When Harry met Sharon - Debate

Volume 187

Opinion at large

Once in a while, I am faced with important decisions. Last night, I was faced with watching something interesting or watching the Reid-Angle, Nevada Senatorial debate on C-Span? Normally, I would rather stick a pointed stick in my eye than watch C-Span. I must admit that this debate was almost interesting. Sharon Angle did a great job manhandling Harry (Dr. Smith) Reid. Reid came off as a Washington insider. Reid kept calling Angle an extremist. She came off as a regular person with a outside-the-beltway mentality. I think the deciding moment was when Angle told Reid to "Man Up." You will see that in sound bytes for the next two and one half weeks. Harry Reid said a few mis-truths. He said he was a very successful lawyer before politics. He was a lawyer for only two years. In that two years, he spent a lot of that time campaigning for political office. How do you become very successful and rich in less than two years? He also mentioned that he put his five children through 100 semesters of college. Do the math, 2 semesters per year, times 4 years is eight semesters times five children equals 40 semesters. Even if all five children went through graduate school (another 20 semesters) is only 60 total semesters. A bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Also, he called the Department of Education, the Department of Energy. Clearly, anyone can make a mistake, however, Angle had him off his "A" game. She dominated the whole debate. Is it a wonder why she raised 14 million in the last quarter? Nevadians are tired of this Washington insider who has governed against the will of the people. Angle brought up he has voted to raise taxes over 300 times in his career. He said in a press conference that the war in Iraq was lost? Then he said he was mis-quoted. He really got perplexed when Angle brought up how he made $1.1million on a land deal when he hadn't owned this land for three years? Things that make you go, HUH! I want that kind of deal. I would not want to be a incumbent, long time, inside-the-beltway, democrat politician in this midterm election. I belong to many conservative organizations and they all have the same narrative. Get rid of incumbents that do not follow the Constitution. I see a massive shift in leadership in the House. Nancy (SanFranGranNan) Pelosi is going to lose her leadership position. I question whether she will stay on or just retire? She won't be able to spend 2.1 million of the taxpayer's money on military air transportation. Nancy, can you say Southwest or JetBlue? Another part of the group's narrative is simply, stop spending, dangnabbit! I heard today that we are borrowing 37 cents of every dollar we are wasting spending. The democrats have such a war chest of Obama/democrat agenda items to campaign on, healthcare law, Arizona immigration lawsuit, cap and trade, finance reform, stimulus failure, bailouts, cash for clunkers, etc... Man, they are in deep trouble. Americans are fed up with the political elitists. Our Founding Fathers said this might happen. We will do our civic duty and vote. Obama and the liberals can play the race card all they want. It isn't working, citizens are too educated today. We see right through the propaganda. The liberals have been prosecuting the race card for fifty tears. I have read many articles about speculation of the Tea Party movement will fizzle out after the midterm elections. I believe this movement will only metastasize throughout the country. Americans realize that they do make a difference. Especially, after this particular election. This is a referendum on the liberal/socialistic Obama agenda. He knows as well as the incumbents running. I heard a pundit say today, that he believes this will be the most historic election since 1932. God willing! The enthusiasm and determination is in our corner, not theirs. The democrats are despondent and feel disenfranchised. "I love the smell of midterm elections, smells like victory."

Harry Reid-Iraq war is lost:

November 2, 2010 Take out the trash!

Dutch prosecutors move to drop charges against Geert Wilders for criticizing 

 by Allahpundit

Earlier, in Headlines, I wrote that he’d been acquitted on all counts, but that’s not quite true. Presumably all charges will now be dismissed — Radio Netherlands says the case is as good as over — but it’s not the prosecutors who have been Wilders’s chief tormentors in all this. It’s the courts, who actually forced them to press charges against him for “sowing hatred” early last year. So in theory, they could refuse the prosecutors’ motion and demand that the case proceed. Which, of course, will only succeed in making him even more popular in the Netherlands by turning him into a free-speech martyr.


The ostensible charges here are group defamation and inciting hatred, but really it’s just a blasphemy trial by the back door. And that’s why prosecutors want him released. If denouncing a religion is a hate crime against its adherents, then not only is blasphemy back in full force but you’re way, way down the slippery slope of placing certain subjects beyond criticism.


The prosecutors consistently came to the same conclusion. What Wilders said may be ‘hurtful to Muslims, and may be met with emotional responses’, but he did not break the law…


Ms van Roessel and Mr Velleman said Wilders’ statements were not directed toward Muslims as people, but towards Islam. “Stop the tsunami of Islamisation” , or “the Qur’an is the Muslim Mein Kampf” are clearly directed at Islam. Wilders’ film Fitna falls into the same category…


Another qualifying factor is that Wilders’ comments were part of a broader social debate, and were part of a political programme that would get implemented in a democratic manner. The nature of the programme itself is irrelevant, as are his motivations for saying or writing what he did.


Said Wilders afterwards, “I don’t insult, I don’t incite to hate and I don’t discriminate. The only thing I do and will continue doing is speak the truth.” I’m reasonably confident that any similar trial in the U.S. would have been dismissed quickly. Not totally confident — who the hell knows what goes on in the mind of Stephen Breyer or likeminded leftist jurists — but the First Amendment’s exception for incitement is presently limited to cases where violence is imminent. I.e. you can’t say “burn that building!” to a crowd that’s ready to riot, but you’re pretty much covered in all other cases. Or at least, you are at the moment.

3 things about Islam: Wake up America!

White Roses is headquartered in Sweden. This first version is in English. The name "White Roses" is based on a student resistance group "Die weiße Rose" in Nazi Germany. The group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, from June 1942 until February 1943, which called for active opposition to Adolf Hitler's regime.


Obama seeks youth vote:


Barack Obama sees rise of 'tribal attitude'


The president answers questions at Thursday's youth town hall.
AP Photo


By GLENN THRUSH


President Barack Obama thinks that the recession has caused a temporary increase in racial tension by stoking “tribal attitude” among people in economic distress.


