Tick Tock for Taxes

Volume 195

Opinion at large

After being on vacation out of the country, I noticed how differently people perceive American politics. It amazed me, how many people expect the U.S. Federal Government to be the world's nanny. They should do this and they should do that. Why? How did we become everything to everyone? Most people and places that have their hand out, do not like us. So, with our faltering economy barely staying above water, why are we spending billions of dollars that we don't have? Our congress has waited until the last month before the Bush tax cuts expire to start debating it. And they wonder why many of them lost their jobs and have one of the lowest approval ratings in history. It drives me batty to see the congressional morons play politics with our future. Austan Goolsbee, Serving as Obama's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is simply a talking head for the liberals. I think he is incompetent. I saw him in an interview, he couldn't even tow the line for the liberal Obama administration. He reiterated what Nancy Pelosi said, where food stamps and unemployment are good for the economy. What business school did they go to? Keynesian economics has never worked, why does this administration push this concept, when they know it will not work? The unemployment report shocked the media today, when it rose to 9.8%. It didn't surprise any conservatives. We can not create jobs in an anti-business atmosphere. The federal government institutes laws, policies and regulations that makes it practically impossible to start small businesses and create new jobs or rehire laid off workers. This is so typical of a liberal democrat congress and White House. I.E. Johnson, Carter, Clinton and now, Obama. Read up on these Presidents. See what type of social and regulation programs they started. Republican President Richard Nixon started the EPA in December of 1970. That was such a mistake. It hasn't always been the democrats pushing big government, but some republicans have made many stupid and short-sighted policies. If the Bush Tax Cuts expire, this is what you can expect starting January 1, 2011.

• 10% tax bracket becomes 15% for the lowest wage earners
• 35% tax brackets becomes 40% for the highest wage earners
• A middle income family ($63K or more) will pay $1500 more
• A working married couple earning $300K will pay $4K more
• The marriage penalty will return
• The dividend tax will rise 39.6% from 15%
• Long term Capital gains tax will rise to 20% from 15%
• The estate tax will reset to 55%
• Where the benefits go? Single parents earning $25K will receive $2,300. $400 more than last year.

This is "text book" redistribution of wealth. Taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have nots". I am a very charitable person, however, the government is stepping way outside it's boundaries. I realize that it is the democrat's mantra to grow the federal government. The issue is, we don't need it, we don't want it and we can't afford it.

Needless to say, I don't trust the government. We find out this week the fed bailed out many large corporations like General Electric with taxpayer money. Remember the song, "Behind closed doors"? That should be the Obama administration's theme song. If the Bush tax cuts expire and the threat of Obamacare, the EPA instituting the carbon dioxide standards, the ban on oil drilling and the mounting deficit are components which retard economic growth and small business expansion. Stopping this onslaught of hinderances, only then, we will see the country emerge from this recession. Yes, I said recession. Call your representatives and voice your opinions.

Don't tax me, Bro! 

I've been talking about this for a long time:

Chicken Crap:

'Constitutional Conservatism' is Not Negative, Radical, or Vague

By ADAM J. WHITE
 Dec 3, 2010
  In a short essay, New York Times editorialist Lincoln Caplan considers the increasingly popular conservative rallying cry, "constitutional conservatism." Caplan unsurprisingly tries to characterize the term as purely negative: "The phrase is used mainly in opposition," a response to perceived "danger" posed by liberal "solutions." Caplan tries to define the term as radical ("the phrase is connected to a radical vision") while simultaneously suggesting that the term hardly has a meaning at all ("the statement is a vague, highly selective catchall"). And ironically, he urges his readers not to "dismiss this increasingly used rallying cry," even while his own analysis turns the term into a straw man.


In fact, the term "constitutional conservative" need not be deemed negative, radical, or vague. Rather than starting, as Caplan does, with John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and "Tea Party members," Caplan should have started with the Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz, who may well have sparked the term’s modern emergence nearly two years ago in a Wall Street Journal essay, which he subsequently expanded into a Policy Review essay, appropriately titled, "Constitutional Conservatism."


Berkowitz – who one could not easily define as negative, radical, or vague – laid out constitutional conservatism not merely in terms of "liberty" but also "moderation." He urged conservatives to focus not merely on limited government but also on energetic government, invoking George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism no less than Goldwater's libertarianism.


And far from embracing right-wing radicalism, Berkowitz urged conservatives not to pursue "greater purity in conservative ranks" in either social conservative or libertarian terms. Citing public opinion polls, he urged that "down that path lies disaster."


Regardless of whether Berkowitz's moderate vision is shared by many or most "movement" conservatives, the fact remains that his vision of "constitutional conservatism" is a far cry from the radical, reactionary meaning assigned to the term by Caplan.


Charlie Rangeling the average American citizen:



Pathetic Funnies:

Question: What is the difference between what Randall Duke Cunningham was convicted of and what Charles Rangel committed?
Answer: Rangel is a democrat and Cunningham was a republican.

Sharia Law Is Already Here

By John Bennett


Sophisticated liberals have found humor in Oklahoma's recent ban on Sharia law. Along with humor, some have found offense in the bill. U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted a temporary restraining order blocking the bill. Critics, such as the culturally aware Clarence Page, say that the OK measure is "a solution in search of a problem." Sharia law is not a threat. Page's evidence: There are only 15,000 Muslims in Oklahoma. It doesn't get much more convincing than that.


The deep thinkers at OpenLeft.com are equally informed: As Paul Rosenberg emphatically says, "there is zero evidence of sharia law having any influence on American law." Rosenberg is factually wrong. On the crucial factual matter of whether Sharia has been applied in our courts, he is unaware of what has occurred.


