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

The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #26

"A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another..."

As of late I have been reading that some 7 states are proposing bills that basically tell the Federal Government that if they pass a law that is seen as unconstitutional, they can ignore it.  NH, Arizona, Montana, Missouri, Michigan, Oklahoma and Washington have all proposed bills that, in a manner, will do such that.  Hamilton is stating that if they take too much power from the federal government, it will not sustain the test of time, yet if they give too much power to it, the people will not stand for it.  These bills prove Hamilton correct in a sense that we are not standing idly by as our federal government usurps the last of the states powers.  The federal government better be careful here because, even though nobody wants war, freedom is one of the few things worth fighting for and we will defend our rights.

"the doctrines they teach are calculated to induce us to depress or to relax it, by expedients which, upon other occasions, have been condemned or forborne."

History can always be learned from and in our case, socialism/communism is part of that history.  A Republic government has only ever failed when military violence has broken between the states, or from external attacks and a capitalistic has not imploded economically.  Socialism on the other hand has been shown to do just that.  As it stands our constitution has been set up to give violence the smallest chance of victory.  Even a civil war could not tear apart our country.  The power by which we moved with during WW2 attested to the fact of external military attacks.  Our main concern should be internal financial implosion.  Socialism/communism have had those kinds of problems in the past.  USSR went bankrupt as communist.  Many European countries are on the cusp of going bankrupt in the form of socialism.  We are moving towards bankruptcy with a push from socialism as well.  If only we weren't so concerned about people who refuse to work...Welfare is probably the biggest waste of money our government spends.  It removes the father from the home, it makes the "family", or whats left of it, dependent on the government and never allows them to get off the dependence.  Such a cycle must end, but I see no end in sight with democrats heading the show.

What then (it may be asked) is the use of such a provision, if it cease to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it?

I can almost hear him sarcastically saying that (even though he is writing).  I may ask the same thing of our congress today.  What then is the use of the constitution, if it cease to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it?  How many unconstitutional bills are passed through congress each year?  I believe that each and every bill passed should be required to be proven constitutional.  Where in the constitution can that power be found?

"They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army"

Huh...I guess Bush couldn't have run this war by himself.  Says right there. 

"As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority."

I guess so...I wonder if Hamilton ever thought the minority party would try to incriminate the president on false charges? lol

"Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country?"

Ive been wondering that myself as of late.  It seems that congress has deemed the war necessary as they continue to fund it.  Are they not the same sort of "traitor" as Bush?  People always forget the voting records to go into Iraq.  77-23 in the senate and 296-133 in HoR, hardly a republican only vote.  So the question that should be posed to democrats is:  "You have helped get us into this war, what is the best course of action for this country?  Withdrawing to genocide, loss of global stature and terrorist breeding grounds, or finishing what is left of the war to gain at minimum a neutral democracy in the middle east?"  I want to start asking them lead on questions so they are forced to answer them!  If we simply ask the first part of the question, they can get away with a general and vague answer, but if we lead them on, the people watching will have already put those thoughts in their mind and if the answerer doesn't answer it, they will continue to think about it.  Appearance is everything...

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

The Same Subject Continued
(The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered)
From the New York Packet.
Friday, December 21, 1787.

Federalist Paper #25

"as it would in practice transfer the care of the common defense from the federal head to the individual members: a project oppressive to some States, dangerous to all, and baneful to the Confederacy."

He makes a great point straight off.  If each state were to keep their own military, then we would be no different than the republics of old and we would come to a violent end all the same.  The Federal government has the purpose of protecting the country from internal attacks, as well as external.  It could go back to punishment for traitorous states as well.  It could go to power in trading with foreign countries.  The reasons against having each state with its military instead of the federal government all go back to almost every single argument made by Hamilton in these papers thus far.  So if anyone would like to first argue those points before this issue, they are welcome, however they probably won't be able to come up with much.  Not only do these papers describe each issue well, but they build up each issue by proving the preceding issue as infallible truth before moving onto the next.  Very well done. 