During an hour-long town hall with young people simulcast on MTV, BET and CMT Thursday afternoon, Kishor Nagula, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, asked Obama about race relations, saying he was disappointed the president hadn’t ushered in a post-racial era, as some of his supporters had once suggested he would.


“Often times misunderstandings and antagonisms surface most strongly when economic times are tough and that’s not surprising,” said Obama, citing some “slippage” in racial understanding.


“When you’re out of work and you can’t buy a home or you lost your home and you can’t pay your bills… sometimes that organizes [people] around kind of a tribal attitude and issues of race become more prominent.”


But Obama pushed back against the idea that race relations have gotten worse over the long-term, adding that the “trend lines” were moving in the right direction, anointing young people as “the messengers” to their less enlightened elders.


The town hall was expected to be an anything-goes affair – a perception stoked by reports organizers had solicited “lighter questions” like the what-underwear-do-you-wear asked of Bill Clinton in the 1990s.


But the under-30 participants were almost defiantly grave, with tough questions flung at the president on issues ranging from race, genocide in Sudan, immigration, domestic violence, youth unemployment and his decision to appeal a court decision invalidating the military’s policy on gays.


The most heated exchange came when Bridget Todd, a faculty member at Howard University, asked Obama about his “alleged commitment” to gay rights – challenging him to use an executive order to kill “don’t ask don’t tell” immediately, as Harry Truman ended segregation in the military.


"The difference between my position and Harry Truman’s was [that] Congress explicitly passed a law that took away [my] policy power,” said a clearly agitated Obama, moments after Justice Department lawyers announced they would try to delay implementation of a court decision declaring the policy unconstitutional.


“This is not a situation with the stroke of a pen where I can end this policy,” said Obama, who wants to secure Senate support for the repeal. The House has already acted.


Young people, especially college students, played a central role in Obama’s 2008 victory – creating an energetic army of supporters who swept into places like Iowa to organize support door-to-door. Exit polls showed 55 percent of new voters in 2008 were 18-24, with most backing Democrats.


But two years later, that support is sagging.


Just 44 percent of college students approve of the job Obama is doing, while 27 percent disapprove of his job performance, according to a new Associated Press-mtvU poll – down from a 60 percent approval rating in May 2009.


“Look, I don’t think young people are immune to the frustrations of our economy any more than voters my age or others,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that “the pain of our economic devastation has been spread wide; it’s deep. It affects those who are coming out of college and looking for jobs in a job market for the first time.”


But few of the questions were about the economy. Most were about social issues or politics, including one from April Woodard of BET, who asked Obama what he thought of the tea party movement.


“This is a democracy. I want people to get involved,” he said. “I think there are a lot of people who are involved in the tea party who have very real concerns… and they have every right and an obligation as critics to be involved.”


He added: “I do think layered on top of them… is an awful lot of corporate money that is pouring into these elections right now.”


Republicans argued that the event – billed as an official presidential town hall – was in, effect, an Obama political rally and should have been billed as such.


Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), mocked a Twitter promotion for show asking viewers to Tweet their greatest hopes and fears.


“Dear MTV, my greatest hope is for you to ask President Obama whether he believes GOP should have an hour of free time on MTV.”

Quote du jour:
Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

Calvin Coolidge

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 68


The Mode of Electing the President


From the New York Packet


Friday, March 14, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. [1] I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.


It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.


It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.


It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.


Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.


Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.


All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.


The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.


The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.


The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Allahpundit
Glenn Thrush
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
C-Span

PINO - President in name only

Opinion at large

I can honestly say that I am incredibly embarrassed concerning our Campaigner-in-Chief. He is not a President, he doesn't act Presidential and he exudes himself as a Chicago style political machine thug. For the last week, he has knowingly lied about the Chamber of Commerce making political contributions with foreign monies. One little problem, he hasn't any proof. The American people know this. The Chamber of Commerce will not disclose their donor list because the Obama thugs would be on their front lawns protesting (SEIU). Obama has a major chip on his shoulder about the United States of America. DiNesh D' Souza has written a book explaining what he believes how Obama manifested his beliefs. His Father was devout communist, anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, etc... Who does that remind you of? He will do anything to try to save some vulnerable seats in the democrat party. This whole dishonest ploy concerning the C of C is merely a redirection of the major issues facing America today. He is out there campaigning daily for democrats and for his narcissistic self, totally incognizant of what everyday Americans are worried about? He says that Michelle and him understand what everyday Americans are feeling and what they are going through? Everyday Americans' kids don't attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, where it costs more than some universities. I don't think the common folk take lavish European vacations in Spain (estimated costs of $370K to taxpayers) or date night in New York City costing the taxpayers a small fortune in Secret Service, aircraft, vehicles and logistics. Maybe, I just don't hang out with the right people. As I mentioned in past posts, where is the laser-like focus and not resting until the economy rebounds. I assume he meant between campaigning, vacationing and golf. If you look back, whether you liked or hated past Presidents, they always acted Presidential. Even Bill "Bubba" Clinton! (Except for the blue dress incident). Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George H Bush, even Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter acted like the most powerful leaders of the free world. Fast forward to present. Barrack Hussein Obama, the first PINO. I believe world leaders expect the President of the United States to act and govern on the highest level possible. World leaders do not respect the anointed one because he is a weak, pacifist, activist, divisionist (I think I just invented a new W word) who yearns for a social justice, social engineered country in which we are not. Obama and his demagoguery isn't working and won't in the future. Today, a poll showed Obama at his lowest levels ever. If he would just listen, he would realize that what matters most to citizens is JOBS! Most Americans do not want handouts, they want to earn a living. That is what America is built on. Hard work, determination and risk is what built this country into the greatest country in the world. I don't apologize for anything this country has done. Obamatron  doesn't see it that way. We must pay for our sins against the world. This is why he is a complete failure. The tide is turning and the democrats are running scared. Michelle has been called from the farm team and pulled up to the majors, campaigning for democrats who are in the worst trouble. I don't think she will make a difference. Tea Party groups have become the trump card and intimidating force in this election cycle. Even the most liberal political pundits are noticing how prevalent and dominant the Tea Party has become. It is my dream to have Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank and Harry Reid unemployed by January 1, 2011. Then, we can start working diligently on the 2012 elections. VoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVoteVote!

