The Attack on the American Voter

Opinion 1.0

Why is free speech (1st Amendment) and free enterprise so repulsive to the modern day liberal (progressive radical)? Because they have never seen this level of opposition to a President's and Government's policies before. Obama wants to change America, America doesn't want Obama's changes. Conservative figures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin have come to the forefront because there hasn't been any prominent republican politicians that have encompassed a conservative ideology and dedicated stewardship of our constitution. This scares the hell out of democrat politicians and pundits. So, how will the democrats fight this grassroots uprising that seems to grow daily? I believe they have started demonizing the American voter who opposes and protests the socialistic policies of the Obama administration and the democrat congress. Everytime Obama campaigns for healthcare, (even though it is law), his poll numbers ascends to the abyss. America isn't buying the healthcare law and everyone knows it, especially, the democrat incumbents who are up for election in November. Needless to say, they are going to lose many seats. I've been to many tea parties and everytime I attend one, they seem to grow in size and organization. The democrats will dismiss and criticize the conservative movement by playing thye the race card, like they always do when they are in a corner. As in Saul Alnsky's "Rules for Radicals" handbook, the democrats will attempt to "divide and conquer." As the country is livin' "La Vida Broka," (I still can't believe Ricky Martin is gay? LOL) the politicians keep spending. So, as the weather turns warm, the protests will increase and the country is becoming more divided. The democrat politicians have already stoked the fire by accusing the tea partiers and protesters as "right wing extremists" and committing "right wing violence." However, not one democrat has had to have a protester arrested for threatening their lives. Republican Eric Cantor and his family were threatened by a self proclaimed democrat who contributed a sizable amount of money to the Obama campaign. Of course, democrat pundits are fanning the flames by categorizing every protester as a right wing nut job militia member a kin to the klan. I was at the Capitol two Saturdays ago and nearly everyone was incredibly nice, cordial and not just conservatives. There were many democrats and many black and ethnic people there who claimed to be "fed up" Americans. They didn't want this particular healthcare law and they were petrified of the out-of-control spending. Passionate yes, violent no. The congreesman who claimed that he was spit on could not produce any video and the officer who was walking with him did not do anything. The democrats made claims that racial slurs were made, however, there isn't any evidence whatsoever, proving these accusations. This is a video crazy society, don't you think some maggot reporter would have caught this? Huh?  How many times have we seen the predictable narrative from the left? Way too many times. We will not falter. We will oppose any policy that undermines our Constitution and our way of life. I have had so many people ask me how to get involved and which groups to join. These are everyday normal Americans that are more concerned with their children's future and their preferred way of life. I wasn't involved with any groups until I realized how in depth Obama was a socialist and he would ruin the country. We are Americans, not black, white, latino, asian or purple, we are Americans, one and all. Please do your civic duty and voice your opinion. One man (or woman), one vote. Take back our country.

Is this the change America wants?:


O for Obama, things to come?:


Democratic senator: Voting for

ObamaCare was “political

folly”
by Allahpundit
posted at 5:46 pm on March 30, 2010


 You know it and I know it, but it’s always been an open question whether they know it too. I think Obama and Pelosi do. This was their chance to set the country on the path to welfare-state nirvana and they calculated — quite astutely — that it was worth sacrificing their majority to do so. Control of Congress will come and go, but a dependent electorate is forever. Whether the caucus and their idiot base calculated the same way or whether they really convinced themselves that the boondoggle to end all boondoggles was a political winner is more of a mystery. Or was. Via Geraghty, a tidbit from Howard Fineman:

A Democratic senator I can’t name, who reluctantly voted for the health-care bill out of loyalty to his party and his admiration for Barack Obama, privately complained to me that the measure was political folly, in part because of the way it goes into effect: some taxes first, most benefits later, and rate hikes by insurance companies in between.

Besides that, this Democrat said, people who already have coverage will feel threatened and resentful about helping to cover the uninsured—an emotion they will sanitize for the polltakers into a concern about federal spending and debt.