"it had better be in those hands of which the people are most likely to be jealous than in those of which they are least likely to be jealous."

It is a darn good thing we have conservatives today or else the truth about the democrats choices would never get out.  I would never know Obama tried to walk through a window in the White House for example. ;)  In all seriousness, his point here is that when people are more suspicious, it is tougher for them to be duped into a false sense of security.  If the Federal government had control, the people would be forever wary of them, but if the states did, the people would not pay attention and just as murderous things could happen right under their noses.  Same goes for today.  Bush was under a microscope and as thus there wasn't a move made that democrats were not aware of, and hence republicans as well.  Obama however is only being checked by one side, conservatives.  Half the country will not know what choices he is making, nor do they care.  They voted for change and thats all they care about.  What change may it be?  Doesn't matter.  Conservatives will run him through the car wash and pick off anything we can.  We already have more than enough to write about and its only a couple weeks in.  Without the conservatives watching over these proceedings, we would be doomed to a self-absorbed government.

"Or shall we say they may be continued as long as the danger which occasioned their being raised continues? This would be to admit that they might be kept up IN TIME OF PEACE"

Notice the twisting of the words.  A while back I put up that video about Jimmy Carter (which if anyone is up for a laugh, I suggest) and how the guy twists his words to mean anything.  Well, Hamilton is basically saying right now, that if congress is allowed to, they will twist words and a military will be kept up in time of peace by doing so.  The framers of our constitution knew men would twist words and find ways around the constitution.  I do often wonder why they didn't give more explicit directions to our government.  I know they wanted to keep it from being outdated by giving generalities that would always be true, but just look at how our government has intervened in business today.  Could they not have specifically stated events such as an over-reaching government?  They must have imagined it, even if not exactly like our current situation.  With over 200 years gone by, there are many minor changes that could be made to close some loopholes our government has exploited.  Hopefully we will be given a chance to do so, before our country is run aground.

"We must receive the blow, before we could even prepare to return it."

My my my  how things have changed over the years.  The foreign policy he mocks is the exact policy of the democrats.  Israel is bombarded with missiles on a daily basis and they still scream bloody murder at Israel for attacking.  We get attacked on 9/11 by Islamist Terrorists and they would like to throw down UN sanctions.  We are in a "holy war" and terrorist activities are happening all over the world, and liberals still do not want to act.  In London, the police were chased down the street by Islamists.  In NYC, they burn the American Flag out at street corners.  "Allah Akbar" is screamed at every one of these terrorist acts and still we refuse to act.  Spain has train stations blown apart, Russia has kids held captive, France has massive riots, etc etc, and we still do not see a pattern here?  The liberals ignorance is amazing and must be self inflicted since it is so excessive. 

"Pennsylvania, at this instant, affords an example of the truth of this remark. The Bill of Rights of that State declares that standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up in time of peace. Pennsylvania, nevertheless, in a time of profound peace, from the existence of partial disorders in one or two of her counties, has resolved to raise a body of troops; and in all probability will keep them up as long as there is any appearance of danger to the public peace."

So soon after creating the law, they are already doing what Hamilton suggested would happen.  This would lead me to believe that the government made the law in that state as for pure public appearance.  I believe that to be undeniable.  The same people that created the law, are now keeping a standing army on hand during a time of peace.  Things moved a bit more slowly in the past.  Technology has increased the speed at which everything happens and as such decisions are made much more quickly.  With that, Americans have lost track of all the government does and instead reads headlines.  I see headlines such as "guantanamo bay closes!" and guess that Obama did close it, however if you read into it, you will find he did nothing of the sort.  Instead he signed a bill titled something about closing guantanamo bay, but it still has another year.  Where is he going to put the prisoners?  He has no idea...but he has closed it.  Haha, what a dimwit. 

Thanks for reading.