Remember November!

Hip Hop Tea Party:

 

Chamber of Commerce v. Obama:

Reagan tells Obama to shut up: Classic!

What is conservatism?

Al-Qaeda Magazine Includes ‘Proud Traitor’ and ‘Tips’ for Killing Americans


by Jonathon M. Seidl
The new fall edition of the terrorist magazine "Inspire."


The first edition of an al-Qaeda terrorist magazine written in English boasted the headline “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom” in July. Now its second edition includes some more equally chilling articles: “Tips for Our Brothers in the United Snakes of America,”* and “I am Proud to be a Traitor to America.”


The “tips” article offers advice to terrorists that includes: “A random hit at a crowded restaurant in Washington, DC at lunch … might end up knocking out a few government employees.” The articles headlines are detailed in the London Telegraph.


The new edition also includes “The Ultimate Mowing Machine,” the Telegraph says, which explains how to use a pickup truck “as a mowing machine, not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of Allah.” The article continues: “to achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control . . . to strike as many people as possible in your first run.”


Most chilling may be the magazine’s contributors. Three Americans are reported to be involved: Anwar al-Awlaki, Adam Gadahn, and Samir Khan.


Al-Awlaki reportedly authored two articles in the magazine’s latest edition, while Gadahn is said to have authored one. But it is Khan’s article that may garner the most attention. His piece, entitled “I am Proud to be a Traitor to America,” unabashedly describes how he went from online jihadist in North Carolina to full-time terrorist in Yemen.


“I praise Allah and laugh at the intelligence agencies that were watching me for all those years. Back in North Carolina, the FBI dispatched a spy on me who pretended to convert to Islam,” he writes, according to the Daily Mail. “I am a traitor to America because my religion requires me to be one.”


According to NPR, Khan is believed to be editor of the terrorist magazine, called Inspire. Al-Awlaki is on a U.S. government kill-or-capture list.


The introduction to the latest edition of Inspire boasts that the Arabian Peninsula al-Qaeda (responsible for its publication) is “one of the most dangerous branches of al-Qaeda.” It then promises: “You haven’t seen anything yet.”

Pathetic Funnies:

Michelle Obama hits campaign trail:
Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau

October 13, 2010
11:24 a.m.

Reporting from Washington — Making her campaign debut in Wisconsin on Wednesday, Michelle Obama found common cause with the vulnerable Democrat she came to support, Sen. Russell D. Feingold.

"When my husband was here in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago, he talked about how independent and outspoken Russ is, and how Russ doesn't always agree with him. So Russ, you and I have a little something in common," the first lady joked.

Feingold is the first Democratic candidate this year to benefit from a political stop by Mrs. Obama, who in her 20 months in the White House had limited her profile to nonpartisan issues like promoting healthy lifestyles and support for military families.

Because her personal favorability ratings far outpace most other political figures, Democrats hope the first lady can offer a late boost for candidates struggling to keep their seats in a volatile climate. Feingold, a three-term incumbent, trails Republican foe Ron Johnson in most recent polls.

In her speech, Mrs. Obama made a softer appeal to voters than the decidedly more partisan one her husband has delivered, focusing on her self-described role as the "mom in chief."

"I don't do this very often," she said. "My first priority has been making sure that my girls are happy and healthy and adjusting to a very interesting new life in the White House."

From that perspective as a mother, not the wife of the president, she talked about the struggles Americans – particularly those in the middle class -- have gone through during the economic downturn.

"Folks all over the country were worrying that maybe that fundamental American promise was being broken – and worse yet, that no one in Washington was listening. And that is why my husband ran for president in the first place," she said.

She did tick off some of her husband's accomplishments – tax cuts for the middle class, credit card and education reform, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. On health reform, she said her husband "refused to take the easy route," and invoked his mother's battle with breast cancer, and insurance companies.

"These are just some examples of the kind of changes that we're making. And the truth is, it's because of all of you -- it's because of strong leaders like Russ -- that so much has been accomplished in such a short period of time," she said.

She acknowledged the challenges still to come, and the impatience of many at the pace of recovery. But she recalled the excitement that surrounded her husband's election and inauguration to say that today there is still a chance "to change the country we love for the better."

"If you keep standing with Russ, and bringing folks together for Russ, if you're still as fired up and ready to go as you were two years ago, then I know that we can keep that movement going," she said.

The fundraiser for Feingold in Wisconsin was the first in a series of campaign stops in the coming weeks for the first lady. From Milwaukee she travels to Chicago for events with Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias and congressional candidates. From there, she will spend a week traveling to Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Washington state and California.

She and her husband will also make a rare joint campaign appearance in Ohio on Sunday.

Responding to the first lady's visit, Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus focused on Feingold.

"A parade of D.C. insiders probably isn't the best tactic for a candidate trying to prove that he hasn't 'gone Washington' over the last 18 years," he said in a statement.

Good News:
Kudos to Chile. It is nice to get good news sometimes.


Daft Statement of the Week:
Dems not running on administration's accomplishments because "it's just too hard to explain."

Vice President Joe " the used car salesman" Biden

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 67


The Executive Department


From the New York Packet


Tuesday, March 11, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


THE constitution of the executive department of the proposed government, claims next our attention.


There is hardly any part of the system which could have been attended with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.


Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.


Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well as industriously, propagated.


In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.


In one instance, which I cite as a sample of the general spirit, the temerity has proceeded so far as to ascribe to the President of the United States a power which by the instrument reported is EXPRESSLY allotted to the Executives of the individual States. I mean the power of filling casual vacancies in the Senate.


his bold experiment upon the discernment of his countrymen has been hazarded by a writer who (whatever may be his real merit) has had no inconsiderable share in the applauses of his party [1] ; and who, upon this false and unfounded suggestion, has built a series of observations equally false and unfounded. Let him now be confronted with the evidence of the fact, and let him, if he be able, justify or extenuate the shameful outrage he has offered to the dictates of truth and to the rules of fair dealing.


