I look forward to the weekend because I don't watch the news as much. I find myself wondering why we, the American peole could have been fooled as badly as we were with the "anointed one." I know he spoke of government change (for the better) and complete transparency in his administration. Enough said. Obama is nothing more than "tax & spend" liberal like so many before him. Obama was giving speech number one trillion this year and he was trying to be funny and was mocking the April 15th Tea Party events held across America. Of course, this speech was at a fund raiser at Gloria Estefan's house in Miami. The liberals are as thick as thieves. Obama seemed to be amused and of course, that smug, condescending, flip eletists' demeanor in which he thinks he is so cool. He should stop believing his own press. With abysmal poll numbers and still trying to convince the American people that healthcare reform will be good for us, Obama appears not to have a intelligent grasp on the flailing economy and unemployment and the citizens are well aware of our plight. I heard a poll the other day where Obama and Bush were tied for who the American people wanted as president. I guess a year makes a world of difference? Rasmussen reported 72% of Americans believed the economy could collapse. 52% of Americans think Obama's policies are headed towards Socialism. That's the "hope and change" we were looking for? President Obama and the corrupt democrat congress (there are corrupt republican congress also) will keep spending, believing this is how we emerge from this recession. This is right out of the democrat playbook. They have believed this for sixty years. That is what has to change. Former President Billy "Bubba" Clinton spoke at the Center for American Progress fund spoke of the possible danger the Tea parties could hatch. Bubba still doesn't have a clue. I have been to many Tea parties and rallies and they are very civil. Nice people, cordial, considerate and very passionate. Let's talk about the New Jersey state union employees protesteing Govenor Christie's fiscally responsible solutions to fix New Jersey's budget armaggedeon. They are talking turmoil and violence. How come it is always the left that ends up with the riot police firing teargas at them and yet the tea party participants pick up their trash before leaving the protest area? There is such a contrast in attitudes, yet the state run media only denogrates the anti-Obama, anti-democrat government true patriots that work and pay the majority of taxes. What would happen if hard working Americans said "to hell with it," I am not working anymore or I am leaving the country to work elsewhere. Who would the government
"The Socailists are coming, the Socialists are coming."
November, 2010 We will remember!
Hillary is sick and tired...:
Maybe she forgot:
PMS?:
Alright, I had to put in the Hillary farts video:
Take that, NBC:
You are the man, Darryl Postell!
The New Aristocracy
By Henry Oliner
When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America in the early 19th century in his classic Democracy in America, he was comparing America's democracy to the declining norm in Europe: aristocracy.
The European aristocracy, a landed aristocracy, ruled with inheritance and privilege. Exclusionary guilds and inherited wealth kept a calcified social order lacking change and social mobility. Great wealth was to be expected only by those who had it.
Capitalism upset this old social order. When capital was allocated to more efficient industries, people, and countries by merit rather than by the whims of aristocracy, their hold on society and its wealth loosened. This turmoil was a critical element in the revolutions of the 19th century and the two devastating wars of the 20th century. The Jews, inaccurately identified with the rise of communism, were more accurately identified with the new capitalist order, and it obviously did not endear them to the displaced aristocracy.
But America and capitalism were made for each other. Just as the idea of a king was soundly rejected by the founding fathers, the idea of distributing wealth by privilege did not take root in America. American was a clean slate, and wealth had to be created. Even with lands taken from the Indians and tilled by slaves, an aristocracy was largely avoided, as industry and commerce wielded greater power.
While the social engineers decry the hardening and widening of discrepancies in income, this is true only if you look at the categories as static groups. As Thomas Sowell notes, when you look beyond the groups at individuals you find a fluid and mobile society. Few in the bottom tier stay there, and many in the upper tier drop out of that category.