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

The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered
For the Independent Journal. HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #24

"It has indeed been brought forward in the most vague and general form, supported only by bold assertions, without the appearance of argument; without even the sanction of theoretical opinions"

Im going to go ahead and ignore the part about "appearance of argument" because you average liberal today shouts out idiocy like its going out of style.  In congress they may follow the above quote to a 'T' though.  Its all bipartisanship when they are in power, but when republicans are in power, they are blocking every corner and avenue.  Republicans do it?  How Dare They!!!  How do they form their arguments?  With "bold assertions"...global warming!, or "stimulus asap or we are doomed" approach etc etc.  "Without the appearance of argument"...Obama is a uniter right?  And even without "theoretical opinions"!  They never fully think through anything they do.  Instead of stopping and thinking about what might actually fix our economy, they are more worried about abortions worldwide.  This quote could not have done a better job summarizing our liberal friends.

"that this legislature was to be a popular body"

Now I know he didn't exactly mean popular in a sense of how much people liked them, but in being elected to represent the people.  It got me thinking about our "popular" legislature though.  With such a high turnaround rate for elections in both the house and senate (being 1/3 the senate every two years is elected and all the house), how could they have such a low approval rating?  I also noticed that it plummeted with democrats taking it over as well.  Then this last election, the majority of the people up for election, get re-elected!  Are Americans really so lazy that they cannot vote on anything besides party association?  I for one believe that all candidates should not have "democrat" or "republican" next to their name on the ballot.  If the person voting does not know which party that person stands for, then they shouldn't be voting.  I could take this a step further and I have mentioned this before on my blog.  Anyone who hasn't paid positive taxes during their life cannot vote, unless they are, or have been, in the military.  Those sucking off the teet of the government are not fit to help make the decisions on where this country is headed.  Voting for the person that will take the most out of the coffers for you will only end in bankruptcy and dependence.  I could dive into how this plan could be done, as I do not think it would be too hard, but a better time and place.

Im going to be honest about the paragraphs describing the "impartial" person perusing through information about standing armies.  I find it, rather unneeded.  An impartial person could not come to conclusions pointed by Hamilton as he is already steadfast in his beliefs on the subject.  I do not disagree with Hamilton in the least, but I do not think the story of a made up "impartial" will convince anyone.  He would be better off going through each point without the story of this third party person.

As to the descriptions of the current dangers of the union, Hamilton does a very good job at painting the picture of reality for the reader.  Most of which he speaks is common sense to anyone but the most biased readers.  Enemies will attack and a standing army will be necessary to defend ourselves.  As true then as it is now. 

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

The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, December 18, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #23

"the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate"

I already know that later on he will name the 4 reasons for a federal government, so it takes away some suspense on my part.  I am glad we have finally arrived to a point where he talks about how we are to create a new constitution instead of providing faults in the old.  This will give us some juicy information on why liberals are out of their minds when they claim conservatives are stomping on the constitution.  Their whole party platform is unconstitutional, so how can they dissect anyone else on that account?

"The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries."

I guess that settles it?  1)common defense 2)public peace and defense 3) commerce domestically and internationally 4) foreign affairs.
I don't see healthcare, or affirmative action, or welfare, or social security, etc etc...so much of our government should not exist.  The loophole on these accounts is general welfare, which turns out to be public peace in this situation.  Liberals twist their agenda to make it seem like they are helping the little guy, but really they are just pushing communism at us under the veil of public peace or general welfare.  Pitiful.

"we must extend the laws of the federal government to the individual citizens of America"

*cough* 2nd amendment *cough*

"and to make all regulations which have relation to them"

Even such a broad sweeping statement cannot account for all the bailouts our government is doing.  Notice since we have started the bailouts, our economy has gotten worse.  They haven't helped before and they won't help this time.  Printing money is not the solution.  Germany tried it during WW2 and it didn't work out so hot for the Marks did it? 

Much of the paper was dedicated to public defense so I figure that point has been made before.  Its common sense looking back and it doesn't REALLY apply because even liberals cannot deny it in the fashion Hamilton presented it.  Liberals are not happy about Bush using the power in, what they think, is an unnecessary war.  I don't see it that way and that is a whole other topic altogether, so there isn't any need to delve into that here. 