The second clause of the second section of the second article empowers the President of the United States "to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other OFFICERS of United States whose appointments are NOT in the Constitution OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, and WHICH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW." Immediately after this clause follows another in these words: "The President shall have power to fill up ?? VACANCIES that may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE AT THE END OF THEIR NEXT SESSION." It is from this last provision that the pretended power of the President to fill vacancies in the Senate has been deduced. A slight attention to the connection of the clauses, and to the obvious meaning of the terms, will satisfy us that the deduction is not even colorable.


The first of these two clauses, it is clear, only provides a mode for appointing such officers, "whose appointments are NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and which SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW"; of course it cannot extend to the appointments of senators, whose appointments are OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution [2] , and who are ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION, and will not require a future establishment by law. This position will hardly be contested.


The last of these two clauses, it is equally clear, cannot be understood to comprehend the power of filling vacancies in the Senate, for the following reasons: First. The relation in which that clause stands to the other, which declares the general mode of appointing officers of the United States, denotes it to be nothing more than a supplement to the other, for the purpose of establishing an auxiliary method of appointment, in cases to which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments "during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." Secondly. If this clause is to be considered as supplementary to the one which precedes, the VACANCIES of which it speaks must be construed to relate to the "officers" described in the preceding one; and this, we have seen, excludes from its description the members of the Senate. Thirdly. The time within which the power is to operate, "during the recess of the Senate," and the duration of the appointments, "to the end of the next session" of that body, conspire to elucidate the sense of the provision, which, if it had been intended to comprehend senators, would naturally have referred the temporary power of filling vacancies to the recess of the State legislatures, who are to make the permanent appointments, and not to the recess of the national Senate, who are to have no concern in those appointments; and would have extended the duration in office of the temporary senators to the next session of the legislature of the State, in whose representation the vacancies had happened, instead of making it to expire at the end of the ensuing session of the national Senate. The circumstances of the body authorized to make the permanent appointments would, of course, have governed the modification of a power which related to the temporary appointments; and as the national Senate is the body, whose situation is alone contemplated in the clause upon which the suggestion under examination has been founded, the vacancies to which it alludes can only be deemed to respect those officers in whose appointment that body has a concurrent agency with the President. But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third section of the first article, not only obviate all possibility of doubt, but destroy the pretext of misconception. The former provides, that "the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years"; and the latter directs, that, "if vacancies in that body should happen by resignation or otherwise, DURING THE RECESS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE, the Executive THEREOF may make temporary appointments until the NEXT MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE, which shall then fill such vacancies." Here is an express power given, in clear and unambiguous terms, to the State Executives, to fill casual vacancies in the Senate, by temporary appointments; which not only invalidates the supposition, that the clause before considered could have been intended to confer that power upon the President of the United States, but proves that this supposition, destitute as it is even of the merit of plausibility, must have originated in an intention to deceive the people, too palpable to be obscured by sophistry, too atrocious to be palliated by hypocrisy.


I have taken the pains to select this instance of misrepresentation, and to place it in a clear and strong light, as an unequivocal proof of the unwarrantable arts which are practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real merits of the Constitution submitted to the consideration of the people. Nor have I scrupled, in so flagrant a case, to allow myself a severity of animadversion little congenial with the general spirit of these papers. I hesitate not to submit it to the decision of any candid and honest adversary of the proposed government, whether language can furnish epithets of too much asperity, for so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to impose on the citizens of America.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
L A Times
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.heritage.org/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Jonathon Seidl
Michael Memoli
Tribune Washington Bureau
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers

Mr. Obama, honesty is the best policy

Opinion at large

Desperation is the best word to use in describing the democrat political machine. With poll after poll showing a huge gap between republican voters and democrat, Obama is doing what he does best (w/teleprompter), campaign, play the race card, lie, lie some more, and just act disingenuous. Does he have any respect for the office he holds? I say not. When does a sitting President accuse the Chamber of Commerce of ill gotten contributions from foreign countries. Yes, this is a federal offense. However, there is not any evidence that the C of C did use any minuscule contributions from foreign countries. Many organizations receive foreign contributions, unions like SEIU and Teachers' unions. People in glass houses should not throw stones, Mr. president. You still haven't shown where approximately 200 million dollars of your Presidential contributions came from? And this was two years ago. Why don't you take the lead and show us your contribution sources? Carl Rove and Ed Gillespie are now covert operatives stealing our democracy by secretly accepting foreign donations? Idiocracy at it's best. Barry is reading too many John Grisham novels. As a Presidential candidate, throwing out accusations like this is unprofessional and dishonest. As a sitting President, making accusations like this, especially, after a liberal newspaper like the New York Times says there isn't any evidence, Barry doesn't care about facts, Barry is still out there desperately telling fibs as he campaigns to try to ignite his base. He doesn't realize his base has deteriorated massively since 2008. Isn't this a form of tyranny when a government goes after a private company? Joe McCarthy, answer your phone, please. I thought in America, you are innocent until proven guilty? Three weeks until the day of reckoning. Even George ( Dr. Evil) Soros predicts a blowout. He said he can't stop the republican avalanche. Obama can go out day after day acting like a school yard bully, However, he can't change the facts. Stimulus didn't do anything except cost us over a trillion dollars. Unemployment stands at 9.6%. 15 million Americans are without employment. The country is more divided today than I've ever witnessed. The government oversteps it's boundaries on a daily basis and disregards the Constitution. Obama's czars are socialists and of course, did not go through proper congressional vetting. Honestly, there are too many issues to name in a timely manner for this post. Bottom line, we have to must get out the vote on November 2nd. Conservatives have complained since the anointed one's inception. We must do our civic duty and vote. We are enthusiastic, motivated, mad and determined. The democrats/liberals are not.

Remember November!

 

Bob (the Liberal) Schieffer slamming Spin Doctor Axelrod:


Gingrich: ‘Paychecks versus Food Stamps’
By Robert Costa
October 7, 2010 6:36 P.M.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich unveiled his GOP strategy memo on Wednesday in Minnesota. Gingrich advises Republicans to frame the mid-terms as a choice between “the Democratic party of food stamps and the Republican party of paychecks.”


