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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment