The Same Subject Continued:
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, December 4, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #16

Noticing the dates on these papers, they ripped through them pretty fast...almost as fast as me, though Im not actually writing them hehe.

"It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war."

Now this is something rather bold here.  He is, in effect, encouraging the use of a civil war if a member of the union strays.  This is where today's politics and yesterday's politics differ.  Today, if one was trying to convince a body to join them, they would not mention a downside for them.  Here Hamilton tells the states that once they join, they are stuck.  There is no going back, because if you try, we will stop you by force.  Lay out the facts and let the people decide, is the politics of old, while the new is, tell and exaggerate the upside, but ignore the downside.  No wonder we are in a heap of trouble.

The paragraph immediately after that quoted sentence above is an amazingly accurate one.  He basically walks us through the start of the civil war.  States banding together "getting rid of all external control upon their designs of personal aggrandizement".  The only part where he was wrong, was at the end, and that only happened because a single person went against the will of the people.  Many in the north did not want President Lincoln to force the Civil War upon the south for seceding from the union.  Many wanted to save bloodshed and allow them to create a new country.  Where would we be today has Lincoln not went AGAINST the will of many to force us into that war?  If there were liberals of our time, back then, they would have been screaming bloody murder and calling for Lincoln to be charged with war crimes.  Looking back, it was a turning point for our country.  We became a single nation during that war.  President Bush has done much of the same in the Iraq war.  Everyone voted to go in, but once there, they wanted to bow out leaving millions for death.  Would Code Pink be screaming at the dems for that murderous act of genocide on their hands?  Doubtful.  Bush has instead done what was right and remained to make Iraq a neutral in the Middle East.  Im not saying going into Iraq was the best choice, but once there, we cannot just leave.  Obama sees that now and he is doing just as Bush did. 

Sometimes people say George Washington was put there by God, since he was the perfect man at the perfect time.  He had the military, the people and the other leaders of the country behind him.  He could have been a king, and where would we be today had he become one?  Instead, he gave over power after 8 years and every president followed suit, WITHOUT THE LAW forcing them to, until FDR.  After FDR the law was made, and for some unknown reason it did not include congress.  Some will say Lincoln was put in place by God, since he made an impossible decision to bring war upon our lands and to shed American blood by the hundreds of thousands, all for an unpopular war that kept our country united.  I believe one day some will look back and say Bush was put in place by God as he has stuck to his guns with all the cards stacked against him.  He has not made all the correct moves domestically, but his choices on security and in Iraq and Afghanistan have kept us safe and may keep us safe for years to come. 

"any scheme which aims at regulating their movements by laws to operate upon them in their collective capacities, and to be executed by a coercion applicable to them in the same capacities."

*cough* civilian national security force *cough*  Air is kinda dry eh?

"The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage."

Do you think calling a law unconstitutional would be grounds of exemption?  It would bring that law into the public light for all to pick apart and could possibly defeat some of these insane bills being passed nowadays.

"If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void."

Apparently the next paragraph was about that, so I jumped the gun a bit.  Judges now are just as political as the legislature.  They were supposed to be separate from the rest by taking their seat for life, but the election of them has turned them into political figures.  Problematic for an occurrence of unconstitutional laws, since the Supreme Court is hardly unbiased anymore.

All in all, he basically outlines much of our current history.  When reading about the problems of the future it is hard not to laugh at the accuracy of our founding fathers' writings.  Many of Jefferson's quotes about the Supreme Court have come true.  If you want to take a look, the top right of my blog has 4 posts with quotes from the founding fathers.  He is in 3 I believe.  They knew human nature very well and that is why they chose a republic to lead us.  Communism and socialism go against human nature, which is why we are having a tough time, as is Europe.  When we return to a true open market republic, we will return to economic prosperity. 

Thanks for reading.