So with that, a bit shorter post by me, with a bit shorter paper on a single topic for the most part. 

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

The Same Subject Continued:
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
From the New York Packet. Friday, December 14, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #22

Regulation of commerce is an obvious power our federal government needs.  We can then leverage our power together and use it to gain advantage over other countries.  Nobody can argue that as Hamilton said.  Getting the states to work together is a problem here and he talks about it a bit.  This is one of the reasons the civil war broke out as well.  The southern states did not like the tariffs the north was imposing as it hurt them and helped the business of the north.  Eventually, with other straws on the camels back, they seceded. 

The ability to raise an army is also an argument that cannot be defended against.  What purpose would the union serve if not for the safety of its members as one?  There is no reason for me to divulge this issue as it has been covered more than a couple times.

"But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third."

This has come as a problem today, though not according to populace.  Many in our government act as if they are above the rest of us.  The types of arguments they use for pushing their agendas counter common sense on many accounts, but they do not seem fettered by that.  If they can push through their agenda, that is enough for them.  Very few of the laws are for the people anymore.  Our dear stimulus package has billions that are going for ACORN and abortions across the world.  That will not sit well with the public.  Many billions are not for stimulating the economy, but rather for democrat financial supporters, more or less.  That package is losing popularity, but don't think that will stop Reid or Pelosi.  They will force that bill down our throats and I look for Obama to sign it.  The American people will start to see through this corruptness and it won't be long before they start to act.  We won't submit our interests to a corrupt DC.  At that point, let the French revolution begin!  Start with the leaders and hang them from their ankles!  Americans are still a proud people and they will not be pleased when they finally learn the truth. 

"But this is not all: what at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser."

Where do you see that in our society?  Affirmative action ring a bell?  All this minority status crap is a poison upon both the majority and the minority.  The majority will never have respect for the minority that needs a leg up to accomplish the same tasks.  They will always feel as if the minority could not make it without help.  Does that sound familiar?  Listen to the democrats talk about blacks and how we need to help them.  They act as if they are for equality, but if you really listen, the message is that they cannot make it without our help, so we need to help them.  Talk about racist.  I for one believe that all races can do anything they please.  A black man can become a doctor without help, or a lawyer without help, etc etc.  When laws are put in place to help a certain minority, it gives one pause when they see a minority in a certain position.  A black doctor may not be as skilled as a white because he used the government laws to get him through and into that job, though he might have been smart enough all along, you don't know.  If you have a white doctor, you know that he was skilled enough to make it on his own.  These laws only hurt the minority.  They should go through all the same training and obstacles anyone else does.  I never hear Asians complain.  That has always irked me.  They had it about as bad when they came over from China and built our railroads, yet the average Asian person makes more than the average white person here in America. I don't see them complaining about the number of Asian congressmen.  I don't hear them putting down success saying that their friend is just working for the white man.  Gosh, I could go on, but you get the point here. 

"In such a state of things, this ally of ours would evidently find it much easier, by his bribes and intrigues"

A reason why foreigners should not be able to fund a candidate for office. *cough* Obama *cough*

"In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty."

Umm...point again made.

"Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."

So that is the reason for the courts?  To define the true meaning of the law?  Not to create law?  I guess living in the 21st century, I get used to judges ushering decrees which go against the people and implant laws by which a single vote was needed (the judge).  California first voted against gay marriage and a judge overruled the will of the people and the minority (read above again if you missed it) was given extra rights.  They have now again ruled against gay marriage and lets see of California is asking for beating by trying to legislate from the bench again.

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE."

Thanks for reading.

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

Other Defects of the Present Confederation
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #21

His first point has to do with the government having no means to punish disobedience.  This has been covered in the past couple papers and here he gives some examples of how, in our situation, problems may arise if we do not remedy this situation.  He states the problem many see here, who want to keep the States with power.  The Federal government will then have full reign over each state to do as it pleases.  Hamilton brings up the argument, so he can quell their concerns.  He states: "A guaranty by the national authority would be as much levelled against the usurpations of rulers as against the ferments and outrages of faction and sedition in the community."

Would it today?  It seems that the federal government has finally succeeded in removing states powers, without conflict of any kind.  It took many years for this to occur, but usurpers have finally succeeded.

Taxes is a problem Hamilton moves to next.  Without money the government can't do, well anything basically.  This solidifies my argument that once a law is put into place, they will continue expanding until it is not possible anymore.  Taxes have been increasing steadily for most of our country's life.  We have had some breaks from it, but all in all, the government has slowly used this power to put a stranglehold on the people.  They have used that power to expand government well beyond its originally intended size.  Such a problem this is...

He goes over WHO would pay here instead of arguing the point that the government needs money.  Technology at that time would not allow them to keep tabs on every person and therefore they would have one heck of a time taxing income.  Sales taxes were the easiest and that was his idea here.

"In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere."

Im going to guess where he thinks the equilibrium should lie.  How about at the point where the taxes do not hinder commerce much while the government is able to raise what it NEEDS.  How come our government cannot find the amount it NEEDS and instead continues to spend on WANTS.  That is the real rub with conservatives.  Others always think we don't want to pay taxes and they are wrong.  We don't want to pay taxes for WANTS the government has.  We don't want to pay taxes so other people can lay around all day doing nothing.  WANTS and NEEDS are two very different things and our government needs to start differentiating between the two.

"If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded;"

Common sense people!!!  Liberals always talk about how raising taxes doesn't hurt the economy.  No matter where you raise the taxes, consumption will lessen.  If you raise a duty on a single product, that product will be consumed less.  If you raise income taxes, that will reduce consumption on ALL products.  Raise taxes on businesses?  They must reduce their costs and lay off people.  Raise taxes on households?  They must cut back and buy less.  With less bought, businesses sell less, so they make less and must reduce costs..etc etc.  The rich employ many of the people in this country, so why encourage them to lay off people by taxing them more?  Common sense people!!!

Thanks for stopping by.

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

The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency fo the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, December 11, 1787.
HAMILTON AND MADISON

Federalist Paper #20

"The executive magistrate of the union is the stadtholder, who is now an hereditary prince."

Someone looking in on our country, may think we do have our leaders chosen by blood, but we do not however.  The Clinton and Bush run is just a coincidence, right?  That is an unexpected way for choosing an executive magistrate when the rest of the government runs as it does.  Reminds me of the Roman empire with the emperors.  That is a major weakness to any Republic.  With a leader chosen by blood, you can be subject to someone who has an agenda of personal gain, rather than basing his decisions off the benefits of the entire country.  Electing leaders as well as the legislature will keep the government more stable as each person must win over more than their opponents to take office.  Even if Obama has duped many, I do not believe he intends to harm this country.  I do not think he intends for America to drop into a depression, even if that is the final result of his love affair with spending.  Misguided policies, yes, but not misguided intentions per se.

"Whether the usurpation, when once begun, will stop at the salutary point, or go forward to the dangerous extreme, must depend on the contingencies of the moment."

This is an argument that liberals can never get a handle on.  Once the government begins to remove our freedoms, it never stops.  Here in Minneapolis they have banned smoking in ALL buildings.  Now, I am no smoker and actually enjoy not having to walk into a restaurant and have smoke wafted around, but it is not PROVEN that secondhand smoking kills anyone.  Sure it inconveniences us, but storeowners should have the choice themselves on whether banning smoking will increase business.  All the stats about secondhand smoking are heresay as it stands now, but they may prove it does kill and then I would support something like this.  Im pretty sure it does kill, but it must be proven.  That was an example, but Im sure anyone reading could come up with numerous examples of the government starting with a small law that didn't matter to you and then expanding it.  Where does it stop?!?!  That is why it should never begin!

"Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred."

And yet liberals are always challenging the unequivocal truths.  I bring up the Hawley-Smoot tariff destroying our economy and the liberal says it will be different this time.  They will always challenge the truth until what they say is the "truth".  We cannot let that happen any longer!  Lies must be brought out in the open!  Ethanol is negative energy!!  CO2 is not a pollutant!  Polar Bears have risen in population!!  Lowering taxes is good for the economy!  Roe V Wade is unconstitutional!  There is no wall between church and state!!  Its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!!  etc etc...

