level, it is impossible to find impartial judges to any disagreement.  Even the supreme court cannot be called such.  Any foreign power is out of the question.  So where would we go?  I believe because this question can even be asked is a reason why some of the ideological problems emerging are even in existence.  Many problems are no longer local and since we do hear of so many national things happening we make up our minds based on titles and bumper stickers.  Some actually dig and find the truth of the issue, but not very many.  The two will then clash on the issues at hand because one is ignorant and the other is educated.  The media is brainwashing the populace with socialist propaganda and it works on the ignorant bunch, which is where this clash begins.  No person in their right mind would claim that socialism outstrips capitalism.  History has example after example of capitalism proving superior. 

"PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void."

Would this not enable the States to leave the Union upon finding the Federal government in breach of the compact?  I would certainly think so and when/if things get bad enough, I believe we will see a state exercise this power.

And we are now over halfway done!  Hooray!  Time for the next 42 ;)

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

The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, January 22, 1788.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #42

Just a reminder...

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."

"including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.

Now that is interesting.  To broaden the scope a bit, he mentions laying a duty on something to discourage the sale of it.  I notice that California just voted in a tax hike during a recession.  Is there any better way to fast track our country into a depression than raising taxes?  FDR did that and it didn't work.  Not only did it not work, but it utterly destroyed our country and kept us in the great depression for over a decade.  Anyways, notice how many different products have their tax increased on a yearly basis.  Gas is always on the table for tax increases, yet when prices rise and people aren't driving as much because of the cost, what does congress do?  Raise the gas tax!  Its like being stuck in retard mode with these liberals.  They don't realize that our country relies heavily on oil and there is no technology that can fix it in the short term.  Instead of trying to kill our economy, why not let things run their course?  When hydrogen is cheaper, it will take over the market in a heartbeat by itself!  Another humorous thing to add in here is how ethanol prices seem to rise and fall with gas prices.  Why is that?  Ethanol is a negative energy fuel, meaning that it costs more energy to create it, than it gives out.  Sugar ethanol is different, but corn ethanol does this.  With that, there is no way they could fuel the production of it with ethanol or they would slowly run out and have nothing, while producing nothing for us.  All of their machinery runs on gas.  Ethanol is such a load of BS its insane people have swallowed it at all.  People are easily manipulated yet again.

"But the admission of consuls into the United States, where no previous treaty has stipulated it, seems to have been nowhere provided for."

I am just bringing up this sentence to prove how detailed Madison is being here.  Some liberals may just claim semantics and whatnot when we claim things are not found in the constitution.  Here is where Madison would be proven to be on our side of this argument.  The government has all these authorities, but because of the wording, the above sentence proves true and Madison holds it high.  This shows that every sentence in the constitution was chosen for a reason.  The constitution is not a writing that would give a power or miss one accidentally.  For example, welfare was not included probably because the founders saw what a drag it would be on the society.  Had we incorporated welfare into our country at that time, I highly doubt we would be a world power at this moment.  There would have been a high number of people jumping on the backs of the motivated and slowing the growth of our country.  The right to bear arms was chosen for the reason of enabling the people to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, even if invasion was mentioned, this was the main reason.  The 10th amendment was put there so that the federal government would not have all authority over the states which would keep this confederacy from dropping into exactly what we doing now.  Each and every sentence was chosen and we were supposed to follow it.  It worked for many years and kept our country on the road to greatness, yet now we strayed from it and find ourselves in a heap of trouble.  The obvious solution would be to return to the document that got us here, not drift away.

"But the most minute provisions become important when they tend to obviate the necessity or the pretext for gradual and unobserved usurpations of power." 

Gradual and unobserved would be the best way to describe this usurpation of power.  Glenn Beck had an expert on the 2nd amendment on his show the other day and the guy went on a rant about how difficult it is to own a gun in Illinois.  I guess you have to take out a 1 million dollar insurance policy.  Most insurance companies are not even agreeing to the policy, at any price.  So basically it takes out the ability to own a gun.  Now there are probably stipulations on that which I do not know and which it may not cover all guns for example, but on at least some guns, that is the law.  I would think that would be against the will of the constitution and should be ruled as such by the supreme court.  Is it not their job to interpret the constitution with the intent upon which it was written? 

"To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade."

Each and every year the weight upon which the American people increases as the Federal government increases its spending.  Little taxes here and there add up and each year they keep adding more.  Small taxes will be the end of us.  If the economy does not turn around soon, I believe a large black market will rise up and cut into the federal revenues.  Had the burden upon us remained relatively small, I do not believe people would resort to such tactics, but I think, given a contracting economy, they will to stay afloat.  The IRS may be a very busy department in the years to come.

"power to coin money"

With how our government is in such a large debt, can anyone else see banks starting to issue their own money again?  I mean, the US dollar, with Obama printing off such large amounts, may start a rapid decline in value.  Once the rest of the world sees we won't be able to pay our debts, it may well be worthless.  What then?...

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

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