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

The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #15

Is it just me, or is Hamilton more long winded?  Jeez  ;)

It seems, for now, that they have moved from convincing people we need a union to, for this piece, he is wading through the flaws the articles of confederation had.  If you do read those, it is clear why those articles would not work in the long run.  Much too...detailed into specifics for many things.  It could easily get outdated, where as the new Constitution was made to last.  The articles were made in haste and provided an immediate government to keep the country from falling into a sort of anarchy though, so it served its purpose.

"If the road over which you will still have to pass should in some places appear to you tedious or irksome, you will recollect that you are in quest of information on a subject the most momentous which can engage the attention of a free people, that the field through which you have to travel is in itself spacious, and that the difficulties of the journey have been unnecessarily increased by the mazes with which sophistry has beset the way."

Can you imagine that attitude towards politics being held by the populace today?  Bumper sticker slogans are now leading the way for the democrats instead of knowledge.  "Bush lied, people died!"  Eh...what lie?  And they never know, but they know the slogan.  I believe this to be a main reason we have fallen into disarray as a country.  You elect what you deserve and we have elected morons to govern our nation.  We have elected lawyers who think they are economists.  We have elected the corrupt and sly instead of the wise and impartial.  When Americans feel the need to educate themselves on the issues, we will be able to come back as a country, but until then, I do not have much hope on that matter. 

"It may perhaps be asked what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted, to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution."

When debating with someone, this strategy can be used to corner them into agreement.  Using a known fact and taking one step at a time into the controversial issue.  This is common practice when doing a proof in computer science or math.  An iteration approach.  Prove beyond doubt that step one is true and then move to step two.  If you can prove n+1 is true, then all must be true.  The approach is different, though the strategy remains the same.  For example:  The President takes an oath to: preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Have you read the 10th amendment?  It states that all powers not enumerated go to the states.  Could you please read over the constitution and point out where a social law such as abortion may fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government?  So by the President vowing to the Constitution and the 10th amendment falling inside it, while nothing of the sort would give the Federal Government power over the issue, the law is unconstitutional.

Instead of saying that abortion is wrong and is killing babies, which is true, I used the legal side of the argument, which would then give the rights to the states instead of the Supreme Court.  It takes the moral compass out of effect which then gives the issue a correct and incorrect answer.  This could be used on many topics as well.

"Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments?"

He too wonders how America looks to the rest of the world, like liberals, but his reasoning is much different.  Liberals worry about how we look to outsiders, for the sake of how we look.  They have no reason really.  They just want everyone to like the United States so there aren't any mean wars in the world.  Welcome to reality loons.  Hamilton wants America's standing to increase so other countries do not think of invading us.  A very valid reason.  If you think about it, that is much like what Reagan did, peace through strength.  Hamilton wanted to appear strong as to keep peace between foreigners. 

From that list he numbers off of the problems we are having, it is a wonder we were still open for business.  I noticed that he mentioned lending, for insecurity purposes.  That is not unlike we have going on today.  Lets keep an eye open for his solution, which Im sure he will mention at one point in these papers.

Hamilton then moves on to treaties and compares to how treaties have worked in Europe, which concludes with a new Constitution cannot work as a treaty.  States must give some powers so as to be governed by a larger entity that can provide all the necessities for a nation.

"Sentences may be denounced against them for violations of their duty; but these sentences can only be carried into execution by the sword."

Herein lies the problem with the UN.  They simply hand out resolutions left and right, but when have you seen them intervene without the United States pressing the issue and forcing them?  When will you hear of a UN force with British, French and German troops going down to Gaza to keep the peace?  Um...never.  The UN only does something after the United States acts.  Saddam was basically fingering his nose at them until we did something about it, outside the UN.  Im still wondering why votes aren't tallied based on how much funding you provide for the UN.  Since we provide much of the funding, our vote should be worth much more.  In all fairness that is.  ;)

"Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged."

Even with Pelosi and Obama both being loons there will be infighting that will ruin the dems.  Many democrats have a craving for power and they are only kept in check when they are not the majority.  Many of the republicans had the same problem and are now out of power.  I look for much of the same from the democrats.