On the day the president signed into law the “fix-it” addendum to the massive health-care measure, two new polls show just how fearful and skeptical Americans are about the entire enterprise. If the numbers stay where they are—and it’s not clear why they will change much between now and November—then the Democrats really are in danger of colossal losses at the polls.

I say this even though I was one of those who always said that Obama would get a bill passed—and that, politically, he personally had no choice but to get it done if he wanted to have a successful presidency. But his reputation as a can-do guy was purchased at a very high political cost.

So it was. In today’s new Gallup numbers, not only is his disapproval at 50 percent for the first time, 53 percent call the Democrats’ tactics “an abuse of power.” They didn’t end up using the Slaughter strategy, so I can only assume the “abuse” is a reference to the dealmaking and to using reconciliation to nuke the filibuster. Remember when the left assured us that voters never pay attention to the legislative sausage-making process? Keep that memory close to your heart in November too.

Now here’s where I do a little “I told you so.” New from CNN:

Fifty-five percent of Republicans questioned in the survey say they are now extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this November, up six points from January. Democrats are also up five points from January, with 36 percent of those questioned saying they are extremely or very enthusiastic about casting ballots in the midterms.

“The health care vote seems to have made some Democrats more eager to vote in November, but it has also activated more Republican voters, so the Democrats still face the same double-digit ‘enthusiasm gap’ they had before the vote,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And so the big Democratic surge in enthusiasm, which nutroots pundits insisted made passing O-Care an absolute political necessity, ends up being less than the surge in enthusiasm among Republicans — as expected. In fact, the GOP actually picked up a point on the generic ballot after the bill passed. They lead 49/45 now overall and 53/35 among independents. And so, I wonder: Did the left ever really believe that the mother of all welfare-state incursions would produce a stronger reaction among Democrats than Republicans? Or was that cynical garbage they were pushing in hopes that some of the dimmer lights in the Democratic caucus would be scared by it? Let the debate rage.

I’ll leave you with this story at Politico quoting several left-leaning pollsters who predicted that there’d be little bounce, were vehemently challenged on it by Obama’s chump pollster, and now get to do the “pity of it all” head shake. Note the quote from Doug Schoen about the “marginal impact” passage will have on the base. Oh, and if you’re still angry at your Blue Dog congressman for gifting your children with this costly new liability, here’s a fun idea: Send him or her a commemorative Barack Obama health-care certificate. With some bus money, preferably, so he/she has transportation out of D.C. in January.

Daft statement of the day:
"You know, my plan is alot like Romneycare, isn't it?"
Barack Hussein Obama (OMG)

Marine's Father Will Not Pay Court-Ordered Funeral Protesters' Fees


FOXNews.com

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters told Fox News he will defy a court order and not pay the protesters' appeal costs.

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral was picketed by anti-gay protesters told Fox News he will defy a court order and not pay the protesters' appeal costs.

Albert Snyder, of York, Pa., told Fox News he does not intend to pay $16,510 to Fred Phelps, the leader of Kansas' Westboro Baptist Church, which held protests at Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral in 2006.

"I don't think I'm going to be writing a check until I hear from the Supreme Court," Snyder told Fox News on Tuesday. "I'm not about to pay them anything."

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered Snyder on Friday to pay Phelps. A two-page decision supplied by his attorneys offered no details on how the court came to its decision.

The decision adds "insult to injury," said Sean Summers, one of Snyder's attorneys.

Snyder is also struggling to come up with fees associated with filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, his attorneys said.

The high court agreed to consider whether the protesters' message is protected by the First Amendment or limited by the competing privacy and religious rights of the mourners.