Sharia law has been applied in U.S. courts. There are at least seventeen instances of Sharia law being applied in eleven states, as Daniel Pipes has noted. Most notably, a NJ court held that a man did not commit rape because according to his belief in Sharia law, a man cannot rape his wife, since the wife serves him. So Sharia law was applied to the mental state element of the crime of rape. An American court actually adopted this barbaric reasoning:


[The defendant] was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.


The resulting ruling was that a man was held not responsible for rape, where he would have been convicted without Sharia.


It's no comfort to say that a court of appeals overturned the NJ ruling. Judges are open to these arguments, and that is the beginning of Sharia victory if it is not stopped. Liberal judges will become, in their social circles, standard-bearers of enlightenment and cultural sensitivity for embracing the diversity of Sharia law. That is all the incentive they need to continue to use foreign standards to decide what our rights will be. Look no farther than Justice Ginsburg's incredible willingness to latch on to foreign precedents that confirm her preconceived policy preferences. If there is one multicultural lemming in a robe willing to betray our freedoms, that's one too many -- and we can be sure that there are many more who want to.


Every day, the news is full of examples of just how far Muslims will push. Take the infamous hijab at the Connecticut roller rink. A Muslim woman named Marisol Rodriguez-Colon -- soak in that cultural enrichment -- was asked to remove her medieval hood at a skating rink. The rink had a policy of no headgear because hats and scarves could cause injury on the floor. She claims that she needed to wear her hijab for "religious reasons." The "religious reasons" argument is the tip of the iceberg. If Muslims get to impose their practices and norms for "religious reasons," then they will reshape Western societies in their own medieval image.


Consider what else Muslims could demand at a roller rink for "religious reasons": For "religious reasons," males and females are to be separated from each other in public much of the time. For religious reasons, there must be no modern music to offend traditional ears. For religious reasons, there should be no pork products at snack bars. For religious reasons, homosexual skaters should be killed in one of many colorful ways -- a belief being taught to British Muslims.


If Marisol Rodriguez-Colon can force the roller rink to change its policy on headgear based on religious reasons, then why can't she change every other policy inconsistent with her creed? There is no way to say that all they want to do is change policy on headgear. There is no limit to what Muslims would force non-Muslims to do for "religious reasons." They want more; the radical leaders will demand the most, and they will take as much as they can get. Those two propositions are obvious. Don't be fooled by cringing sensitivity mantras about how moderates don't want to impose their views. Moderates can't stop multicultural appeasement judges from ruling in favor of radicals.


If radicals take as much as they can get, then headgear is one step on the path towards Sharia. There is nothing far-fetched about that prediction. It is the logical consequence of Muslim supremacy combined with Western cowardice.


Of course, this does not mean that each person who wants to wear their medieval headgear in public supports Sharia. What it means is that the headgear is the first step towards institutional acceptance and legal imposition of Sharia law. The same aggressive refusal to assimilate will carry out in other spheres of life. It will not be satisfied by wearing headgear. In fact, if the Muslim supremacists get their way with headgear, that will be a green light to them to make more demands -- demands that are more invasive, requiring even more fundamental changes to our society. That which gets rewarded gets repeated.


Most of us thought that we left the dark ages behind us, but a retrograde impulse is growing. We are far from the imposition of Sharia law, but not far enough. The habit of a liberty-loving people is to guard against any step, no matter how small, towards injustice. The first step toward injustice will guarantee a second step, and the zealots will take that step if they aren't stopped. The first step is never an accident or an exception; it's part of an established plan played out many times around the world. England is learning this tragic lesson as Sharia law makes women second-class citizens in divorce and child custody matters, according to a Guardian newspaper column. The only thing stopping Sharia will be the people willing to guard our liberty and culture. Things are best protected when they are jealously guarded. That is something that our founders knew very well.


Proactive defense of liberty and prevention of injustice are the reasons why Tennessee and Louisiana have already passed similar measures to Oklahoma's. At least twelve other states are considering such measures. Such policy is rank xenophobia, according to some, who contend that Islam is being unfairly singled out.


Sharia defenders should know that Islam is named specifically because Muslims single themselves out. Their leadership is uniquely comfortable forcing their religious practices and views onto other people. After a fitful two hundred years of protecting religious liberty in America, we have a sect seeking to impose its views in a way we haven't seen in a very long time. We should commend those who resist that imposition in advance.


Daft statement of the week:
It’s almost like the question of do you negotiate with terrorists,” Sen. Bob Menendez, NJ said.

Quote du jour:

"Chicken Crap" Speaker of the House elect John Boehner, speaking of the tax cut bill the democrats are floating.

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 75


The Treaty Making Power of the Executive


For the Independent Journal


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE President is to have power, "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur."


Though this provision has been assailed, on different grounds, with no small degree of vehemence, I scruple not to declare my firm persuasion, that it is one of the best digested and most unexceptionable parts of the plan. One ground of objection is the trite topic of the intermixture of powers; some contending that the President ought alone to possess the power of making treaties; others, that it ought to have been exclusively deposited in the Senate. Another source of objection is derived from the small number of persons by whom a treaty may be made. Of those who espouse this objection, a part are of opinion that the House of Representatives ought to have been associated in the business, while another part seem to think that nothing more was necessary than to have substituted two thirds of ALL the members of the Senate, to two thirds of the members PRESENT. As I flatter myself the observations made in a preceding number upon this part of the plan must have sufficed to place it, to a discerning eye, in a very favorable light, I shall here content myself with offering only some supplementary remarks, principally with a view to the objections which have been just stated.


With regard to the intermixture of powers, I shall rely upon the explanations already given in other places, of the true sense of the rule upon which that objection is founded; and shall take it for granted, as an inference from them, that the union of the Executive with the Senate, in the article of treaties, is no infringement of that rule. I venture to add, that the particular nature of the power of making treaties indicates a peculiar propriety in that union. Though several writers on the subject of government place that power in the class of executive authorities, yet this is evidently an arbitrary disposition; for if we attend carefully to its operation, it will be found to partake more of the legislative than of the executive character, though it does not seem strictly to fall within the definition of either of them. The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.