Much of what he ends with, stems from the government not being able to enforce the laws it passes.  Without a way to punish those who step out of line, how can one expect any to obey the laws?  Again, the problem with the UN.  Nobody takes them seriously, because everybody knows they will do nothing about anything.  Get rid of them!

Thanks for reading.

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

So I was watching some "1/2 Hour News Hour" on youtube and I found a Jimmy Carter skit I thought was funny and it got me thinking. 
Here is the clip I found before I get started.





So basically he turns everything around from a negative to a positive.  The liberals constantly do this as we all know.  So why not fight back?

Usually:"These tax raises will generate 300 million dollars"
Now:"These tax raises will take 300 million dollars from hard working Americans"

Usually:"9 innocent civilians were killed"
Now:"12 Al-Qaeda dead"

Usually:"Obama stops torture"
Now:"Obama continues with Bush plan on torture"

Usually:"Welfare has helped millions in poverty"
Now:"Welfare has kept millions in poverty"

Usually:"Obama has a plan for a 825 billion dollar stimulus plan"
Now:"Obama is going to print off 825 billion dollars to give to the people"

Even though both are true, when the American public sees printed, they see corruption. 

Conservatives are always telling it straight how it is and I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, however when combating these split-tongued liberals, we must fight by their rules.  Was Jimmy Carter the best ex-President ever?  Or should that actually be attributed to Reagan?  Its obvious here, but sometimes the way with words can change the whole feeling of the sentence.  Just remember hope and change.

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

Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 30, 1787.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #14

"I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy"

I found this interesting.  Now, I haven't had a chance to read any adverse views Madison was dealing with, but how would a well known writer and provocateur of the time confuse a democracy and republic.  Just a thought...

"In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity."

This is what the 10th amendment is all about!  That which is not enumerated in the constitution shall not be in the power of the federal government!  The states are the ones with all the power, or at least that was the plan.  All conservatives here know this, however for some reason even the likes of Pelosi and Reid do not seem to understand that.  The usurpation of power by the federal government keeps expanding with each passing year until soon the states will not have anything left to handle.  But we forget...Madison is just an old dead guy we shouldn't listen to right?  *rolls eyes*

"But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new?"

This is a question that is asked of socialism, in a way, by many democrats now.  Why won't it work?  Democrats used to hide that they were socialists, but now they come out asking why it is wrong?  There is a difference though.  Socialism, of the kind they want, has been exactly tried in Europe and many are now trying to turn away from it since it is failing.  The financial burden on the government is too strong and inefficient for any socialism to work.  However when Madison asks this question, he and the other supporters of the new Constitution lay out a plan for the government.  Every angle is covered for the American people to see.  I would like to know, if the democrats had the chance of starting anew, what would the government they created look like?  I think that is a great question that needs to be asked of them.  Where is the path they are leading us down going?  Right now they are still hiding much of what they want to do, but it slowly comes out.  I still firmly believe that if, miraculously, all Americans knew every policy Republicans stood for and every policy Democrats stood for, they would overwhelmingly vote Republican.  Now if I were to add conservative in there, I think they would vote conservative before Republican.  So what is the Democrats plan for our country?  We know the healthcare, abortion, pacifism, etc etc, in the current time, but what would our country look like with 100% democrat policy?  Our founding fathers filled 85 Federalist Papers and a collection of Anti-Federalist Papers outlining what they wanted for our government.  What would these papers look like if Pelosi wrote 85 papers about what our government should be?  Or Obama?  We never seem to get answers out of these people, instead we get feelings. 

"They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe."

I just thought I would put that in here since it pretty much gave me the chills.  :)

P.S.  Aren't you glad the liberals around the country voted for the "humble" and "down to earth" candidate? 
Obama:  "I won. I'm the president."
Oh wait...

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

Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #13

"The money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people."