Earlier today, Gingrich spoke with National Review Online about his “closing argument.” Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, is in the midst of a twelve-city “Jobs Here, Jobs Now” tour that will take him to, among other places, Iowa and South Carolina. “Just bouncing around trying to elect candidates,” he says.


Gingrich predicts that Republicans will make major gains this fall if they can articulate a “clear cut, vivid choice” to voters as November approaches. “It strikes me that the case should be pretty clear that the Democrats’ policies are job-killing, and that it’s no accident that at the same time that we have extraordinarily high unemployment, we have more Americans on food stamps than at any time in American history,” he says. “People are being driven to food stamps by the Democrats’ job-killing policies.”


House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) slammed Gingrich’s document on Wednesday, calling it a “subliminal message” and an “unfortunate course to go down,” before adding that the government gets “the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance — the biggest bang for the buck.” Gingrich tells NRO that Pelosi “doesn’t understand anything about how free markets, entrepreneurship, and small businesses operate.”


“She thinks that this is all bad luck,” he says. “With regards to her comment that food stamps are actually an effective way to stimulate the economy, well, I don’t know any economist who would agree with that. It shows you how inaccurate they are about the very nature of the American economy.” Gingrich contends that Democrats’ economic policies are worse than those of Herbert Hoover.


“Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate for four years and they have been in charge of the White House for two years,” he notes. “Their policies include high taxes, anti-business language, a massive governmental bureaucracy over the financial system, a massive governmental bureaucracy over the health system, an effort to impose massive energy costs, and a passionate belief in government-employee unions and in centralizing power in Washington.”


Gingrich continues: “When I go around the country talking to businesses, whether they are big or small, I ask if they are going to hire more people. None of them have any doubt that these policies are job-killing policies.” To win these disgruntled voters over to the GOP, Gingrich urges Republicans to pose sharp questions on the trail: “Do you want the party that will repeal Obamacare or the party that is going to try to implement it? Do you want the party that wants to keep taxes low, or do you want the party that wants to raise taxes? Do you want the party that is trying to create jobs, or do you want the party that is trying to create big government while killing jobs?” If candidates do that, Gingrich says they can make November 2 “boil down to a very simple symbol: paychecks versus food stamps.”


Turning to a little political shop talk, I ask Gingrich about many Republicans’ concern that a senior official in the Obama administration may have, as the New York Times puts it, “improperly accessed the tax records of Koch Industries, an oil company whose owners are major conservative donors.” Gingrich says such an action by a White House official would be “very much like the Nixon White House: If you cross these guys, they try to hurt you. They have brought a Chicago-machine mentality to the White House for the first time in American history, and it’s very, very dangerous.”


Briefly, I ask Gingrich about another potential 2012 contender: former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Palin has been embroiled in a media kerfuffle this week about whether she is “qualified” to be president — a kerfuffle stirred by recent comments from Joe Miller, the Alaska GOP Senate nominee, and leaked emails about the matter from Palin’s husband, Todd.


Does Gingrich think that Palin is “qualified” for the presidency? While he has not reviewed the back-and-forth between Miller, Palin, and others, he is quick to call it a “nonsense argument.”


“As far as I’m concerned, she is fine,” Gingrich says. “She is not disqualified to run for president. I would rather have her policies than Obama’s policies.” Palin, he adds, has been an “effective governor and an effective mayor, as well as an effective nationwide articulator of her values.”

Pathetic Funnies:

The American Left Slides into Psychosis

By J.R. Dunn

History tells us that organizations, movements, even entire nations can go mad in much the same way an individual does, with the same expression of irrationality, frenzy, and violence. Recent evidence suggests that the American left is going through precisely such a breakdown.

In his memoir Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Carl Jung, the psychiatric pioneer who was smarter than Freud, discussed a particular case history in which a patient told of a troubling dream: he was repeatedly confronted with the image of a howling, feces-covered baby. Jung had no immediate explanation and thought about little else for several days. At last, the solution appeared: his patient harbored a buried psychosis, one that was in danger of emerging. To his horror, Jung realized that it must be the therapy itself that was threatening his patients sanity. Jung was presented with the dilemma of how to cut short the analysis without allowing the patient to guess the actual reason, which might well send him into a tailspin from which he would never recover. (Freud would have kept pushing until the guy was institutionalized.)


Fortunately, on his next visit, the patient asked to curtail the treatment, giving only vague reasons. A relieved Jung concurred. The patient never returned, but Jung checked on him regularly and assured himself that the man remained whole and rational, the seed of insanity remaining safely buried for the balance of his life.


What better metaphor for the current condition of the left? Leftism suffers from an equivalent psychosis -- one that is now beginning to break out. This is not by chance, but due to the ongoing collapse of the Lefts epic dream. Leftists have always believed that one clear shot, one opportunity to put their policies into play without opposition from "reactionary interests," would result in a political chain reaction, success leading to further success and finally absolute triumph as the New Socialist Jerusalem came into being with almost no effort on their part. This is childish fantasy, a wish-fulfillment daydream, transparent almost to the point of contempt. (It's also extremely ahistorical -- exactly such circumstances existed in 1933 and 1964 due to historical accident. Liberals botched things then exactly as they are doing now.) But for many years, it has been the only thing keeping the left going.


Leftists really believed that Obama embodied their moment. Obama held all the cards -- majorities in both houses, a slavish press that viewed him as no less than a godling, an enthusiastic public, even an acquiescent international establishment, overlooking a few holdouts such as Kim and Ahmadinejad. No left-of-center president has had a smoother road before him -- not FDR, not Lyndon Johnson. Yet Obama's efforts amount to utter failure -- not because of opposition from the "party of no," not because of circumstances, not because of sabotage, but because of Obama's "success" itself. He got the bills passed, guaranteed that their execution would be in the hands of extraconstitutional figures beholden only to him, and got them funded by means both legal and illegal. All of it was put into play with a smoothness that only Chicago thuggery combined with socialist chicanery could accomplish. He launched them, and they crashed, and they burned.