However proper or safe it may be in governments where the executive magistrate is an hereditary monarch, to commit to him the entire power of making treaties, it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years' duration. It has been remarked, upon another occasion, and the remark is unquestionably just, that an hereditary monarch, though often the oppressor of his people, has personally too much stake in the government to be in any material danger of being corrupted by foreign powers. But a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.


To have intrusted the power of making treaties to the Senate alone, would have been to relinquish the benefits of the constitutional agency of the President in the conduct of foreign negotiations. It is true that the Senate would, in that case, have the option of employing him in this capacity, but they would also have the option of letting it alone, and pique or cabal might induce the latter rather than the former. Besides this, the ministerial servant of the Senate could not be expected to enjoy the confidence and respect of foreign powers in the same degree with the constitutional representatives of the nation, and, of course, would not be able to act with an equal degree of weight or efficacy. While the Union would, from this cause, lose a considerable advantage in the management of its external concerns, the people would lose the additional security which would result from the co-operation of the Executive. Though it would be imprudent to confide in him solely so important a trust, yet it cannot be doubted that his participation would materially add to the safety of the society. It must indeed be clear to a demonstration that the joint possession of the power in question, by the President and Senate, would afford a greater prospect of security, than the separate possession of it by either of them. And whoever has maturely weighed the circumstances which must concur in the appointment of a President, will be satisfied that the office will always bid fair to be filled by men of such characters as to render their concurrence in the formation of treaties peculiarly desirable, as well on the score of wisdom, as on that of integrity.


The remarks made in a former number, which have been alluded to in another part of this paper, will apply with conclusive force against the admission of the House of Representatives to a share in the formation of treaties. The fluctuating and, taking its future increase into the account, the multitudinous composition of that body, forbid us to expect in it those qualities which are essential to the proper execution of such a trust. Accurate and comprehensive knowledge of foreign politics; a steady and systematic adherence to the same views; a nice and uniform sensibility to national character; decision, SECRECY, and despatch, are incompatible with the genius of a body so variable and so numerous. The very complication of the business, by introducing a necessity of the concurrence of so many different bodies, would of itself afford a solid objection. The greater frequency of the calls upon the House of Representatives, and the greater length of time which it would often be necessary to keep them together when convened, to obtain their sanction in the progressive stages of a treaty, would be a source of so great inconvenience and expense as alone ought to condemn the project.


The only objection which remains to be canvassed, is that which would substitute the proportion of two thirds of all the members composing the senatorial body, to that of two thirds of the members PRESENT. It has been shown, under the second head of our inquiries, that all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority. This consideration seems sufficient to determine our opinion, that the convention have gone as far in the endeavor to secure the advantage of numbers in the formation of treaties as could have been reconciled either with the activity of the public councils or with a reasonable regard to the major sense of the community. If two thirds of the whole number of members had been required, it would, in many cases, from the non-attendance of a part, amount in practice to a necessity of unanimity. And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder. Proofs of this position might be adduced from the examples of the Roman Tribuneship, the Polish Diet, and the States-General of the Netherlands, did not an example at home render foreign precedents unnecessary.


To require a fixed proportion of the whole body would not, in all probability, contribute to the advantages of a numerous agency, better then merely to require a proportion of the attending members. The former, by making a determinate number at all times requisite to a resolution, diminishes the motives to punctual attendance. The latter, by making the capacity of the body to depend on a PROPORTION which may be varied by the absence or presence of a single member, has the contrary effect. And as, by promoting punctuality, it tends to keep the body complete, there is great likelihood that its resolutions would generally be dictated by as great a number in this case as in the other; while there would be much fewer occasions of delay. It ought not to be forgotten that, under the existing Confederation, two members MAY, and usually DO, represent a State; whence it happens that Congress, who now are solely invested with ALL THE POWERS of the Union, rarely consist of a greater number of persons than would compose the intended Senate. If we add to this, that as the members vote by States, and that where there is only a single member present from a State, his vote is lost, it will justify a supposition that the active voices in the Senate, where the members are to vote individually, would rarely fall short in number of the active voices in the existing Congress. When, in addition to these considerations, we take into view the co-operation of the President, we shall not hesitate to infer that the people of America would have greater security against an improper use of the power of making treaties, under the new Constitution, than they now enjoy under the Confederation. And when we proceed still one step further, and look forward to the probable augmentation of the Senate, by the erection of new States, we shall not only perceive ample ground of confidence in the sufficiency of the members to whose agency that power will be intrusted, but we shall probably be led to conclude that a body more numerous than the Senate would be likely to become, would be very little fit for the proper discharge of the trust.


PUBLIUS.


References:
Washington Times
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Adam J. White
John Bennett
 