Focusing only on the income categories ignores the social mobility that characterizes America's success. Unfortunately, the growth in government, taxes, and regulation damages that social mobility and hardens the social order. The wealthy will focus on retaining and protecting their wealth, reducing the capital that funds the opportunity for the poorer to acquire wealth. The efficient creation and allocation of capital that we call capitalism is the most effective, productive, unbiased, and sustainable instrument of redistribution in history. It was this new social order that toppled the aristocracy in Europe and made America the wealth creation engine that it is. It was this machine that attracted the poor from the rest of the work to create their own fortune.
It is harshly ironic that this president who so openly preached redistribution will more likely hinder it. It is the young who will pay more for health care and get less, who will have to pay the interest on this record debt, and who will be penalized the most for reaching to the next income bracket.
It is also noteworthy that this president's policies will more likely help the large corporations that he demonizes than the small business that not only more effectively redistribute the wealth, but also create most of the new jobs we so desperately need. It is the large companies getting bailed out and the small businesses with higher variable costs that will suffer more from higher taxes and mandates. It is much easier to shut down a business with lower fixed costs, leaving less competition to the established companies.
In his misguided and clumsy attempt to redistribute, the president has created a new aristocracy of politically favored big companies and members of the government. We have replaced "creative destruction" with stifling security. Established companies are protected, and new, innovative companies are handicapped. Government pay and benefits are dwarfing what most private companies can pay. The First Lady condemns those who use their education to seek "merely" better pay instead of public service. Exactly who is supposed to pay the taxes they intend to distribute?
In their world, economic self-interest is evil, and political self-interest is good. History confirms the opposite.
Our Congress routinely passes laws its members exempt themselves from following. In spite of the empty promises to the contrary, this burden of additional government control will not fall exclusively on the wealthy. After those in charge run out of money from the wealthy, the debt burden will remain, and the middle class and the poor will be forced to recognize the painful emptiness of promises to access wealth that is not theirs.
Although long the preferred place for the poor to make their fortune, it has never been easy to get rich in America. But it is about to get much harder.
Henry Oliner blogs at rebelyid.com.
Daft statement of the week:
"Americans to Mars within my lifetime."
Barack Hussein Obama speaking in Florida right before he eviscerates NASA.
Clinton finds common ground with OKC bombing, current anti-government fervor
By Jordan Fabian
04/16/10 01:41 PM ET
Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that parallels exist between the mentality that inspired the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building and today's anti-government attitudes.
In an interview with The New York Times, Clinton specifically targeted remarks made by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) at a Tea Party rally in Washington Thursday as problematic:
“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”
The former president said the potential for stirring a violent response might be even greater now with the reach of the Internet and other common ways of communication that did not exist on April 19, 1995, when the building was struck.
“Because of the Internet, there is this vast echo chamber and our advocacy reaches into corners that never would have been possible before,” said Mr. Clinton, who said political messages are now able to reach those who are both “serious and seriously disturbed.” He will be delivering the keynote address Friday at an event about the Oklahoma City attack being sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Democratic Leadership Council.
Mr. Clinton pointed to remarks like those made Thursday by Representative Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota Republican, who when speaking at a Tea Party rally in Washington characterized the Obama administration and Democratic Congress as “the gangster government.”
“They are not gangsters,” Mr. Clinton said. “They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do.”
Tea Partiers held hundreds of rallies across the country on Thursday, which was Tax Day.
Clinton made his comments before appearing at a symposium about the 1995 bombing, which occurred during his first term in the White House.
Some Democrats, as well as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, have warned that right-wing "extremists" could engage in acts of violence as a result of strong anti-government attitudes.
Those calls were heightened after federal authorities recently took into custody members of the Hutaree militia in several Midwestern states who were charged with conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government.
Tea Party opponents have also pointed to reported incidents of black lawmakers being spit upon and having racial slurs hurled at them by protesters in Washington the day of the healthcare vote, but many activists and some GOP lawmakers have rejected those claims as false.
Tea Party activists and many conservatives have rejected claims that their movement could turn violent, saying that the implication comes close to treading on their free speech rights.
Green Piece:
Senators will unveil climate bill April 26
UPDATED at 6:10 p.m. with statement from Ben LaBolt
By Juliet Eilperin
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) will roll out their compromise climate proposal April 26, according to several sources.
While the date is a bit later than originally expected -- many environmentalists had anticipated it would become public next week, in time for Earth Day next Thursday -- the definitive date shows the senators are coming close to finalizing their package.
Even as the White House worked to forge a climate deal Thursday, however, its spokesman Ben LaBolt tamped down Graham's idea to raise gas taxes as part of any climate deal. The rift could damage the chances of a compromise.
"The administration is working with Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham to move forward bipartisan, comprehensive energy and climate legislation that creates clean energy jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. The Senators don't support a gas tax, and neither does the White House," LaBolt said in a prepared statement. "The Senators are considering a variety of mechanisms that would foster a transition to a clean energy economy, and we will continue to work with them to identify a means to create a major growth driver for our economy and reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change."
On Thursday afternoon 10 Democratic senators led by Sherrod Brown (Ohio) outlined what they want in the climate bill to aid the manufacturing sector, and it's a long list.
But the fact that they've come up with detailed demands in a letter to Kerry, Graham and Lieberman -- including a request for a border tax adjustment to ensure overseas competitors with lax climate laws don't underbid American firms -- shows there's some real negotiating taking place on Capitol Hill. And the fact that Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), long considered a holdout on climate legislation, signed it, gives some green groups hope.
And it comes just after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with a slew of environmental and Democratic leaders to discuss climate legislation: Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski, Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp, Unity '09's Sheila O'Connell, Center for American Progress President John Podesta, Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope and National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger.
The full text of the Rust Belt senator's letter is here:
April 15, 2010
The Honorable John Kerry
218 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
706 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman:
We appreciate your efforts to build a bipartisan consensus on comprehensive clean energy legislation that promotes American jobs, reduces carbon emissions, and lessens our dependence on foreign energy. We write to express our strong belief that comprehensive clean energy legislation must include a plan to address the challenges that face manufacturing. Without such a plan, we are concerned that the legislation will ultimately be unsuccessful. We are convinced that successful legislation must include a multi-pronged strategy to maintain and strengthen our industrial base and the millions of manufacturing jobs critical for our economic recovery. This plan must promote manufacturing competiveness, create and maintain American jobs, and recognize that a strong manufacturing base is a prerequisite for both a domestic clean energy economy and long-term economic recovery and growth.
Over the past several months we have been working to address one of the toughest challenges in the debate over comprehensive clean energy legislation-how to bolster manufacturing jobs and ensure the global competitiveness of American industry. The United States must not undertake a self-defeating effort that simply displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them worldwide, while at the same time putting significant American jobs at risk.
We know that other countries, in particular China, have already started to vie for leadership in the new clean energy economy. China has already become the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels. This is a contest that America cannot afford to lose. Our nation's economic future depends both on our global competitiveness and access to reliable energy sources. We must not allow our nation to become dependent on foreign clean energy industries or squander the opportunity to compete successfully in the global clean energy marketplace. A strong manufacturing base is crucial if the United States is to build the clean energy technologies of the future and achieve energy independence.
It is essential that any clean energy legislation include a package of provisions that strengthens American manufacturing competiveness, creates new opportunities for clean energy jobs, and defends against the threat of carbon leakage by maintaining a level playing field for domestic manufacturers. Key provisions needed for a manufacturing package include:
1. Invest in American Manufacturing Competiveness:
* Provide Assistance for Retooling and Clean Energy Manufacturing. Due to the financial crisis, many American manufacturers are struggling to obtain the capital necessary to make critical investments in energy efficiency or for necessary retooling to diversify into new clean energy products such as wind turbines, solar panels, and advanced vehicles. These investments are essential to create jobs, maintain a strong and competitive manufacturing base, and establish the U.S. as a leader in the manufacturing and production of clean energy. We propose financial assistance mechanisms that include: establishing a manufacturing revolving loan fund, expanding the 48 (c) advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, providing tax incentives to encourage capital investments in efficiency and clean energy technology, and investing in domestic production of advanced vehicles and components. Paired with technical assistance from an expanded Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and Industrial Assistance Centers, these funds would help manufacturers expand into new markets, reduce their energy costs, and ultimately create and retain highly-skilled, good-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States.
* Support Research, Development, and Deployment of Low-Carbon Industrial Technologies.
For American manufacturers to compete globally, they must develop and adopt more affordable and reliable clean energy technologies than those that exist today. This major industrial transformation will require substantial federal support through public-private partnerships. A national initiative for low-carbon industrial technology would support the transition to a clean energy economy and create new economic opportunities for U.S. manufacturers. This initiative would improve the efficiency and global competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and reduce carbon emissions, particularly process-related emissions, in a commercially viable manner while helping small, medium, and large manufacturers meet these goals.
* Support American Manufacturers of Clean Energy Technologies. Several federal programs exist to promote the production and use of clean energy sources. Linking clean energy incentives to domestic manufacturing would both create immediate good-paying manufacturing jobs in the domestic economy and enhance the innovation and competitiveness of firms located in the U.S. These programs should recognize and prioritize the use of domestically produced products and materials.
2. Level the Playing Field and Prevent Carbon Leakage:
* Keep Energy Costs Low for Manufacturers. American manufacturing competitiveness is closely linked to the availability of reliable, low-cost electricity, the bulk of which is currently provided by coal. Manufacturers should be protected from spikes in energy prices and potentially higher energy costs. These include costs passed on to industrial consumers through utilities and other energy costs associated with energy legislation. These "indirect" costs should be mitigated through direct assistance to all manufacturers, supplemented by access to financial and technical support for efficiency activities. Well-structured legislation should contain costs for manufacturers while ensuring emissions reductions and incentives for clean energy investments, by including a firm price collar, sufficient offsets, a regionally equitable distribution of allowances, reasonable emissions targets and timetables, and a pathway for the development, demonstration, and deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
* Phase-In Manufacturers to Allow for Planning and Transition. Over the last several decades, the industrial sector's emissions have been shrinking while those of other sectors have been growing substantially. Phasing-in manufacturers would provide manufacturers the necessary time to adjust to changing energy markets and to develop and deploy low-carbon industrial technologies. The phase-in should be designed to ease the transition to a low carbon economy while providing compelling incentives for manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A significant phase-in for industrial sources of emissions would be necessary if the funding for rebates to energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries is inadequate. During the delay period, qualified manufacturers must be able to receive allowance rebates to cover any additional "indirect" costs, including electricity.
* Provide Full Funding for Rebates to Energy-Intensive, Trade-Exposed Industries. Allowance rebates for energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) industries would protect against carbon leakage and maintain competitiveness for all manufacturers by reducing costs for downstream users of basic materials and helping ensure that America's new energy technologies are built here. A fully funded allowance program for all eligible industries and sectors is necessary to preserve jobs and stimulate investment. It is critical that a sufficient number of allowances are set aside for EITE industries in order to provide the kind of certainty that will lead to investment in U.S. facilities.
Allowance rebates should be designed in a way to assist American workers and, at the same time, provide strong incentives for efficiency and low-carbon energy investments. Calculating rebates on sector averages should only be used if doing so promotes equity and efficiency, prevents carbon leakage, and is workable for unique industries. Subsector specific approaches should be considered where appropriate. Most importantly, industries at risk for carbon leakage must have clarity regarding their eligibility for the rebate program. These rebates should remain in place until an equally effective international solution to carbon leakage is reached. Any program must specify fair and balanced solutions for the unique industries and processes that have been brought to Congress' attention, including: the use of certain process emissions, cogeneration, combined heat and power, feedstock uses of energy, foundries, industrial gases, integrated facilities, lime, non-integrated coke production, purchased steam, processing of certain types of ore, refractory products, research and development facilities, silicon carbide, soda ash, specialty ceramics, sugar, and zinc recycling.