A federal appeals court dismissed the suit on First Amendment grounds earlier this month and threw out a $5 million award against the protesters, some of whom carried signs that read "God Hates You" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

A funeral for the fallen Marine was held in March 2006 in Westminster, Md. Snyder, 20, died from a non-combat-related vehicle accident on March 3, 2006, while supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

According to a Web site created in Snyder's honor, his relatives filed the civil lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church to "bring an end to the reign of terror and abuse that they inflicted" upon grieving families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Using innocent children to deliver their twisted message of hatred and fear, the defendants in this suit have sought to attack the memory of our departed heroes, to strip their loved one of dignity, and to use abuse and intimidation as a tool for preventing surviving family members from reaching closure over their loss," the Web site read.

Cathy Menefee, Snyder's sister, told the Baltimore Sun in 2006 that her brother had an unwavering sense of responsibility that led to his decision to join the military.

"It sounds so cliche, but he died doing what he wanted to do," Menefee told the paper. "He always wanted to be a Marine."

Click here to visit http://www.matthewsnyder.org/

Sidenote:
I will contribute money to Mr. Snyder to fight these disgusting (almost) human beings who protest at America's Heroes' funerals. Thank you Mr. Snyder, your family and your brave Son who gave his life for his country. This is a debt we will never be able to repay.

Green Piece: 

Global Warming : Shut down the IPCC

By Roger F. Gay

Friday, March 26, 2010


The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has announced yet another “flaw” in their reports. It’s time – once and for all – to be very clear about the obvious. There are serious conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the “flaws” in the UN reports produced bias in only one direction.


The latest announcement admits an error that supported Vegan propaganda against the meat industry. Researchers have also admitted that there is no scientifically supportable case for the IPCC’s exaggerated worst-case sea-level rise (which by the way has been orders of magnitude lower than Al Gore’s), dramatic ice-melts in the Himalayas and elsewhere, danger to the South American rain forest, warming of oceans, etc. etc. etc.


These (perhaps more accurately) “forced confessions” are consistent with public awareness, triggered by Climategate, of the general evaporation of the warmers’ case.


Their case for dire warnings about man-made global warming has always rested on computer models that predict rapid temperature increases. These “models” were nothing more than an alternative method of presenting extremist “climate change theory.” Predictions made by the models have been consistently wrong. Lacking verification, they carry no more weight in serious scientific discussions than computer games with purely imaginary scenarios designed to entertain players.


There is no actual scientific evidence supporting the models or the warmers’ theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. Warmers replaced real temperature data with fake data sets showing the trends they wanted. When the final press for public access to real data came, they destroyed the data.


So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. They knew there was no scientifically supportable case for catastrophic man-made global warming. They lied.


For decades, the IPCC has constructed reports containing junk science to promote a scientifically unsupportable theory on catastrophic man-made global warming. A core group incorporated fake data, filtered out real science and data, and presented conclusions in direct contradiction to scientific evidence and consensus. (Other than a core group of warmers, scientists reviewing the IPCC reports insisted that there is no scientific case for catastrophic man-made global warming.)


So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC is a publicly supported lobbying group that used deceptive practices to promote manipulation of energy markets, higher taxes, economic chaos, global political revolution and the illegitimate “cap-n-trade” industry.


Years after the infamous “hockey stick” warming graph has been discredited, it’s still used for far-left political indoctrination aimed at teenagers. (From tigweb.org.)


The IPCC public relations campaign continues, but there seems very little room for new moves. Confessing errors in reports allows the IPCC to attempt to manage the public reaction; superficially a much better approach than the dramatic error of denial. Case in point: After IPCC head Rajenda Pachauri denied that their rapid Himalayan ice-melt claim was scientifically unsupportable, accusing “skeptics” of “voodoo science,” solid evidence turned up that Pachauri knew the claim was wrong. It emphasized the deceptive nature of the IPCC and those in charge.


Announcing and discussing their own problems is intended to give the impression that the IPCC has reformed itself into an open-minded, self-critical, and more objective scientific organization. Announcing one problem at a time avoids the big picture and comes with damage control. It’s not new to the warming debate. Warmers have battered us with claims of the absolute scientific certainty of their theories – we’re on our way to certain catastrophe unless their economic and political demands are met. But when backed into a corner over their junk science, suddenly it’s all very complicated and uncertain.


Regarding rapid Himalayan ice-melt, the IPCC eventually issued a statement saying “The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.” When a published paper on rapid sea-level rise was recently retracted, The Guardian was quick to point out, “Many scientists criticized the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more.”


The IPCC was established in 1988 years ago by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) under the UN’s Environment Programme. It was tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. Although we could not rely on the UN organization to fulfill its task, the task is nonetheless completed. Corruption in the organization and the dishonesty of the core science team has been exposed. Quite publicly, the world has been made aware that human activity does not control the climate. There is no legitimate reason for the IPCC to continue to exist.


So, let’s be absolutely clear about the obvious. The IPCC should be shut down – immediately. Each nation then has an independent responsibility to hunt down those involved in the conspiracy and pursue appropriate legal action against them. What could be more obvious?


2 Comico:

Quote du jour:
"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money."

Benjamin Franklin

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 40


The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained


From the New York Packet.


Friday, January 18, 1788.


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution. The powers of the convention ought, in strictness, to be determined by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these, however, had reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis, in September, 1786, or to that from Congress, in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to recur to these particular acts. The act from Annapolis recommends the "appointment of commissioners to take into consideration the situation of the United States; to devise SUCH FURTHER PROVISIONS as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the federal government ADEQUATE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF THE UNION; and to report such an act for that purpose, to the United States in Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislature of every State, will effectually provide for the same. "The recommendatory act of Congress is in the words following:"WHEREAS, There is provision in the articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, for making alterations therein, by the assent of a Congress of the United States, and of the legislatures of the several States; and whereas experience hath evinced, that there are defects in the present Confederation; as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and PARTICULARLY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States A FIRM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT:"Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose OF REVISING THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such ALTERATIONS AND PROVISIONS THEREIN, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution ADEQUATE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION. "From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the convention was to establish, in these States, A FIRM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; 2d, that this government was to be such as would be ADEQUATE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT and THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION; 3d, that these purposes were to be effected by ALTERATIONS AND PROVISIONS IN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, as it is expressed in the act of Congress, or by SUCH FURTHER PROVISIONS AS SHOULD APPEAR NECESSARY, as it stands in the recommendatory act from Annapolis; 4th, that the alterations and provisions were to be reported to Congress, and to the States, in order to be agreed to by the former and confirmed by the latter. From a comparison and fair construction of these several modes of expression, is to be deduced the authority under which the convention acted. They were to frame a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, adequate to the EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT, and OF THE UNION; and to reduce the articles of Confederation into such form as to accomplish these purposes.


There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means. Suppose, then, that the expressions defining the authority of the convention were irreconcilably at variance with each other; that a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT could not possibly, in the judgment of the convention, be affected by ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION; which part of the definition ought to have been embraced, and which rejected? Which was the more important, which the less important part? Which the end; which the means? Let the most scrupulous expositors of delegated powers; let the most inveterate objectors against those exercised by the convention, answer these questions. Let them declare, whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of America, that the articles of Confederation should be disregarded, and an adequate government be provided, and the Union preserved; or that an adequate government should be omitted, and the articles of Confederation preserved. Let them declare, whether the preservation of these articles was the end, for securing which a reform of the government was to be introduced as the means; or whether the establishment of a government, adequate to the national happiness, was the end at which these articles themselves originally aimed, and to which they ought, as insufficient means, to have been sacrificed. But is it necessary to suppose that these expressions are absolutely irreconcilable to each other; that no ALTERATIONS or PROVISIONS in THE ARTICLES OF THE CONFEDERATION could possibly mould them into a national and adequate government; into such a government as has been proposed by the convention? No stress, it is presumed, will, in this case, be laid on the TITLE; a change of that could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power. ALTERATIONS in the body of the instrument are expressly authorized. NEW PROVISIONS therein are also expressly authorized. Here then is a power to change the title; to insert new articles; to alter old ones. Must it of necessity be admitted that this power is infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain? Those who maintain the affirmative ought at least to mark the boundary between authorized and usurped innovations; between that degree of change which lies within the compass of ALTERATIONS AND FURTHER PROVISIONS, and that which amounts to a TRANSMUTATION of the government. Will it be said that the alterations ought not to have touched the substance of the Confederation? The States would never have appointed a convention with so much solemnity, nor described its objects with so much latitude, if some SUBSTANTIAL reform had not been in contemplation. Will it be said that the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of the Confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed. Do they require that the members of the government should derive their appointment from the legislatures, not from the people of the States? One branch of the new government is to be appointed by these legislatures; and under the Confederation, the delegates to Congress MAY ALL be appointed immediately by the people, and in two States [1] are actually so appointed. Do they require that the powers of the government should act on the States, and not immediately on individuals? In some instances, as has been shown, the powers of the new government will act on the States in their collective characters. In some instances, also, those of the existing government act immediately on individuals. In cases of capture; of piracy; of the post office; of coins, weights, and measures; of trade with the Indians; of claims under grants of land by different States; and, above all, in the case of trials by courts-marshal in the army and navy, by which death may be inflicted without the intervention of a jury, or even of a civil magistrate; in all these cases the powers of the Confederation operate immediately on the persons and interests of individual citizens. Do these fundamental principles require, particularly, that no tax should be levied without the intermediate agency of the States? The Confederation itself authorizes a direct tax, to a certain extent, on the post office. The power of coinage has been so construed by Congress as to levy a tribute immediately from that source also. But pretermitting these instances, was it not an acknowledged object of the convention and the universal expectation of the people, that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government in such a form as would render it an immediate source of general revenue? Had not Congress repeatedly recommended this measure as not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Confederation? Had not every State but one; had not New York herself, so far complied with the plan of Congress as to recognize the PRINCIPLE of the innovation? Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation. The misfortune under the latter system has been, that these principles are so feeble and confined as to justify all the charges of inefficiency which have been urged against it, and to require a degree of enlargement which gives to the new system the aspect of an entire transformation of the old. In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a MAJORITY of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation. The THIRD point to be inquired into is, how far considerations of duty arising out of the case itself could have supplied any defect of regular authority. In the preceding inquiries the powers of the convention have been analyzed and tried with the same rigor, and by the same rules, as if they had been real and final powers for the establishment of a Constitution for the United States. We have seen in what manner they have borne the trial even on that supposition. It is time now to recollect that the powers were merely advisory and recommendatory; that they were so meant by the States, and so understood by the convention; and that the latter have accordingly planned and proposed a Constitution which is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed. This reflection places the subject in a point of view altogether different, and will enable us to judge with propriety of the course taken by the convention. Let us view the ground on which the convention stood. It may be collected from their proceedings, that they were deeply and unanimously impressed with the crisis, which had led their country almost with one voice to make so singular and solemn an experiment for correcting the errors of a system by which this crisis had been produced; that they were no less deeply and unanimously convinced that such a reform as they have proposed was absolutely necessary to effect the purposes of their appointment. It could not be unknown to them that the hopes and expectations of the great body of citizens, throughout this great empire, were turned with the keenest anxiety to the event of their deliberations. They had every reason to believe that the contrary sentiments agitated the minds and bosoms of every external and internal foe to the liberty and prosperity of the United States. They had seen in the origin and progress of the experiment, the alacrity with which the PROPOSITION, made by a single State (Virginia), towards a partial amendment of the Confederation, had been attended to and promoted. They had seen the LIBERTY ASSUMED by a VERY FEW deputies from a VERY FEW States, convened at Annapolis, of recommending a great and critical object, wholly foreign to their commission, not only justified by the public opinion, but actually carried into effect by twelve out of the thirteen States. They had seen, in a variety of instances, assumptions by Congress, not only of recommendatory, but of operative, powers, warranted, in the public estimation, by occasions and objects infinitely less urgent than those by which their conduct was to be governed. They must have reflected, that in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory the transcendent and precious right of the people to "abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness," [2] since it is impossible for the people spontaneously and universally to move in concert towards their object; and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some INFORMAL AND UNAUTHORIZED PROPOSITIONS, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens. They must have recollected that it was by this irregular and assumed privilege of proposing to the people plans for their safety and happiness, that the States were first united against the danger with which they were threatened by their ancient government; that committees and congresses were formed for concentrating their efforts and defending their rights; and that CONVENTIONS were ELECTED in THE SEVERAL STATES for establishing the constitutions under which they are now governed; nor could it have been forgotten that no little ill-timed scruples, no zeal for adhering to ordinary forms, were anywhere seen, except in those who wished to indulge, under these masks, their secret enmity to the substance contended for. They must have borne in mind, that as the plan to be framed and proposed was to be submitted TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES, the disapprobation of this supreme authority would destroy it forever; its approbation blot out antecedent errors and irregularities. It might even have occurred to them, that where a disposition to cavil prevailed, their neglect to execute the degree of power vested in them, and still more their recommendation of any measure whatever, not warranted by their commission, would not less excite animadversion, than a recommendation at once of a measure fully commensurate to the national exigencies. Had the convention, under all these impressions, and in the midst of all these considerations, instead of exercising a manly confidence in their country, by whose confidence they had been so peculiarly distinguished, and of pointing out a system capable, in their judgment, of securing its happiness, taken the cold and sullen resolution of disappointing its ardent hopes, of sacrificing substance to forms, of committing the dearest interests of their country to the uncertainties of delay and the hazard of events, let me ask the man who can raise his mind to one elevated conception, who can awaken in his bosom one patriotic emotion, what judgment ought to have been pronounced by the impartial world, by the friends of mankind, by every virtuous citizen, on the conduct and character of this assembly? Or if there be a man whose propensity to condemn is susceptible of no control, let me then ask what sentence he has in reserve for the twelve States who USURPED THE POWER of sending deputies to the convention, a body utterly unknown to their constitutions; for Congress, who recommended the appointment of this body, equally unknown to the Confederation; and for the State of New York, in particular, which first urged and then complied with this unauthorized interposition? But that the objectors may be disarmed of every pretext, it shall be granted for a moment that the convention were neither authorized by their commission, nor justified by circumstances in proposing a Constitution for their country: does it follow that the Constitution ought, for that reason alone, to be rejected? If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends? The prudent inquiry, in all cases, ought surely to be, not so much FROM WHOM the advice comes, as whether the advice be GOOD. The sum of what has been here advanced and proved is, that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support it; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted, but required, as the confidential servants of their country, by the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise the liberty which they assume; and that finally, if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced, if it be calculated to accomplish the views and happiness of the people of America. How far this character is due to the Constitution, is the subject under investigation.


PUBLIUS.


1. Connecticut and Rhode Island.
2. Declaration of Independence.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Allahpundit
Roger F. Gay
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.diversitylane.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers

Descent is the highest form of Patriotism

Opinion 1.0

Why is it that liberals always scream bloody murder? Is it that they are overly sensitive? spaghetti spined? thin skinned? or is it they exploit every issue and incident they can attach to? To spit or not to spit, that is the question. I have seen the tape more than I care to, and I didn't see the protester intentionally spit on the congressman. Passionate maybe, but I didn't see intent or malice. Honestly, what do the politicians think? They pass a "Government takeover of healthcare" bill (law) without the consent and approval of the American people. They are sneaky, arrogant and condescending. They paint a picture of the Tea party patriots and protesters as racists. What do they expect? I do not condon violence, we are too intelligent for that. I do support vigorous opposition and protest to funnel our opinions and feelings on important topics to the eletist politicians who will be looking for work in November. Sarah Palin spoke at the Searchlight, Nevada Tea Party this past weekend and the state run media is crying foul pertaining to her speech and "call to arms." I guess they forgot about the book written about the "Assasination of George Bush." I know the main stream media was livid about the audacity of such a book. There is such a double standard when it comes to the media. They intentionally nagate the real issues to redirect the public because they know how popular and strong the opposition is to this socialistic Presidential administration. I hate calling the Obama administration a socialistic administration, however, it appears everything the Obama administration tackles has a socialistic ideology. It pains me to say that about the President of the United States. It isn't just Obama and his sycophants. The democrat congress is complicite in this gigantic conspiracy. In example, why would congress and the administration slide in the student loan program in the healthcare bill? It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, except when the parents have a heart attack after receiving the tutition bill for college. I fear the next policy change for America is immigration. I do not have an issue with "legal immigration." The illegal immigrants who broke our laws by crossing our borders, abuse our social system and feel entitled to everything the hard working Americans have is absurd. Save the bleeding heart stories you see on ABC, CBS, NBC and the BBC, countries around the world are ten times stricter on illegals than we are. I realize this is an untapped voting base for the democrats, however, this is a nation of laws. Between the healthcare law and immigration, I believe this will bring down the United States. (Healthcare could do this on it's own if this law stands). I know the liberals who read this blog will call me a xenophobe. I am not a xenophobe, but I do see my beloved country giving itself away. We can't be the country that takes in everyone from everywhere. Take a look at western Europe. France, Belgium, England, Netherlands and Italy is having  huge social and financial because of illegal immigration. Many Europeans come to the states to explain the issues we will have if the 12 to 20 million illegals are granted citizenship. BANKRUPTCY, here we come. Our country is very fragile at this time. Unemployment is at a rediculous level, the President is on the healthcare campaign tour. However, this is what we get when we elect a novice politician with a five minute senatorial career and socialistic tendencies, not to mention a socialist inner circle of friends. I believe the media will never change unless we take away their press credentials. November will be the day of reckonng for a plethora of democrats. Obama will hopefully become a lame duck President who will serve only one term. If this comes to fruition, we will then be able to change the healthcare bill and stop the healthcare takeover and possibly incorporate some logical and intelligent solutions without the government's control. Stay the course, join a conservative group and become a patriotic American. Let's tea party like it's 1773.

I'm Tired

by Robert A. Hall

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com

I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found

In Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

C.P. Waggery:

"And the world will love and embrace us."

Daft statement of the day:
"Stop being an useful idiot."
Maria Conchita Alonso to Sean Penn

Video of the week: Monty Python


Massive 'maelstrom' to blast incumbents


2010 'will make 1994 election look like light summer breeze'

Posted March 28, 2010


By Bob Unruh


© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.


A new survey shows a political "maelstrom" brewing in the U.S. that threatens not only Democrats in power but Republicans who have the tag "incumbent" attached to their name.


"They say movie sequels are never as strong as the original film, but politics can be different. There is every indication that, following the passage this week of the massive national health-care legislation, the political maelstrom brewing across the country is building to proportions that will make the 1994 Republican Revolution look like a light summer breeze," said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.


"But this time, Democrats may not be the only endangered incumbents, as this data shows Republican congressmen are also in serious danger."


The WND/Wenzel Poll was conducted by telephone from March 22-24 using an automated telephone technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. The survey included 30 questions and carries a 95 percent confidence interval. It included 792 likely voters. It carries a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.


It revealed Americans believe overwhelmingly – nearly 60 percent to about 35 percent – that the nation is going in the wrong direction. Nearly that same percentage believe President Obama is doing a poor or only fair job, and a stunning total of more than 80 percent of voters believe Congress is doing only fair (18.8 percent) or poor (62 percent).