They just don't get it

Volume 194

Opinion at large

It is two days after the "shellacking." Two Senate races still are not decided. The Republicans picked up six Senate seats (to date) and sixty three House seats. The Republicans also picked up a majority of Gubernatorial seats, including Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Obama won these states hands down. This will make it difficult for his re-election campaign in 2012, if he runs. Nancy Pelosi, House speaker for now, has been AWOL since Tuesday night. She did do an interview with her friend, ABC's Diane Sawyer. You have to hand it to Nancy, she stayed positive up until the Libship went under. Many old time democrat incumbents lost their jobs. Russ Feingold got the boot! If the President doesn't get the message that the American people repudiated his agenda, no one will. However, listening to his speech yesterday, he doesn't get it. He never really grasped the situation, and I'm not talking about Jersey Shore. He keeps referring to Bush's fault for the near depression he saved us from. He forgot to mention that it costs us 1.7 trillion, if not more. We've got over 5 trillion in new debt. Healthcare was a huge success, the American people love it! Bailouts and Cash for Clunkers were another huge publicity stunts for the White House. And he wonders why they took a beating? The one thing I noticed in his voice, (I was listening on the radio)  he was still arrogant and smug. I mean, he dined on a colossal portion of "Humble Pie." He is single handily responsible for reigniting the conservative movement times ten. The irony is, the conservative movement is growing by the day and will not slow down. We will be watching what the new Congress is doing and we will grade them accordingly. Yes, that's right, the new Republican House of Representatives are on probation. They one the majority because of the liberal Congress and administration, not because we are happy with the Republicans. I am a registered Republican, however, I don't consider myself a Republican, I consider myself a Constitutional conservative. If they do not follow the laws of the Constitution, they will be gone just like the Democrats. It is very possible, the Tea Party could be more important and viable than the Republicans! Only time will tell. The new Republican Senators are also on notice. Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and Rand Paul are committed to our cause, or so they say. Let's get back to President Obama, will he change in any way? I doubt he will change. He has a huge chip on his shoulder concerning America. His ideology and radical persuasions are guiding his agenda. Nuff said? I truly believe he has socialistic tendencies and expansive Government is his idea and passion. We are also dealing with many democrat congress men and women who are members of the Socialist's Party of America. That is what we have to deal with. With the midterm setback settling in, Obama might follow Clinton's lead and turn to foreign policy like Bubba did after the 1994 butt kicking by the Republicans. Obama leaves on Friday to sail off on a extended Indonesia and Far east apology tour. He is leaving town to let the midterm damage fade away. I am in amazement that the good state of Nevada reelected Harry Reid. You get what you deserve, I guess. The same with California, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown? What the heck were you thinking. California will need a bailout. I don't want my tax dollars going to a enormous Government entitlement state. Let them handle their own problems. Meg Whitman run a large business with success, Jerry Brown has been a politician his whole life.

This is when the hard work starts. Will we have gridlock, or will we have a congress that somewhat works together. The conservatives will not back down on repealing or defunding Obamacare. Cap and Trade is dead. Immigration reform is dead. The Bush tax cuts desperately need to be extended for at least two years. John Boehner, speaker of the House elect will have his hands full attempting to bring together many different ideologies in the Republican side of the House. In closing, I would like to personally thank and congratulate the American people for putting a stop to Obama and his radical agenda.

"Don't tread on me"

President Obama press conference after Midterms:

Dick Morris on Midterms with Hannity:

Obama talking to Moveon.org, Nov. 3, 2010:

Obama appeals for "Common Ground" after Democrats lose House

By Fred Barnes

President Obama, reflecting on his party's historic losses in Congress, appealed Wednesday for both sides of the aisle to find "common ground" while continuing to stand by the policies that were used to hammer his party's candidates in the midterm election.



The president walked a tightrope as he sought to explain the results of the election as well as chart a new legislative path in a congressional landscape far more hostile to his agenda. Though his policies were used against Democrats in races across the country, Obama described his decisions to date as "tough" but "right." Yet he also said he must take "direct responsibility" for the frustration over the economy and pledged to do more to reach "consensus" with Republicans.


"No party has a monopoly on wisdom," the president said, as he faced tough questions from the White House press corps. "I want to engage both Democrats and Republicans. ... I do believe there is hope for civility. I do believe there's hope for progress."


Asked to describe how Tuesday night's losses felt after such a hard-fought campaign, Obama answered bluntly: "It feels bad."


The news conference in Washington gave Obama his first opportunity to explain what his approach will be to a split Congress, with Republicans decisively in charge of the House and cutting deep into the Democrats' majority in the Senate.


10 Most Overpriced Products You Should Avoid Woman Sells Obama's 'Things Will Get Better' Letter to Pay for House: New York Post Pelosi’s Political Future Clouded by Historic Losses for Dems Mom in Spain Happy That Her 10-Year-Old Gave Birth Republicans Capture House in Historic Wave, Claim 'Mandate' to Shrink Government Pressed for specifics, Obama suggested he'd be open to joining Republicans in calling for a moratorium on earmarks and taking a second look at a controversial provision in the health care law that requires businesses to file 1099 tax forms for large purchases. He said, though, he wants to hear "affirmative" proposals from the GOP on how to fix the economy, claiming tax cuts alone will not do the trick.


Republican leaders, in a series of speeches since Tuesday night's victories, have called on Obama to move toward the center. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, calling the election a "referendum" on Obama's policies, pointedly said Wednesday that the Democrats can either "work with us" or face another "change" election in 2012.


House Republican Leader John Boehner, expected to succeed Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, said his party must "follow the will of the American people."


"The American people spoke, and I think this is pretty clear that the Obama-Pelosi agenda is being rejected by the American people," he said. "They want the president to change course."


Obama on Wednesday directly attributed GOP gains to frustration over the economy, declining to sign on to claims that it was a referendum on his decisions.


"Some election nights are more fun than others. Some are exhilarating. Some are humbling," Obama said. "Yesterday's vote confirmed what I've heard from folks all across America. People are frustrated, they're deeply frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery."


Republicans are projected to pick up about 65 seats in the House of Representatives, surpassing the gains they made in the 1994 election. They will not take the majority in the Senate but so far have snatched six seats away from Democrats.

Post Election, Obama Sets Date for Bipartisan Talks at The White House



November 04, 2010 10:40 AM


Noting that the dust is still settling after Election Day, President Obama said that it is “critically important” over the coming months to create “a better working relationship” between the White House and Congressional leadership.


In the aftermath of Tuesday's election, which flipped control of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans, President Obama announced that he has invited John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to the White House for bipartisan meetings in the first week of the lame duck session, on Thursday, November 18th.


“This is going to be a meeting in which I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward,” Obama said from the Cabinet Room of the White House this morning, “It's not just going to be a photo-op. Hopefully it may spill over into dinner.”


Mr. Obama said there is a whole range of work that needs to get done in a relatively short period of time and is looking forward to hearing from the leadership the agenda items they may be concerned about.


The president said the immediate focus during these meetings will be on what needs to get done during the lame duck session – and ticked though a few of those priorities – tax cuts, unemployment insurance, and business extenders.


On foreign policy, the president said that the he is “hopeful” that they can also get the START treaty ratified before the end of the year in order to “send a strong signal to Russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals, but also send a signal to the world that we're serious about nonproliferation.”


The president has also invited the newly elected Democratic and Republican governors to the White House on December 2nd.


The president had earlier met with his cabinet and key staff and told them that they have to take the message sent by voters “to heart,” and make a “sincere and consistent effort” to try to change how Washington operates.


“I think it's clear that the voters sent a message, which is they want us to focus on the economy and jobs, and moving this country forward,” he said with his Cabinet around him. “They're concerned about making sure that taxpayer money is not wasted. And they want a change of tone here in Washington, where the two parties are coming together and focusing on the people's business as opposed to scoring political points.”


The president said that the nation can’t afford two years of just squabbling.


“We’ve got a lot of work to do. People are still catching their breath from the election. The dust is still settling. But the one thing I'm absolutely certain of is that the American people don't want us just standing still, and they don't want us engaged in gridlock. They want us to do the people's business, partly because they understand that the world is not standing still.”


No word from the White House if Slurpees will be served at this summit.


-Sunlen Miller -ABC News

Daft words of the day:
Quantitative Easing 

What Does Quantitative Easing Mean?

A government monetary policy occasionally used to increase the money supply by buying government securities or other securities from the market. Quantitative easing increases the money supply by flooding financial institutions with capital in an effort to promote increased lending and liquidity.


Investopedia explains Quantitative Easing
Central banks tend to use quantitative easing when interest rates have already been lowered to near 0% levels and have failed to produce the desired effect. The major risk of quantitative easing is that although more money is floating around, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale. This will eventually lead to higher prices or inflation.

Pathetic Funnies:

Quote du jour:

Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.

Thomas Paine

 Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 74


The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive


From the New York Packet


Tuesday, March 25, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.


"The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective officers." This I consider as a mere redundancy in the plan, as the right for which it provides would result of itself from the office.


He is also to be authorized to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT." Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.


The expediency of vesting the power of pardoning in the President has, if I mistake not, been only contested in relation to the crime of treason. This, it has been urged, ought to have depended upon the assent of one, or both, of the branches of the legislative body. I shall not deny that there are strong reasons to be assigned for requiring in this particular the concurrence of that body, or of a part of it. As treason is a crime levelled at the immediate being of the society, when the laws have once ascertained the guilt of the offender, there seems a fitness in referring the expediency of an act of mercy towards him to the judgment of the legislature. And this ought the rather to be the case, as the supposition of the connivance of the Chief Magistrate ought not to be entirely excluded. But there are also strong objections to such a plan. It is not to be doubted, that a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted, in delicate conjunctures, to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body whatever. It deserves particular attention, that treason will often be connected with seditions which embrace a large proportion of the community; as lately happened in Massachusetts. In every such case, we might expect to see the representation of the people tainted with the same spirit which had given birth to the offense. And when parties were pretty equally matched, the secret sympathy of the friends and favorers of the condemned person, availing itself of the good-nature and weakness of others, might frequently bestow impunity where the terror of an example was necessary. On the other hand, when the sedition had proceeded from causes which had inflamed the resentments of the major party, they might often be found obstinate and inexorable, when policy demanded a conduct of forbearance and clemency. But the principal argument for reposing the power of pardoning in this case to the Chief Magistrate is this: in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a welltimed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall. The dilatory process of convening the legislature, or one of its branches, for the purpose of obtaining its sanction to the measure, would frequently be the occasion of letting slip the golden opportunity. The loss of a week, a day, an hour, may sometimes be fatal. If it should be observed, that a discretionary power, with a view to such contingencies, might be occasionally conferred upon the President, it may be answered in the first place, that it is questionable, whether, in a limited Constitution, that power could be delegated by law; and in the second place, that it would generally be impolitic beforehand to take any step which might hold out the prospect of impunity. A proceeding of this kind, out of the usual course, would be likely to be construed into an argument of timidity or of weakness, and would have a tendency to embolden guilt.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
ABC News
Sunlen Miller
Fred Barnes
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.americanspectator.com/
Investopedia

Tidal Wave predicted Tuesday, Democrats find higher ground!

Volume 193

Opinion at large

I must say that I am enjoying watching the democrats/liberals go into deep panic mode. All of them have gone off the deep end. I can see the democrats this week, sitting with their psychiatrist, trying to get a grasp on where it all went wrong? I can answer that, they became drunk with power and forgot who they work for. Now, we come to the day of reckoning. The most recent polls are not kind to the left. Voter fraud withstanding, I believe it will be a huge day for the republican party. I don't feel as confident to take a majority stake in the Senate. I think Patty Murray will win over Dino Rossi in Washington state. Colorado is up for grabs and the dems are panicking. Buck is 4 points over Bennett, Toomey is over Sestak, Angle is 4 points over Reid. Manchin is over Raese in West Virginia, Blumenthal is 9 points over McMahon in Conecticut. Life is good. There are so many races that are in play, where they shouldn't be. Obama, his sycophants and the democratic congress have squandered their super majority and alienated the American people. James Clyburn, D-Sc, and Evan Bayh, D-IN, both say the democrats could very well end up in a "bloodbath." I find it amazing the liberal pundits and state run media attempting to minimize the impact by calling the polls closer than they really are. Charlie Cook and Scott Rasmussen are calling races closer by the day. Fiorina is pulling closer to Boxer and Bialat is moving closer to Barney Frank (in the house race.) Rasmussen's Generic Ballot has the republicans at 51% and the democrats at 39%. 