Can I get an Amen!!  How come our government cannot understand that it is there duty to do as the constitution allows them, while taking the least amount of money from the people?  For some reason they think they are granted rights to do what they like with the money we pay them as taxes and the money we don't pay them...yet.  We are constantly under attack from them raising our taxes at every possible turn.  I heard that Obama's tax plan is now down to 75k on the actual bill.  Heard it on Fox and didn't hear the whole story, so you can confirm or deny that.

"and can, in a manner, reproduce itself in every part of a great empire by a judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions. "

This is where our government now runs into problems.  The Federal government thinks they need to run everyones lives with national healthcare, education, welfare, etc etc.  Later on Hamilton outlines the 4 purposes of government. 
The 4 principal reasons why a federal government was formed: "(1) The common defense (national security); (2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; (3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states; (4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787
The states are the ones that own all the power, not the federal government!  A national government cannot micromanage our lives efficiently!  Hamilton states here basically that it wouldn't take any more power to run a government of more people since you could delegate out the duties.  Why does our federal government feel they need to usurp powers whenever possible?

Thanks for reading.

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

The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue
From the New York Packet. Tuesday, November 27, 1787.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #12

Looking into Revenues...this should be interesting.

"It has been found in various countries that, in proportion as commerce has flourished, land has risen in value. And how could it have happened otherwise?"

Well, the CRA bill did just that.  Here is a case where the government created a bad regulation and caused a crisis.  If left alone, the market will do just as Hamilton says here.  When a government regulation comes in and skyrockets land prices, what did anyone think would happen?  Sooner or later people will not be able to afford their housing and bam, you have a burst of the housing bubble.  I did not have the ability to see this happen as I was only 8 when Clinton signed that bill, but I am surprised that our leaders did not see this coming for the past decade.  Many people had invested in land instead of stocks, bonds, etc and when the bubble went, so did lots of peoples money.  No liquidating that land anymore!  It is amazing how common sense alludes democrats on an issue such as this. 

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates."

Hmmm...I wonder if that is why congress continues to print money for us.  These "stimulus" packages are really just printed money going straight to the consumers instead of replacing money with the banks.  With more money, the government can tax us more.  I also notice the topic of how fast the money circulates comes up.  Wouldn't that mean that during a recession that we should probably be taxed less?  It would seem that Hamilton knew more about economics over 200 years ago than many in our government today.  This is why in my last post I came up with an idea to have the Federal Reserve have a limited amount of power in controlling the tax rates.

"of putting it into the power of the government to increase the rate without prejudice to trade. "

This is an interesting statement.  It seems that he wants government to be able to tax, but not for the reason of deterring people from trading a specific product.  I heard on Fox News that some want a sugar tax to "solve" our obesity problem.  Wouldn't that directly go against what he just said though?  Pretty soon they are going to tax bullets at such a high rate as to deter people from buying bullets.  Then you will not be able to heat your home to 72 in the winter (sort of like California trying to control peoples housing temps).  One day you won't be able to go to a fast food restaurant since they aren't healthy enough.  This is pandora's box here.  Its controlling the public "for their own good".  Who else in history has done that?

The rest was on a single union helping them collect tariffs for the most part.  Most of it didn't extrapolate to todays circumstances, but definitely a good read.

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

I was thinking and a thought came to me...just wanted to know what some others thought of it.

Congress would vote on a set of rates the certain tax rates could fall under.  For example they could vote that the top income tax rate would fall inside 34%-39%.  The actual rate would be under the control of the Federal Reserve.  This way they could see how the economy is doing and easily help the economy with a slight change in the tax rate, much like the interest rate.  This could be a way to immediately help an ailing economy.  Congress takes too long to get anything done and they never know the correct moves anyways.  This would put the immediate power of tax rates in the hands of people who watch the economy as their job, not parade around DC making promises.

Thoughts?