On a side note...I have started watching "North and South" with my dad and its looking pretty good.  It was made in 1985 as a TV series which has 15 parts that are about 90 minutes each.  The story has two main characters who went to West Point and became friends.  One from the north and one south.  It begins in 1842 and, I believe, ends at the conclusion of the civil war.  It does a spectacular job as showing the underlying difference between the southerners and the northerners.  It made me think of todays politics actually.  I recommend the series so far, though I haven't finished it yet.  Just thought I would throw that out there.

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

The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON AND MADISON

Federalist Paper #19

The last paper was about historical republics, while this one will concentrate on current examples.  It is incredible how much background information these guys give bringing up a subject.  They took a full paragraph in explaining the different factions and wars Germany has gone through reaching back to early Christianity.  I guess you could read these papers for solely historical purposes. lol

"Military preparations must be preceded by so many tedious discussions, arising from the jealousies, pride, separate views, and clashing pretensions of sovereign bodies, that before the diet can settle the arrangements, the enemy are in the field; and before the federal troops are ready to take it, are retiring into winter quarters."

Which is probably a reason the President can put forth troops.  We did not want to be caught debating whether we should defend ourselves, while the enemies are attacking.  Smart move.

"Sometimes whole circles are defaulters; and then they increase the mischief which they were instituted to remedy. "

Now, he speaks of war, but this can easily relate to anything the government does.  Economy going south?  Lets impose a tariff!  That will do it!  Protect American jobs by providing them a leg up!  Oh wait!  Now we cannot buy cheaper goods...we cannot sell our goods outside the country...our buying power has gone down!  Employers must then lay off workers since business will have slowed with selling fewer total products and the unemployment rate skyrockets.  That was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff that caused the Great Depression.  Some moron on Gunny's blog thinks that wouldn't happen this time because....well, he didn't say.  The economies of the world are all interlinked and they were in 1932 as well.  There is much higher rate of exchange going on now, but the dynamics of it has not changed.  The exact same side effects would occur if we were to raise tariffs.  Jeez....liberals, they just don't get it.

One thing I notice about all the previous Republics named.  They all had certain internal strifes because some states/cities were larger than others and used that size to push others around.  If there has been one major improvement from our Republic to theirs, it is that there are no dominating states.  New York is not able to push its weight around on Vermont based on its large population or military.  We have given the larger states more representatives in the house, but have not given them more power on other subjects.  I believe that our Constitution, in how it was arranged, has almost certainly done away with this problem of Republics.  Human nature may get the best of our constitution as some loopholes will need to be closed, but it really is a perfect document in regards of what any person would want out of their government.  Safety, foreign relations, union, power by military etc etc...They did it right.

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

The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON AND MADISON

They double teamed this one, so I have high hopes. ;)

Federalist Paper #18

"The more powerful members, instead of being kept in awe and subordination, tyrannized successively over all the rest."

His example of the Grecian republic ended with the larger cities conquering the others.  This is a proof that the Federal Government needs enough power to quell any state from rising above the rest forcefully.  Without them being able to do so, there would eternally be internal conflicts that would weakness the country.

"By his intrigues and bribes he won over to his interests the popular leaders of several cities; by their influence and votes, gained admission into the Amphictyonic council; and by his arts and his arms, made himself master of the confederacy."

Now, we do not have our senators voting in our president, but I seem to remember a certain candidate that took foreign money for their campaign.  Anyone?  Obama certainly did...and....Mr. Clinton!  Both Democrats!  What do ya know! 

Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.
Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793

These days, with how spineless and ignorant many Americans are, money basically equals votes, especially for democrats.  Ive said it before and Ill say it again, if my dog was running for president as a democrat, he would garner 40% of the vote.  Now, if you equate leaders in the quote, with say, the media today, that quote fits about right for Obama.  "By Obama's intrigues and bribes he won over to his interests the media around the country and by their influence over the public he won over millions of votes, which made him master of the Republic"...hmmm...sound about right?  The MSM covered up so many things about him, that paraphrase I did makes perfect sense.  Even with the media covering all that stuff up, he still didn't crush McCain like past presidential elections this last half century.  Just think if the media was unbiased...the Republicans would sweep up, and they probably wouldn't pander to the left without the media against them for not doing it.  The media really has caused much of our problems in this country.  I keep coming back to them, but all roads lead to Rome.

This paper as a whole is a long story about past republics.  First the Amphictyonic confederacy, then the Achaean confederacy.  They go through the strengths and weaknesses of each and how they both fell to the wayside.  They take extreme care in providing how they failed as to provide the solutions and avoid those failures for the current union.  You are not left in the dark after reading one of these papers, as to how they feel about the subject they just disclosed.  I feel when watching debates these days, that half the time they are lying and the other half they don't answer the question.  It is a never ending cycle of parrying questions while giving half-truths to please the people.  Back then, the people knew exactly what they were getting into and why the leaders thought that.  I would like to hear Obama's reasoning on WHY a pork loaded stimulus package will help this economy.  With all the deep thinking that went into these federalist papers, I feel a teenager could do as much as our leaders today.  It is never about actually FIXING the problem, but putting the ILLUSION of fixing the problem forward so we can all applaud them for effort.  Even most high school classes grade on results nowadays, why is effort counted here?  I can't necessarily fault them though when our population has been so lazy as to not inform themselves of the political sphere of our country.  If our leaders did try and fix the problems, it might not look good through the media and they could be ousted from their seat, so instead of trying they, just look good to stay in office. 

"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." - Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837

I think that quote summarizes our problem in some aspects.  The inattention of people and failing to learn why things are done is the main problem.  Since people do not understand our government or economics in general, they began to hate Bush for no reason.  They then couldn't focus on the actual problems that he was facing and focused on him instead.  I probably heard more about his speaking abilities than anything else.  Through that they elected Obama who they refuse to "scrutinize" in all aspects.  Enough said I guess. 

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

The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #17

"which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes."

Why would it be proper?  Many reasons.  Liberty of the States was a main reason of their time.  Efficiency would be a main reason today.  Our education system is in shambles because the Federal Government has taken it upon themselves rather than leave the states with the power that is meant for them in the first place.  Competition is a main reason that the private sector always outperforms the public sector and what the federal government has done is take away competition and run a communist style education system.  Ways to fix this?  Tax credit for sending your kid to a private school.  No paying twice!  Keeps them on a level playing field that way and the kids get a better education without paying more for it.  States in control.  If I live in MN and I see our state education is horrible, I can move over to Wisconsin and enroll my kids there.  If too many parents do this, MN will probably take a closer look at their education system and improve it, thereby giving kids a better education.  Pretty simple fix to a complicated problem. 

All education funding never leaves the state.  No Federal funding comes in for education anymore.  States take over the current education system.  DoE is dissolved.  Tax credit for private school attendees.  Thats about it really as I see it.  Any other thoughts on that from anyone else?

"It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities."

Here is a case of something that may have been true in his time, but today technology has changed this.  With communication happening in an instant, people feel much more connected with their president than their state senator or governor.  The face time that national policies get always puts them in front of local politics and that has changed the way things are done.  Today many know more about Obama's foreign policy than their mayor's policies.  With that comes more attention for the Federal Government, and hence they would be more likely to encroach upon the states authorities instead of the other way around.

"less likely to inspire an habitual sense of obligation, and an active sentiment of attachment. "

Welfare has destroyed this argument.  One would most certainly be attached to the food trough and one with a food trough would most certainly not go find other means of food.  It is an endless cycle that is self-degrading and has ruined millions of lives in this country. 


The rest of his paper is devoted to proving a point that the Federal Government needs to have enough power to keep the peace between the states.  He goes through previous governments and how they failed to keep the peace.

Thanks for reading.

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