The by-product of this event is watching Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberdork, Ed Schultz, Wolf Blitzer and others go through a complete meltdown. I will gloat in this for a good 15 minutes. After Tuesday, the conservative party, Tea Party members and like groups will feel emboldened to take bigger steps to continue taking back America. The liberals are speculating that the conservative movement will fizzle out. If they only knew what is in store for them. Not only the ranks and memberships are growing, so are the donations. Money is rolling in. Concerned citizens are making out of state contributions to help candidates. I will be at my voting location at 7:30am. I would love to hang out there, since I live in the People's Republic of Maryland, I don't trust the democrats here one bit. I suspect voter fraud here is as bad as anywhere else. Governor O'Malley is in a paramount fight against former Governor Ehrlich. It is a toss up. As patriotic Americans, please do your civic duty, vote tomorrow and show that you care about your children's futures. Repudiate the onslaught of Socialism. Repudiate Obama and his policies and visions for America. 

Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote Vote

Evan Bayh, D-IN on MSNBC: 

 

We the People:

We the People-What would the Founding fathers do?:

Demplosion:

Concerns grow about election fraud, voter intimidation


By David Goldstein
McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — As if this election season weren't already tense enough, fears about voter fraud — and some of the steps that are being taken to combat it — have created more worries.


With control of Congress in the balance, both political parties are gearing up for a possibly wild and woolly Election Day around the country.


"Legal war rooms," roving teams of lawyers, hot lines and poll challengers are all part of the strategy that Democrats and Republicans will employ Tuesday to handle suspected fraud or to help voters whose right to vote is questioned.


The issue is also on the Justice Department's radar. It will post federal monitors at selected polling places around the country, and prosecutors, civil rights attorneys and the FBI will be tasked with handling election-related complaints that day. A special toll-free number — 1-800-253-3931 — will be available for complaints about ballot access.


A lot is just precautionary and not out of the ordinary. What's different this year is that candidates and others also are getting into the act.


Ed Martin, a Republican congressional hopeful in St. Louis, intends to deploy a "Count Every Vote Unit" to look for possible voter fraud.


Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who's running for the Senate in Illinois, has a "voter integrity program" in place for Election Day.


Tea party groups plan to use "surveillance squads" at polling places to record possible voting misbehavior. Some tea party groups already have questioned voter registration records.


"This is happening to a degree we haven't seen in years," said Wendy Weiser, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. "The concern with ballot security operations is not with their intent. They can be highly confrontational. That can cross the line into intimidation and voter suppression."


Democrats claim that the fears about fraud are overblown and are being stoked by Republicans and conservatives to scare off voters, particularly minorities, many of whom tend to vote Democratic. In the Illinois U.S. Senate race, for instance, Kirk can be heard on a taped conference call saying where his "voter integrity program" would be sent, and it was largely African-American neighborhoods.


Republicans deny that they are raising false alarms about voter fraud and say that their concerns are legitimate.


"We have had some problem in the past with folks voting that should not have happened," said Lloyd Smith, the executive director of the Missouri Republican Party.


Among those was the famous case in 2000 of Ritzy Meckler — a dog — listed on the St. Louis voter registration rolls. Smith likened the party's preparations this year to "a speed limit on a highway. It's not there to write you a ticket, but to make sure everyone plays by the rules."


Some problems have occurred already.


During early voting In Texas, there were reports of poll watchers "hovering" over voters and "getting in their face," according to an account in the Houston Chronicle.


In Minnesota, a group composed of members of a conservative party and the tea party has offered a bounty of up to $500 for anyone who turns in someone who's successfully prosecuted for voter fraud.


"We've had everything from tornadoes and ice storms to other types of problems, such as voting challenges and polling place conduct," said Laura Egerdal, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Secretary of State's Office. "We hope we don't have to deal with any of those, but we're making plans."



Daft statement of the day:
"Win, so I can tell Glenn Beck to stick it." 
Allan Grayson, D-FL ( Grayson is trailing the republican candidate by 7 points).

How's That Obama Base-Rousing Strategy Working Out?



Alert reader F. e-mails from the "great unwashed middle of the country":　


[S]ince the president hit the trail to gin-up the base, the house has been moving ever more into the red column on RCP. A while back, I thought the blues were going to hang on by making every house race local—not an unreasonable strategy. However, Obama has been out every day reminding those of us in the middle how far to the left he is from where he ran in 2008. He's firming up the wrong base.


Its amazing that the Blues don't understand that all BHO's comments, particularly the punish your enemies meme, are on FOX, talk radio and the Internet. Your trash talk goes right into the other guy's locker room.


It sure seems like there is something to this theory. Name a race where Obama's intervention has saved the day for a Democrat ... Barbara Boxer seems like the most likely savee. She has welcomed Obama's help. But even her race is far from a done deal (see latest Rasmussen poll). I'd take Nate Silver's odds on Fiorina (93–7) ...


P.S.: Note that the "locker room" analogy is slightly misleading. It's not just that rousing the Dem base also rouses the GOP base (which can hardly be roused more than it already is anyway). It's that rousing the Dem base alienates the middle. Were Dems always faced with that base-vs.-middle tradeoff? On issues like immigration reform, it seems like they are now. (Welfare was a base-vs.-middle issue, of course. The middle hated welfare. But Dems could always soft-pedal and hide their cash-dispensing programs in the fine print while pretending that they were requiring work—and then relying on other issues to mobilize the base. On immigration, it seems as if the only way to rouse the Dems' Latino base, Obama-style, is to shout your support for an immigration amnesty from the rooftops, where the middle can also hear it.) ...