They crashed and burned because they cannot work. Not in a universe with natural laws that operate the way they do and with human nature constituted as it is. They have never worked anywhere they have been tried -- not in Europe, not in Asia, not in Africa, nowhere across this wide world. Obama's grand schemes have been attempted previously. The failures were hurriedly stuffed down the memory hole, enabling the left to hope for another shot sometime down the line. (No small number of people in this country -- many of them not doctrinaire leftists by any means -- truly believe that FDR "ended" the Depression.)


But today they have a problem -- several, in point of fact. The first is that the memory hole has in large part been filled in over the past decade and a half by such things as the Internet and the New Media. It's no longer a simple matter to shove nationwide failures out of sight. It may not even be possible.


The second is the fact that this time, they bet the house. They put everything down on Obama. Because it had to work. Because the third time was the charm. Because O was the messiah. And now they're sitting in the casino dead broke, without another dime to lay on the table, and through the doorway they can hear the shouts of the people whose money they embezzled.


This is why the left is being overwhelmed by psychosis. Because they are up against the wall with no way out. Under such circumstances, the strong individual bites the bullet and runs for daylight. The weak fall apart. It's been a long, long time since anyone defined leftists as "strong."


The Lefts psychosis, like those of many individuals, involves violence. Simply put, no left-wing regime has ever attained complete power without causing the deaths of its own citizens on a mass scale. We need simply give a short roll call of the bloody names: the USSR, Red China, "Democratic Kampuchea," Cuba, Vietnam...these speak well enough for themselves.


Some of the mortality incurred by social-nationalist states is caused by accident -- policies that simply don't work out (this includes hundreds of thousands of deaths in the U.S. itself, another memory-hole saga that is going to emerge back into the light come this January). But violence is the major cause -- the ubiquitous secret police, the not at all uncommon massacres, the brutal crushing of dissidents and workers' protests, and the camp networks that no leftist government can do without. A left-wing state cannot exist without violence because there is no other method of keeping the people in line once the inevitable policy failures occur.


The policy failures are piling up in this country. So it is no coincidence to find violence breaking out in their wake.


•In Philadelphia on election day in 2008, two members of the New Black Panthers planted themselves outside a polling station wearing bogus military gear, one of them armed with a nightstick. Several potential voters were chased away. The case, uncontested by the defendants, was suddenly dropped by the Justice Department. It has taken over a year to establish that the highest levels of the department ordered an end to litigation involving electoral violations by minorities -- that, in other words, Panther violence was to be sponsored and encouraged at the highest levels of the federal government.


•Kenneth Gladney was beaten by union goons in St. Louis in August 2009 for selling patriotic items outside a town hall meeting in an effort to supplement his unemployment payments. Gladney was worked over badly enough to be hospitalized. Legal proceedings began last April but have not progressed one iota.


•In New Orleans last April, two Republican political operatives, Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown, were attacked by anarchists after leaving a GOP dinner. Both were badly beaten, Ms. Bautsch seriously enough to require hospitalization. Although the gang leader was identified from a videotape and was of distinctive appearance (he looks like a combination of the late Frank Zappa and Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber), no arrests have been made.


•At the "Working Together" Washington union bash this past October 2, a reporter for Human Events was assaulted by a female union member. Viewing the footage, it's difficult to tell exactly what triggered the incident, but it's all part of the pattern. No arrest was made here, either.


•For well over a year, Sarah Palin and her close friend Kristan Cole have been harassed by an unbalanced individual claiming to be on some sort of mission with biblical sanction involving the punishment of the governor and her associates. This campaign escalated to outright stalking in recent weeks, when the individual sent Palin a copy of a receipt for a pistol purchase and made a threatening call to Ms. Cole from what seemed to be a local Alaska number.


Beyond the threats themselves, what's disturbing is the left-wing response. Comments on local media reports (There has been no national coverage. If Palin slipped a soda can into the regular trash, the sky would be rent asunder amid raging headlines, editorials, jabbering talk-show hosts, and the whole nine yards. But a threatened assault on a national political figure simply doesn't rate.) feature page after page of remarks such as "Go get her, Shawn!" (Referring to the perp), "Good luck, Shawn!", "Wish I could be there," and so on. While some of this is the standard crassness we've come to expect from leftists, some is undoubtedly intended to goad the stalker to further action.


•In Houston on August 27, on the eve of serious revelations concerning voter fraud, the warehouse containing Harris County's entire supply of voting machines burned to the ground. While unquestionably suspicious, it's difficult to tell from media reports if any real investigation is taking place.


Most recently, we have had the incident marking the full emergence of left-wing psychosis in all its mad glory: the "No Pressure" film released by the 10:10 group. Few AT readers can have missed discussion of this little gem, which features a series of vignettes in which anyone opposed to the "global warming" hoax is annihilated by a magic button that blows them to pieces on the spot. (Some may protest that the film is English -- the author, Richard Curtis, is noted for his genteel British comedies. But in truth, it's international -- Gillian Anderson is American, and if you were to further trace artistic and financial involvement, you'd find plenty more Yanks in the mix.)


This is as clear a depiction of left-wing psychosis as we are ever going to see. It is the yearning -- of an intensity beyond the grasp of sane, normal individuals-- to possess some means of total power, some instrument of near-divine retribution and punishment. Not for personal aggrandizement or sadistic pleasure, no, not at all...but simply to remove those stones in the path of progress: the Neanderthals, the troglodytes, the reactionaries, who are standing between the people and their righteous destiny. We'll use it just a few times, only against the really bad ones, and only to make an impression. And once we do that, we'll put it aside, and never, ever touch it again, we promise...


This is infantilism, pure and simple, as all psychoses are, including the one diagnosed by Jung. It is a compulsive belief that the world needs to bow to the demands of the eternal child immediately and without protest. And when it doesn't -- and we can be sure it won't -- it must be punished to the limits of the imagination and beyond. This is the impulse behind leftism, stacked to the roof as it is with people who never grew out of deepest childhood, who have grown twisted and embittered in the conviction that world has let them down and must pay for it.