What will that mean for the November election?


"Republicans enjoy only a small 40 percent to 36 percent advantage over Democrats in the generic ballot test about which party's candidate voters would choose. But generic challengers simply demolish generic incumbents by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin," confirmed Wenzel in his analysis of the results.


"This is stunningly dangerous news for all 435 House offices on Independence Avenue in Washington, but not surprising when compared with another data point from this poll: that just 17 percent give Congress a positive job approval rating, and 62 percent give them the most negative rating of 'poor'."


A big factor is the recent maneuvering by Congress and Obama to make law his health-care plan that effectively nationalizes the industry.


"One thing is clear – a majority of the public still opposes the health bill, and men appear poised to react more negatively in the months to come. Other data in this survey and others I have conducted recently show that the Anxious White Male may well replace the Soccer Mom and Security Mom as the most important demographic in the congressional elections," Wenzel said. "This is just more evidence that Democrats are facing some tough sledding on the campaign trail."


He explained that the results shows voter antagonism is not limited to the health-care issue..


"Asked if they are more likely to vote this year for a congressman who supported the health care bill, 44 percent said they are more likely, while 53 percent said they are less likely to do so," he said.


"Combined with the virulent reaction to incumbents in this same survey, this indicates there is a disgust for Congress that stretches beyond just the health care issue," he continued. "We found that the other major bills likely to be considered next by Congress will all be toxic to those who support them. From the so-called Cap and Trade bill to a new economic stimulus bill, more bailouts for banks or businesses, and comprehensive immigration reform, every one of these issues will significantly damage any lawmaker who supports them. If Obama leads Democrats headlong into any of these areas, the backlash may not end this November.


"Washington lawmakers have crossed a line somewhere that has resulted in a very deep-seated resentment by the people who elect them. The president who promised change has certainly brought change to Washington, but this polling data shows that any hope that still remains is skipping town on the next train out of Union Station."


The poll shows 40 percent of respondents expect the quality of health care will get much worse under "Obamacare," as the president's plan is dubbed, and another 10.4 percent said it will get a little worse. Some 19.8 percent they believe and hope it will improve much.


Nearly 72 percent of voters said they were much less likely or somewhat less likely to support an incumbent in Congress who backs "granting citizenship to millions of people who are now living illegally here in the U.S." – essentially an amnesty program.


Some 82 percent of voters are much less likely or somewhat less likely to support incumbents who back more bailouts for banks and companies. Nearly 60 percent oppose incumbents who support "economic stimulus" legislation.


Support for "cap and trade," a plan expected to raise taxes on energy dramatically, earns opposition from nearly 50 percent.


The antipathy towards Congress also extends to Obama, the survey revealed.


Not that President Obama is riding high after signing the health bill into law – in fact, his job approval rating has dropped to 41 percent from 46 percent a month ago. Men have turned hard against the president … just 30 percent of men say he is doing a good job."


Women had a higher opinion of Obama, with a bare majority of 52 percent giving him positive marks.


Last month's poll had included a warning for incumbents.


At that time 54 percent of those who had a "very favorable" opinion of the tea party movement said they would vote for the challenger – any challenger – in November. One-third of those who held a "somewhat favorable" opinion and four in 10 who held a "very unfavorable" opinion would do the same.


While those who were not sure was a statistically high 33 percent of the total, 41 percent of respondents said they would support a challenger to only 26 percent for the incumbent.


The February poll showed only 2.8 percent of Americans believed Congress' job performance is excellent, including only 7.5 of Democrats.


Quote du jour:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 39


The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles


For the Independent Journal.


Author: James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.


The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.


What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.


If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.


On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.


Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.


"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.


Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.


First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.


On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.


That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.


The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.


The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.


But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.


If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.


The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/
Robert A. Hall
Dry Bones
Bob Unruh
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers 
http://www.snopes.com/