P.P.S.: In a sense, it's quite smart of the White House to make the relatively obscure Fifth District of Virginia the Helmand Province of this election—the sudden recipient of a massive surge of presidential and party attention. If embattled Democrat Tom Perriello can pull out a win, the White House can say, "See, the base-pleasing strategy can work. If only we had enough money! And Obama still has the magic. If only we could clone 535 of him." If Perriello loses they can say, "It's only one congressional district in a red state" and blame local factors.


But you also have to wonder if the desperate attempt to demonstrate at least one contest where base-pleasing worked doesn't also reflect the ideological preference of the White House. If you can win by pleasing the base, of course, then it's easier to pursue base-pleasing policies. If base-pleasing flops ignominiously across the board, on the other hand, it's ... make way for neoliberals. 5:00 p.m.


That's Chaiting: Relying on an academia's model, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait argues that structural factors should yield a Republican gain of 45 House seats. Fair enough. But that implies we can blame Obama for any GOP gains over that limit, right? Before readers can reach that obvious conclusion, Chait adds five more seats to his "baseline" on seemingly arbitrary grounds.* Is their real purpose to give him a cushion against having to write a Nov. 3 column he probably doesn't want to write? ...


*Chait suggests the five-seat add-on is justified because President Obama "rode a wave in 2008 that was unusually dependent on sporadic voters like the young and minorities, who tend not to turn out during midterm elections." But of course this is a factor the academic model he relies on has presumably already taken into account, since a) it's a model of midterm elections and b) one of the three "structural" elements in the equation is


2. The incumbent party's "exposure"—the more seats you hold, the deeper into hostile territory you're stretched, and the easier it is to lose seats.


Don't Democrats stretch into hostile territory by appealing to sporadic voters like the young and minorities? The more plausible theory is that Chait just didn't like the number 45 because it makes it look like the president is blowing it. Do not let this man balance your budget! ...


Pathetic Funnies:

Barney's new career in the Military after losing his re-election.

24 hour HBO BHO!

Quote du jour:

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.

Ronald Reagan


Polls we can live by:
31% Strongly approve of President's job approval
42% Strongly disapprove
50% Somewhat approve
49% Somewhat disapprove
29% Of Americans tied to the Tea Party
58% Favor repeal of Healthcare law
Generic Ballot:
GOP 55%
Democrat 40%

 Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 73


The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power


From the New York Packet


Friday, March 21, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE third ingredient towards constituting the vigor of the executive authority, is an adequate provision for its support. It is evident that, without proper attention to this article, the separation of the executive from the legislative department would be merely nominal and nugatory. The legislature, with a discretionary power over the salary and emoluments of the Chief Magistrate, could render him as obsequious to their will as they might think proper to make him. They might, in most cases, either reduce him by famine, or tempt him by largesses, to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations. These expressions, taken in all the latitude of the terms, would no doubt convey more than is intended. There are men who could neither be distressed nor won into a sacrifice of their duty; but this stern virtue is the growth of few soils; and in the main it will be found that a power over a man's support is a power over his will. If it were necessary to confirm so plain a truth by facts, examples would not be wanting, even in this country, of the intimidation or seduction of the Executive by the terrors or allurements of the pecuniary arrangements of the legislative body.


It is not easy, therefore, to commend too highly the judicious attention which has been paid to this subject in the proposed Constitution. It is there provided that "The President of the United States shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation WHICH SHALL NEITHER BE INCREASED NOR DIMINISHED DURING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH HE SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED; and he SHALL NOT RECEIVE WITHIN THAT PERIOD ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT from the United States, or any of them." It is impossible to imagine any provision which would have been more eligible than this. The legislature, on the appointment of a President, is once for all to declare what shall be the compensation for his services during the time for which he shall have been elected. This done, they will have no power to alter it, either by increase or diminution, till a new period of service by a new election commences. They can neither weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice. Neither the Union, nor any of its members, will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive, any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. He can, of course, have no pecuniary inducement to renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.


The last of the requisites to energy, which have been enumerated, are competent powers. Let us proceed to consider those which are proposed to be vested in the President of the United States.


The first thing that offers itself to our observation, is the qualified negative of the President upon the acts or resolutions of the two houses of the legislature; or, in other words, his power of returning all bills with objections, to have the effect of preventing their becoming laws, unless they should afterwards be ratified by two thirds of each of the component members of the legislative body.


The propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments, has been already suggested and repeated; the insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries of each, has also been remarked upon; and the necessity of furnishing each with constitutional arms for its own defense, has been inferred and proved. From these clear and indubitable principles results the propriety of a negative, either absolute or qualified, in the Executive, upon the acts of the legislative branches. Without the one or the other, the former would be absolutely unable to defend himself against the depredations of the latter. He might gradually be stripped of his authorities by successive resolutions, or annihilated by a single vote. And in the one mode or the other, the legislative and executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands. If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the legislative body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us, that the one ought not to be left to the mercy of the other, but ought to possess a constitutional and effectual power of self defense.


But the power in question has a further use. It not only serves as a shield to the Executive, but it furnishes an additional security against the enaction of improper laws. It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.


The propriety of a negative has, upon some occasions, been combated by an observation, that it was not to be presumed a single man would possess more virtue and wisdom than a number of men; and that unless this presumption should be entertained, it would be improper to give the executive magistrate any species of control over the legislative body.


But this observation, when examined, will appear rather specious than solid. The propriety of the thing does not turn upon the supposition of superior wisdom or virtue in the Executive, but upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible; that the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on maturer reflection, would condemn. The primary inducement to conferring the power in question upon the Executive is, to enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design. The oftener the measure is brought under examination, the greater the diversity in the situations of those who are to examine it, the less must be the danger of those errors which flow from want of due deliberation, or of those missteps which proceed from the contagion of some common passion or interest. It is far less probable, that culpable views of any kind should infect all the parts of the government at the same moment and in relation to the same object, than that they should by turns govern and mislead every one of them.


It may perhaps be said that the power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and may be used to the one purpose as well as to the other. But this objection will have little weight with those who can properly estimate the mischiefs of that inconstancy and mutability in the laws, which form the greatest blemish in the character and genius of our governments. They will consider every institution calculated to restrain the excess of law-making, and to keep things in the same state in which they happen to be at any given period, as much more likely to do good than harm; because it is favorable to greater stability in the system of legislation. The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.


Nor is this all. The superior weight and influence of the legislative body in a free government, and the hazard to the Executive in a trial of strength with that body, afford a satisfactory security that the negative would generally be employed with great caution; and there would oftener be room for a charge of timidity than of rashness in the exercise of it. A king of Great Britain, with all his train of sovereign attributes, and with all the influence he draws from a thousand sources, would, at this day, hesitate to put a negative upon the joint resolutions of the two houses of Parliament. He would not fail to exert the utmost resources of that influence to strangle a measure disagreeable to him, in its progress to the throne, to avoid being reduced to the dilemma of permitting it to take effect, or of risking the displeasure of the nation by an opposition to the sense of the legislative body. Nor is it probable, that he would ultimately venture to exert his prerogatives, but in a case of manifest propriety, or extreme necessity. All well-informed men in that kingdom will accede to the justness of this remark. A very considerable period has elapsed since the negative of the crown has been exercised.


If a magistrate so powerful and so well fortified as a British monarch, would have scruples about the exercise of the power under consideration, how much greater caution may be reasonably expected in a President of the United States, clothed for the short period of four years with the executive authority of a government wholly and purely republican?


It is evident that there would be greater danger of his not using his power when necessary, than of his using it too often, or too much. An argument, indeed, against its expediency, has been drawn from this very source. It has been represented, on this account, as a power odious in appearance, useless in practice. But it will not follow, that because it might be rarely exercised, it would never be exercised. In the case for which it is chiefly designed, that of an immediate attack upon the constitutional rights of the Executive, or in a case in which the public good was evidently and palpably sacrificed, a man of tolerable firmness would avail himself of his constitutional means of defense, and would listen to the admonitions of duty and responsibility. In the former supposition, his fortitude would be stimulated by his immediate interest in the power of his office; in the latter, by the probability of the sanction of his constituents, who, though they would naturally incline to the legislative body in a doubtful case, would hardly suffer their partiality to delude them in a very plain case. I speak now with an eye to a magistrate possessing only a common share of firmness. There are men who, under any circumstances, will have the courage to do their duty at every hazard.


But the convention have pursued a mean in this business, which will both facilitate the exercise of the power vested in this respect in the executive magistrate, and make its efficacy to depend on the sense of a considerable part of the legislative body. Instead of an absolute negative, it is proposed to give the Executive the qualified negative already described. This is a power which would be much more readily exercised than the other. A man who might be afraid to defeat a law by his single VETO, might not scruple to return it for reconsideration; subject to being finally rejected only in the event of more than one third of each house concurring in the sufficiency of his objections. He would be encouraged by the reflection, that if his opposition should prevail, it would embark in it a very respectable proportion of the legislative body, whose influence would be united with his in supporting the propriety of his conduct in the public opinion. A direct and categorical negative has something in the appearance of it more harsh, and more apt to irritate, than the mere suggestion of argumentative objections to be approved or disapproved by those to whom they are addressed. In proportion as it would be less apt to offend, it would be more apt to be exercised; and for this very reason, it may in practice be found more effectual. It is to be hoped that it will not often happen that improper views will govern so large a proportion as two thirds of both branches of the legislature at the same time; and this, too, in spite of the counterposing weight of the Executive. It is at any rate far less probable that this should be the case, than that such views should taint the resolutions and conduct of a bare majority. A power of this nature in the Executive, will often have a silent and unperceived, though forcible, operation. When men, engaged in unjustifiable pursuits, are aware that obstructions may come from a quarter which they cannot control, they will often be restrained by the bare apprehension of opposition, from doing what they would with eagerness rush into, if no such external impediments were to be feared.


This qualified negative, as has been elsewhere remarked, is in this State vested in a council, consisting of the governor, with the chancellor and judges of the Supreme Court, or any two of them. It has been freely employed upon a variety of occasions, and frequently with success. And its utility has become so apparent, that persons who, in compiling the Constitution, were violent opposers of it, have from experience become its declared admirers. [1]


I have in another place remarked, that the convention, in the formation of this part of their plan, had departed from the model of the constitution of this State, in favor of that of Massachusetts. Two strong reasons may be imagined for this preference. One is that the judges, who are to be the interpreters of the law, might receive an improper bias, from having given a previous opinion in their revisionary capacities; the other is that by being often associated with the Executive, they might be induced to embark too far in the political views of that magistrate, and thus a dangerous combination might by degrees be cemented between the executive and judiciary departments. It is impossible to keep the judges too distinct
from every other avocation than that of expounding the laws. It is peculiarly dangerous to place them in a situation to be either corrupted or influenced by the Executive.


PUBLIUS.


1. Mr. Abraham Yates, a warm opponent of the plan of the convention is of this number.


REFERENCES:

http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.thebalze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.drudgereports.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.mcclatchy.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.gallup.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.diversitylane.com/
David Goldstein
MSNBC