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

The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

Federalist Paper #11

Hamilton first points out how Europe is hoping we do not band together as one, since it would hinder their powers.  He points to how we could gain the upper hand on, for example, Britain.  We could use our power to turn the tables for our advantage instead of allowing them to set the prices. 

The Union would allow us to build a great Navy as well and he points to how having a navy able to sufficient to decide battles for one or another, we could achieve commercial gain.  Basically we could gain allies by having a navy to not only help defend us, but them.  This would greatly benefit us in the markets.

He then turns the tables and gives negative examples of states being split into numerous confederacies.  How such a small country could be thrown around by Europe, etc etc. 

Basically most of what he says in this paper is common sense.  He is merely proving the point beyond doubt that a union would be better for a navy and commerce. 

As I read these papers I cannot help but think why can't someone do this for current problems concerning the United States.  The War in Iraq? Abortion?  Traditional family values?  Welfare?  Affirmative Action?  etc etc.  I know there are many many smart conservatives that have the ability to write as these men write the Federalist Papers.  To write in a way that is neither condescending or angry.  To write in a way that simply lays out as many facts and examples as possible to prove a simple point.  Think how few points have been covered thus far and how much writing has been done.  When reading these you cannot help but think that they are right.  In hindsight, they were, but think if our country was falling apart and we had some on one side saying we should split into two nations while others wanted us together.  Think Civil War.  Think if every one of the southerners read these papers...would they have been as quick to concede from the union? 

Maybe one day I will be skilled enough with the pen to create such a set of papers, however as it stands, there are conservatives that possess the skills now, so why not?

Thank you for reading.

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

The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.
MADISON

Federalist Paper #10

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."

Im wondering how we can use one of those two against the Democrats.  Causes?  Give in to loss of traditional values?  Socialism?  Madison points to either destroying them, or giving in.  Neither is really an option at the moment.  Madison says both are not good options anyways, so that probably won't be an option in the future either.  Controlling its effects must be the way to go here.  Unfortunately Republicans had their heads so far up their a**es that they went left and lost power.  Without a majority anywhere, we must hope this doesn't last long. 

Looking again at the democrats strategy, I believe I see a destruction of causes.  Communism does this with controlling all media outlets and removes all freedom of speech.  Notice how liberals are all for free speech for themselves, but as soon as someone exercises their free speech to speak against them, they go bananas.  Notice the extreme bias the media has towards Obama right now.  The guy is hailed as a savior and he hasn't even put one bill into effect.  Liberals really strive to shout down everyone against their beliefs and try forcing their own down everyones throats they can.  It ends with a destruction of liberty to create factions.  It creates communism and a one party system where there is no choices. 

"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property."

He labels many other similar types of factions based on money.  What these come down to is Class Warfare.  Adding fuel to the fire is what democrats do on a daily basis.  They are uniters?  Or are they really the dividers?  The answer is obvious to anyone reading with an unbiased mind. 

Madison states how factions must be the judges between the classes.  Democrats would rather pit the rich against the poor instead of finding a balance and realizing that there will always be a rich and poor.  In capitalism the poor live well comparably, while in communism the middle class lives poorly.  Capitalism is about making the entire pie larger, while socialism is about giving everyone the same size piece.  Ill take the larger pie thank you very much.

He basically ends in saying the causes of factions cannot be removed.  He went through a very long proof to prove that human nature is to form factions. 

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens."

This is where the two party system fails us.  We will always have a faction in a majority position of power.  If we had say 4 evenly split parties, then we would need at least all of 2 or in all probability, 3 of the 4 parties to agree.  That stabilizes things much more.  In our 2 party system, a single person can sway their own party into voting a certain way.  We are not so much a republic anymore, but nearly monarchy with some legislation.  Instead of one person though, the power lies with a handful.  Better than one owning all the power, but I would rather multiple parties converge forcing the power to be split much more.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Now I know that even with a single party in total control, we are still a republic, but aren't we getting close to democracy?  A republic is meant to protect the minority.  In a two party system, it gets tougher to protect the minority.  Especially with many House of Reps. becoming national figures.  I know the speaker of the house is a major position, but the point of that house in the government is to connect with the people closer than a president would be able to.  I feel that instead of doing that many reps are pushing for their party agenda which is not helping the country. 

And Madison actually mentions how with smaller republics there is a higher probability of a single faction attaining a majority and executing their oppression.  I guess I was on the right track with the two party system. hehe

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States."

Here is where modern communication has changed the state of how things can be done.  Single factions can spread their agenda easily around the country instead of being found in a single region.  This has caused some problems in my opinion.  It decreases the range of opinions that would be heard at the table as people are brainwashed with others opinions at an early age.  This is step one in getting a universal belief system. 

"for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project,"

Hold the phone!!!  Is that redistribution of wealth!?  I think so!!!!  Madison is labeling an equal division of property(or money) as improper and wicked.  Maybe someone should inform the democrats of this.  They may want to remove Federalist Paper #10 from all libraries. 

Thanks for reading

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

On to #9

Federalist Paper #9

Hamilton talks of the Union defending us against domestic factions and insurrection.  Both of which are becoming alarming problems as we progress down our current road.  Right now the domestic factions of political parties are doing their part to ruin our country.  Both have agenda's that are not in the best interest of our country and neither cares about that either.  The spending habits of both parties has crippled our economy by removing any backup plans we may have been able to take.  We now have no wiggle room and gavel is coming down upon us.  Illegal Immigration is another issue on the table where many are, so called, "taking the high road" for political correctness and not national benefit.  Clearly it is not good for our economy to take in millions of people who have no money, yet democrats are all for amnesty in the name of fairness.  Fairness doctrine will silence the truth by putting radio's out of business since they are forced to put liberals on the air.  Etc etc...I could go on, but you get the point.  Political parties are more interested in their own ascension than the greatness of the country.  Insurrection may be coming upon us with the way banks are collapsing around us.  The civil war was an example of the union holding us together as a single nation and quelling the violence.  The road we are traveling down can only lead to bankruptcy by our government.  That leads to anarchy.  We will see how our union holds up to that.  Im optimistic that we can pull through these tough times, but I am realistic too. 

He continues on about how previous republics had flaws that have been reconciled.  The legislative branch for example has evolved and adds needed stability and responsibility to the government.  He lists some others, you can read it.

Hamilton then uses several quotes from Montesquieu to prove his point.  The confederate republic is really what we have.  States are all republics themselves and under a single republic.  This is where I believe the Federal government has overstepped its boundaries.  The Constitution was set up in a way to give the Federal government certain rights with the rest going to the states, as specified.  However, the Federal government has taken many rights that belong to the states.  I recently heard of a republican trying to introduce a bill that forces a law to prove it is constitutional before being voted upon.  That is exactly what we need!  There are very few changes I would make to the Constitution, but that is one of them.  Instead of proving in the negative, prove in the positive and we would have many fewer ridiculous laws. 

"The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power."

Those powers are being usurped by the federal government!  Where is the 10th amendment!

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

Federalist Paper #8

Continuing on the Consequences of Hostilities Between the States by Hamilton.

His first full paragraph is on what Europe goes through with their constant wars.   A very real example that would disgust any wishing for freedom.  He then examines how it would be different and much worse here in the states.  Where in Europe each is well established and able to repel many attacks, here we are new and larger states would "plunder and (devastate)" the smaller ones easily.  In the end, people will give away their freedoms in favor of security, which would probably lead to monarchies.  Not a pretty picture in my eyes.

The path he leads us down from republic to monarchy is a fantastic way to prove his point.  It is clear that he doesn't lead us astray with his hypothesis, as it happened in Europe as he explained.  I personally believe that if the leader of a monarch has good principles and pursues avenues for the correct reasons, it can be better than a republic.  Decisions can be made quickly and corruptness will be tougher given that only a single person is making the decision in this case.  If he has a pure heart, he may not stray from decisions benefiting the nation as a whole.  The problem is human nature.  Humans are power hungry and greedy.  It doesn't take long for the son of a ruler to kill his father to take the throne and proceed to immolate his people for his personal benefit.  Not a pretty picture there either.

Hamilton himself asks a question one might ask if they were still against his preposition.  Greece still had standing armies, why are we so different to them?  He states how our living arrangements are much different now. 
"The industrious habits of the people of the present day, absorbed in the pursuits of gain, and devoted to the improvements of agriculture and commerce, are incompatible with the condition of a nation of soldiers, which was the true condition of the people of those republics."
Another difference would be the state of the standing armies.  One, if separate confederacies, must be ready for battle at any moment, while another, if a union, wouldn't be.  Laws for relaxed liberties in favor of security would be less likely imposed if we were a union.

"The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an over-match for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil, and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights."

Can anyone see a reference to why we have the second amendment?  Now how would the community defend itself from the standing army, if they had no arms to do so!?  They simply couldn't! 

The rest is reproving the other side of the coin regarding standing armies.  Fascinating stuff. 

Thanks for reading.

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

Ok, so I must be getting on at the worst possible times.  TH was down again while I was trying to do this, so I ended up only having time for one and that was tough, being how late it is right now.  Here goes anyways.


Federalist Paper #7

Hamilton gives many reasons the states, if separate, could go to war with each other.  Land being the first reason, he describes the unsettled land in the west could pose a problem when each state makes a claim on it. 

Commerce is a second reason.  When one state is doing better than another, the first may feel a need to bring the other one down to size.  Now, notice that the one doing better doesn't intentionally being itself down to size with the other.  Liberals today are constantly trying to cut our country down to size.  Never in history have I seen a country who would rather see other countries flourish than their own. 

Public debt is named as another reason.  This could happen if all the states came together for a single payment of some sort.  Who pays what and why?  That sort of thing could cause hostilities.

Laws being violated by another state is another possibility of war.  Anytime one state takes advantage of another, there will be at least an escalation of arms.  Not good for anyone, and bound to happen by everyone.

Foreign alliances and inter-state alliances could cause a war.  Say one is allied to France and another England.  We are then tied to Europe, who was war plagued for many of these years, in the form of alliances, which could bring us to war against each other.

That is a shortened summary of what he talked about.  Of course his reasoning and vocabulary was much more indepth. lol

Again, not much concerning decisions we are currently making.  Good stuff to read and know though, considering one day we may come across some similar decisions to this.

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

"Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States"
This one by Hamilton

Federalist Paper #6

"A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other."

Now now, if they just talked with each other it would not matter right?  I mean, diplomacy solves all problems.  *snicker*
In that same paragraph he talks of human nature.  Human nature plays an important part in many of the founding writings of our country.  If men were not greedy for power, would we need the 2nd amendment?  Probably not, however that is not the case.  As you read these keep in mind the role human nature plays and how it benefits a republic set up the way ours is.

Again the use of examples is brought up alongside other logical arguments just after that.

"Commercial republics, like ours, will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other. They will be governed by mutual interest, and will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord."

Now I know he does not mean harmony all the time or anything, but I believe our current republic has disproved this theory.  We have papers like the NYT giving out classified information to our enemies.  We have liberal papers telling flat out lies for simple political gain.  We have our media creating hate for Israel and America across the globe.  We must be the first nation in which many of its inhabitants care more about other countries, than their own.  Or more about terrorist rights than our military's rights(Murtha).  Sickening. 

I love this paragraph he wrote:

"Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? If this be their true interest, have they in fact pursued it? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by MEN as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions, that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done anything more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power or glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to these inquiries."

He asks many questions that his doubters would ask.  Once again surrounding the issue to leave no wiggle room for the opponents.

Even though that is not a point pushing towards having a republic he uses it as an example where no matter what government is being used, wars do ensue anyways.  Through that logic, states must form a single union to avoid such contests.  Spectacular way to prove his point I think. 

I didn't comment as much on this one as it was more or less similar to the last ones.  Have fun reading.

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

Wouldn't you believe it, he's still on the same subject.

Federalist Paper #5

Just when you thought he came up with all possible reasons to form a union, he makes a couple more cases for it.  Using past events is often used in these Federalist papers.  They will talk about past Republics and Democracies to show why things went wrong in the end.  Im sure if they were alive now, they could give us some very definitive answers as to why we are in such economic turmoil.  By using Queen Anne, Jay is using a successful example as to why the union must be formed.  An example by itself will not do the trick, but paired with the other arguments he has made, he makes a compelling case. 

"yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality?"

This is a question that could be asked of many things today.  Why are some people successful and some failures?  Why do people end up on the street?  Which leads us to redistribution of wealth.  All it does is provide a hungry person with a fish.  Tomorrow they will be back asking for another fish, which means that the fisherman actually catching fish, must then catch an extra fish each day for that person.  Now think perhaps that half the people are sitting around asking for fish.  Wouldn't that make for quite a heavy extra load on the people actually fishing?  It is much more important to teach a man to fish instead.  (I am taking this from the bible mind you, paraphrased of course hehe)  Instead of our education system teaching our children to fish, we are teaching them how to ask another for fish.  Or we are teaching them that the other person shouldn't have more fish than them.  We are teaching them that no matter who does what work, all should end up with equal fish.  At some point the scales will tip and the few fisherman left won't be able to catch enough fish for the rest of the town, who are sitting and waiting for their fair share.  At that time, don't expect the fisherman to return, expect him to find another shoreline to return to, so he could enjoy his fish.  *cough Hong Kong cough*

When reading I get the sense of him persuading, but I do not feel pushed into believing.  I think that is also a key factor when debating.  While encircling the argument, just spread the facts far and wide. Without being pushy, you force the other to think instead of act.  By them thinking you have already planted a seed and when the truth comes to pass, they will remember that.  

Thank you for reading.

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

Jay is continuing on the previous subject here as well.

Federalist Paper #4

This paper has to do entirely with forming a single union.  I couldn't find any major things sticking out at me that would fit todays situation.  I would like to point out how he makes his arguments.  He surrounds each situation with all possible outcomes before stepping into it.  He asks a question in many cases.  He then runs through the circumstances that may come to pass.  I found that when arguing with a liberal on a given subject, if you build your argument much like Jay is here, they will have a hard time even coming up with a good lie as you will have already put down many possibilities they thought of. 

On a similar note:

Earlier this year I had that chance to meet with a state congressmen by the name of Pat Garofalo.  I and 4 others had a laid back dinner at Augsburg college before he was to have a friendly debate with a democrat who was running in a different precinct.  They both had nobody running against them so it was more fun than anything.  Anyways, we were talking politics and he mentioned that he had once gotten a chance to speak with Justice Roberts.  He stated how Roberts formed his arguments and how it left the opposition speechless unless they had a very good case against his argument.  He first started down a path in the wrong direction stating why it would be correct, but then would suddenly switch course and move off into his actual stance on the subject.  Along his second path he would outline why his first path was incorrect.  By doing this the opposition would have to make a very compelling argument to make any ground.  If his stance was incorrect a person would certainly be able to argue the point, however if his stance was correct, there wouldn't be much left to discuss. 

From time to time on TH (when I posted more on columnist pages) I would try this on liberals and it does work.  I would surround a situation and end up forcing them to make a move before using obvious fact to discredit their feeble attempt.  They usually ran after the first couple posts and the ones that didn't ended up on my liberal quotes blog since their responses were so outlandish after that, it was worth keeping it for a laugh. haha.

Thanks for reading and any comments you may have are welcome.

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