It is also the impulse of the tyrant from time immemorial, from the Neros and Ashurbanipals to the Stalins and Maos of our own epoch. In "Pressure," we see it expressed more clearly than ever before, by extremely talented and sophisticated people, in the expectation that it will encourage others. (Another point that struck me was the way the film mixes bloodshed with whimsy. Whimsicality -- what unfunny people have instead of a sense of humor -- has always been a mark of the left. Now it has been publicly intertwined with the impulse to kill. How sick is that?)


Some readers might find this overwrought. These are all minor incidents, well separated in time and space. But trends tend to reveal themselves as discrete incidents. We can be sure that some of these episodes are probes, carried out to test how blatantly the line can be crossed. If judged successful, then in three weeks we'd see hundreds of polling stations patrolled by Panthers and Black Muslims and SEIU goons -- and in 2012, not one, but dozens of voting machine warehouses gone up in flames. And over the next few years, we'd be inundated with commercials, films, and scenes of smiling, cheerful lefties beheading, gassing, vaporizing, and setting ablaze anyone who disagrees with them.


But success eludes them, and after November, the left will lose its collective mind. The acting out will intensify; the assaults will grow more vicious as the dream continues its collapse. Anyone who has ever stood against them -- the Tea Parties, the GOP, ordinary Americans asserting their rights -- will be targeted. It would be wise to consider methods of self-defense.


But it will come to nothing. No socialist paradise, no universal nanny government, and certainly no police state. It will come to nothing thanks to one simple fact: the American left has no spine.


Kent State, once etched in national consciousness, is now beginning its slow fade into history. It was the apotheosis of the anti-Vietnam war movement. When in May 1970 U.S. troops entered Cambodia seeking to destroy communist bases and supply dumps being used against South Vietnam, the left went wild across the entire country. At Kent State, they raged down the streets, smashing windows, burning cars, and menacing passersby. There were rumors that certain unknown figures had brought in weapons, rumors that turned out to be all too true.


On May 4, someone took four shots at the Ohio National Guard troops protecting the campus. (This information, well understood by the investigating committee, was kept secret for forty years, being released only this year. The identity of those who suppressed it remains unknown. Obviously, such facts would have seriously embarrassed the left. Readers may draw their own conclusions.) The troops returned fire, killing four rioters on the spot. The rest broke and fled, and peace returned to the Kent State campus.


Along with the country as a whole. After Kent, the antiwar Movement collapsed. There were a few more riots, a few attempted "Days of Rage," but the revos who had terrorized the country for years suddenly found themselves isolated as the bulk of their followers discovered better things to do.


That's the left in action. Once it all turns real, once their rhetoric and activities get the response they have earned, they suddenly turn into good, obedient yuppies, concerned with their investments and their summer homes. I will be quite surprised if the results are any different this time.


J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker.

Video: California politicians debating Prop 19:


Polls we can live with:
29% Strongly approve of President's job approval
42% Strongly disapprove
48% Somewhat approve
51% somewhat disapprove
55% Favor repeal of Healthcare law
Senate race: 48 Dem, 48 GOP, 4 toss up's
Governors' race: 28 GOP, 15 Dem, 7 toss up's
-Thanks to Rasmussen Reports

Quote du jour:
If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent.

Henry Commager

 Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 66


Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered


From the New York Packet.


Tuesday, March 11, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton


To the People of the State of New York:


A REVIEW of the principal objections that have appeared against the proposed court for the trial of impeachments, will not improbably eradicate the remains of any unfavorable impressions which may still exist in regard to this matter.


The FIRST of these objections is, that the provision in question confounds legislative and judiciary authorities in the same body, in violation of that important and well established maxim which requires a separation between the different departments of power. The true meaning of this maxim has been discussed and ascertained in another place, and has been shown to be entirely compatible with a partial intermixture of those departments for special purposes, preserving them, in the main, distinct and unconnected. This partial intermixture is even, in some cases, not only proper but necessary to the mutual defense of the several members of the government against each other. An absolute or qualified negative in the executive upon the acts of the legislative body, is admitted, by the ablest adepts in political science, to be an indispensable barrier against the encroachments of the latter upon the former. And it may, perhaps, with no less reason be contended, that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive. The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches. As the concurrence of two thirds of the Senate will be requisite to a condemnation, the security to innocence, from this additional circumstance, will be as complete as itself can desire.


It is curious to observe, with what vehemence this part of the plan is assailed, on the principle here taken notice of, by men who profess to admire, without exception, the constitution of this State; while that constitution makes the Senate, together with the chancellor and judges of the Supreme Court, not only a court of impeachments, but the highest judicatory in the State, in all causes, civil and criminal. The proportion, in point of numbers, of the chancellor and judges to the senators, is so inconsiderable, that the judiciary authority of New York, in the last resort, may, with truth, be said to reside in its Senate. If the plan of the convention be, in this respect, chargeable with a departure from the celebrated maxim which has been so often mentioned, and seems to be so little understood, how much more culpable must be the constitution of New York? [1]


A SECOND objection to the Senate, as a court of impeachments, is, that it contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body, tending to give to the government a countenance too aristocratic. The Senate, it is observed, is to have concurrent authority with the Executive in the formation of treaties and in the appointment to offices: if, say the objectors, to these prerogatives is added that of deciding in all cases of impeachment, it will give a decided predominancy to senatorial influence. To an objection so little precise in itself, it is not easy to find a very precise answer. Where is the measure or criterion to which we can appeal, for determining what will give the Senate too much, too little, or barely the proper degree of influence? Will it not be more safe, as well as more simple, to dismiss such vague and uncertain calculations, to examine each power by itself, and to decide, on general principles, where it may be deposited with most advantage and least inconvenience?


If we take this course, it will lead to a more intelligible, if not to a more certain result. The disposition of the power of making treaties, which has obtained in the plan of the convention, will, then, if I mistake not, appear to be fully justified by the considerations stated in a former number, and by others which will occur under the next head of our inquiries. The expediency of the junction of the Senate with the Executive, in the power of appointing to offices, will, I trust, be placed in a light not less satisfactory, in the disquisitions under the same head. And I flatter myself the observations in my last paper must have gone no inconsiderable way towards proving that it was not easy, if practicable, to find a more fit receptacle for the power of determining impeachments, than that which has been chosen. If this be truly the case, the hypothetical dread of the too great weight of the Senate ought to be discarded from our reasonings.


But this hypothesis, such as it is, has already been refuted in the remarks applied to the duration in office prescribed for the senators. It was by them shown, as well on the credit of historical examples, as from the reason of the thing, that the most POPULAR branch of every government, partaking of the republican genius, by being generally the favorite of the people, will be as generally a full match, if not an overmatch, for every other member of the Government.


But independent of this most active and operative principle, to secure the equilibrium of the national House of Representatives, the plan of the convention has provided in its favor several important counterpoises to the additional authorities to be conferred upon the Senate. The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives. The same house will possess the sole right of instituting impeachments: is not this a complete counterbalance to that of determining them? The same house will be the umpire in all elections of the President, which do not unite the suffrages of a majority of the whole number of electors; a case which it cannot be doubted will sometimes, if not frequently, happen. The constant possibility of the thing must be a fruitful source of influence to that body. The more it is contemplated, the more important will appear this ultimate though contingent power, of deciding the competitions of the most illustrious citizens of the Union, for the first office in it. It would not perhaps be rash to predict, that as a mean of influence it will be found to outweigh all the peculiar attributes of the Senate.


A THIRD objection to the Senate as a court of impeachments, is drawn from the agency they are to have in the appointments to office. It is imagined that they would be too indulgent judges of the conduct of men, in whose official creation they had participated. The principle of this objection would condemn a practice, which is to be seen in all the State governments, if not in all the governments with which we are acquainted: I mean that of rendering those who hold offices during pleasure, dependent on the pleasure of those who appoint them. With equal plausibility might it be alleged in this case, that the favoritism of the latter would always be an asylum for the misbehavior of the former. But that practice, in contradiction to this principle, proceeds upon the presumption, that the responsibility of those who appoint, for the fitness and competency of the persons on whom they bestow their choice, and the interest they will have in the respectable and prosperous administration of affairs, will inspire a sufficient disposition to dismiss from a share in it all such who, by their conduct, shall have proved themselves unworthy of the confidence reposed in them. Though facts may not always correspond with this presumption, yet if it be, in the main, just, it must destroy the supposition that the Senate, who will merely sanction the choice of the Executive, should feel a bias, towards the objects of that choice, strong enough to blind them to the evidences of guilt so extraordinary, as to have induced the representatives of the nation to become its accusers.


If any further arguments were necessary to evince the improbability of such a bias, it might be found in the nature of the agency of the Senate in the business of appointments.


It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President. They might even entertain a preference to some other person, at the very moment they were assenting to the one proposed, because there might be no positive ground of opposition to him; and they could not be sure, if they withheld their assent, that the subsequent nomination would fall upon their own favorite, or upon any other person in their estimation more meritorious than the one rejected. Thus it could hardly happen, that the majority of the Senate would feel any other complacency towards the object of an appointment than such as the appearances of merit might inspire, and the proofs of the want of it destroy.


A FOURTH objection to the Senate in the capacity of a court of impeachments, is derived from its union with the Executive in the power of making treaties. This, it has been said, would constitute the senators their own judges, in every case of a corrupt or perfidious execution of that trust. After having combined with the Executive in betraying the interests of the nation in a ruinous treaty, what prospect, it is asked, would there be of their being made to suffer the punishment they would deserve, when they were themselves to decide upon the accusation brought against them for the treachery of which they have been guilty?


This objection has been circulated with more earnestness and with greater show of reason than any other which has appeared against this part of the plan; and yet I am deceived if it does not rest upon an erroneous foundation.


The security essentially intended by the Constitution against corruption and treachery in the formation of treaties, is to be sought for in the numbers and characters of those who are to make them. The JOINT AGENCY of the Chief Magistrate of the Union, and of two thirds of the members of a body selected by the collective wisdom of the legislatures of the several States, is designed to be the pledge for the fidelity of the national councils in this particular. The convention might with propriety have meditated the punishment of the Executive, for a deviation from the instructions of the Senate, or a want of integrity in the conduct of the negotiations committed to him; they might also have had in view the punishment of a few leading individuals in the Senate, who should have prostituted their influence in that body as the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption: but they could not, with more or with equal propriety, have contemplated the impeachment and punishment of two thirds of the Senate, consenting to an improper treaty, than of a majority of that or of the other branch of the national legislature, consenting to a pernicious or unconstitutional law, a principle which, I believe, has never been admitted into any government. How, in fact, could a majority in the House of Representatives impeach themselves? Not better, it is evident, than two thirds of the Senate might try themselves. And yet what reason is there, that a majority of the House of Representatives, sacrificing the interests of the society by an unjust and tyrannical act of legislation, should escape with impunity, more than two thirds of the Senate, sacrificing the same interests in an injurious treaty with a foreign power? The truth is, that in all such cases it is essential to the freedom and to the necessary independence of the deliberations of the body, that the members of it should be exempt from punishment for acts done in a collective capacity; and the security to the society must depend on the care which is taken to confide the trust to proper hands, to make it their interest to execute it with fidelity, and to make it as difficult as possible for them to combine in any interest opposite to that of the public good.


So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue. And so far even as might concern the corruption of leading members, by whose arts and influence the majority may have been inveigled into measures odious to the community, if the proofs of that corruption should be satisfactory, the usual propensity of human nature will warrant us in concluding that there would be commonly no defect of inclination in the body to divert the public resentment from themselves by a ready sacrifice of the authors of their mismanagement and disgrace.


PUBLIUS.


1. In that of New Jersey, also, the final judiciary authority is in a branch of the legislature. In New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, one branch of the legislature is the court for the trial of impeachments.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.theblaze.com/
http://www.dailycaller.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nronline.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist papers
J.R. Dunn
Robert Costa
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/