* Apply Border Measures To Prevent Carbon Leakage. An automatically triggered border measure is necessary to promote comparable action from other countries and prevent carbon leakage. To avoid undermining the environmental objective of the climate legislation, a WTO-consistent border adjustment measure, which the WTO has recognized as a usable tool in combating climate change, should apply to imports from countries that do not have in place comparable greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements to those adopted by the United States. A border adjustment measure is critical to ensuring that climate change legislation will be trade neutral and environmentally effective.
3. Ensure A Long-Term Future for American Manufacturing:
* Clarify Federal and State Greenhouse Gas Standards. Greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem requiring strong national and international action. Existing state laws and initiatives should be integrated into a federal program where policies are consistent. Where inconsistencies exist, federal laws should prevail. Federal uniformity is necessary to prevent inconsistencies in regulation, preserve overall efficiency, and ensure harmonization of policies. New federal programs governing regulation of greenhouse gas emissions should avoid overlapping regulations and should supersede existing federal law.
* Promote Meaningful International Action. Any international agreement should address industrial implications of a national energy policy and should preserve our nation's ability to take unilateral border actions to prevent carbon leakage, consistent with WTO obligations. To ensure the effectiveness of international action on climate change, strong and equitable principles should be embodied in new international agreements and in domestic legislation. Most importantly, all major economies should adopt ambitious, quantified, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions.
* Community Economic Adjustment Assistance and Worker Training. To help ensure the long-term viability of those communities whose employment levels are associated with energy-intensive industries, comprehensive clean energy legislation must include programs that offer financial and strategic assistance to communities to help them build sustainable foundations for their economies. Workers in manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries must have access to the benefits, job training and educational assistance that will enable them to upgrade their skills and obtain the credentials necessary to obtain jobs in growing sectors of regional economies. Both communities and workers deserve federal assistance to prepare them for economies and jobs of the future.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
Carl Levin
Arlen Specter
Claire McCaskill
Debbie Stabenow
Robert Casey
Mark Warner
Robert Byrd
Evan Bayh
Kay Hagan
2 Comico:
Quote du jour:
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Sir Winston Churchill
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 44
Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 25, 1788.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
A FIFTH class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility. "The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible.
The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head; and as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained by local mints established under the general authority.
The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing a paper currency. Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment. 2. "No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "The restraint on the power of the States over imports and exports is enforced by all the arguments which prove the necessity of submitting the regulation of trade to the federal councils. It is needless, therefore, to remark further on this head, than that the manner in which the restraint is qualified seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion.
The remaining particulars of this clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious, or have been so fully developed, that they may be passed over without remark. The SIXTH and last class consists of the several powers and provisions by which efficacy is given to all the rest. 1. Of these the first is, the "power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the SUBSTANCE of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter. Those who object to the article, therefore, as a part of the Constitution, can only mean that the FORM of the provision is improper. But have they considered whether a better form could have been substituted? There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference. Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction.
It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted. Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.
Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made. Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication. No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included. Had this last method, therefore, been pursued by the convention, every objection now urged against their plan would remain in all its plausibility; and the real inconveniency would be incurred of not removing a pretext which may be seized on critical occasions for drawing into question the essential powers of the Union. If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. 2. "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution. In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members. 3. "The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. "It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions. Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution. The election of the President and Senate will depend, in all cases, on the legislatures of the several States. And the election of the House of Representatives will equally depend on the same authority in the first instance; and will, probably, forever be conducted by the officers, and according to the laws, of the States. 4. Among the provisions for giving efficacy to the federal powers might be added those which belong to the executive and judiciary departments: but as these are reserved for particular examination in another place, I pass them over in this. We have now reviewed, in detail, all the articles composing the sum or quantity of power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, and are brought to this undeniable conclusion, that no part of the power is unnecessary or improper for accomplishing the necessary objects of the Union. The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.washingpost.com/
http://www.biggovernment.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
http://www.nroonline.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
Jordan Fabian
Henry Oliner
Juliet Eilperin
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
http://www.townhall.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment