Why is it that liberals always scream bloody murder? Is it that they are overly sensitive? spaghetti spined? thin skinned? or is it they exploit every issue and incident they can attach to? To spit or not to spit, that is the question. I have seen the tape more than I care to, and I didn't see the protester intentionally spit on the congressman. Passionate maybe, but I didn't see intent or malice. Honestly, what do the politicians think? They pass a "Government takeover of healthcare" bill (law) without the consent and approval of the American people. They are sneaky, arrogant and condescending. They paint a picture of the Tea party patriots and protesters as racists. What do they expect? I do not condon violence, we are too intelligent for that. I do support vigorous opposition and protest to funnel our opinions and feelings on important topics to the eletist politicians who will be looking for work in November. Sarah Palin spoke at the Searchlight, Nevada Tea Party this past weekend and the state run media is crying foul pertaining to her speech and "call to arms." I guess they forgot about the book written about the "Assasination of George Bush." I know the main stream media was livid about the audacity of such a book. There is such a double standard when it comes to the media. They intentionally nagate the real issues to redirect the public because they know how popular and strong the opposition is to this socialistic Presidential administration. I hate calling the Obama administration a socialistic administration, however, it appears everything the Obama administration tackles has a socialistic ideology. It pains me to say that about the President of the United States. It isn't just Obama and his sycophants. The democrat congress is complicite in this gigantic conspiracy. In example, why would congress and the administration slide in the student loan program in the healthcare bill? It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, except when the parents have a heart attack after receiving the tutition bill for college. I fear the next policy change for America is immigration. I do not have an issue with "legal immigration." The illegal immigrants who broke our laws by crossing our borders, abuse our social system and feel entitled to everything the hard working Americans have is absurd. Save the bleeding heart stories you see on ABC, CBS, NBC and the BBC, countries around the world are ten times stricter on illegals than we are. I realize this is an untapped voting base for the democrats, however, this is a nation of laws. Between the healthcare law and immigration, I believe this will bring down the United States. (Healthcare could do this on it's own if this law stands). I know the liberals who read this blog will call me a xenophobe. I am not a xenophobe, but I do see my beloved country giving itself away. We can't be the country that takes in everyone from everywhere. Take a look at western Europe. France, Belgium, England, Netherlands and Italy is having huge social and financial because of illegal immigration. Many Europeans come to the states to explain the issues we will have if the 12 to 20 million illegals are granted citizenship. BANKRUPTCY, here we come. Our country is very fragile at this time. Unemployment is at a rediculous level, the President is on the healthcare campaign tour. However, this is what we get when we elect a novice politician with a five minute senatorial career and socialistic tendencies, not to mention a socialist inner circle of friends. I believe the media will never change unless we take away their press credentials. November will be the day of reckonng for a plethora of democrats. Obama will hopefully become a lame duck President who will serve only one term. If this comes to fruition, we will then be able to change the healthcare bill and stop the healthcare takeover and possibly incorporate some logical and intelligent solutions without the government's control. Stay the course, join a conservative group and become a patriotic American. Let's tea party like it's 1773.
I'm Tired
by Robert A. Hall
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot.com
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't multiculturalism be beautiful?
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.
Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found
In Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers-bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
C.P. Waggery:
"And the world will love and embrace us."
Daft statement of the day:
"Stop being an useful idiot."
Maria Conchita Alonso to Sean Penn
Video of the week: Monty Python
Massive 'maelstrom' to blast incumbents
2010 'will make 1994 election look like light summer breeze'
Posted March 28, 2010
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
A new survey shows a political "maelstrom" brewing in the U.S. that threatens not only Democrats in power but Republicans who have the tag "incumbent" attached to their name.
"They say movie sequels are never as strong as the original film, but politics can be different. There is every indication that, following the passage this week of the massive national health-care legislation, the political maelstrom brewing across the country is building to proportions that will make the 1994 Republican Revolution look like a light summer breeze," said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.
"But this time, Democrats may not be the only endangered incumbents, as this data shows Republican congressmen are also in serious danger."
The WND/Wenzel Poll was conducted by telephone from March 22-24 using an automated telephone technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. The survey included 30 questions and carries a 95 percent confidence interval. It included 792 likely voters. It carries a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.
It revealed Americans believe overwhelmingly – nearly 60 percent to about 35 percent – that the nation is going in the wrong direction. Nearly that same percentage believe President Obama is doing a poor or only fair job, and a stunning total of more than 80 percent of voters believe Congress is doing only fair (18.8 percent) or poor (62 percent).
What will that mean for the November election?
"Republicans enjoy only a small 40 percent to 36 percent advantage over Democrats in the generic ballot test about which party's candidate voters would choose. But generic challengers simply demolish generic incumbents by a 68 percent to 32 percent margin," confirmed Wenzel in his analysis of the results.
"This is stunningly dangerous news for all 435 House offices on Independence Avenue in Washington, but not surprising when compared with another data point from this poll: that just 17 percent give Congress a positive job approval rating, and 62 percent give them the most negative rating of 'poor'."
A big factor is the recent maneuvering by Congress and Obama to make law his health-care plan that effectively nationalizes the industry.
"One thing is clear – a majority of the public still opposes the health bill, and men appear poised to react more negatively in the months to come. Other data in this survey and others I have conducted recently show that the Anxious White Male may well replace the Soccer Mom and Security Mom as the most important demographic in the congressional elections," Wenzel said. "This is just more evidence that Democrats are facing some tough sledding on the campaign trail."
He explained that the results shows voter antagonism is not limited to the health-care issue..
"Asked if they are more likely to vote this year for a congressman who supported the health care bill, 44 percent said they are more likely, while 53 percent said they are less likely to do so," he said.
"Combined with the virulent reaction to incumbents in this same survey, this indicates there is a disgust for Congress that stretches beyond just the health care issue," he continued. "We found that the other major bills likely to be considered next by Congress will all be toxic to those who support them. From the so-called Cap and Trade bill to a new economic stimulus bill, more bailouts for banks or businesses, and comprehensive immigration reform, every one of these issues will significantly damage any lawmaker who supports them. If Obama leads Democrats headlong into any of these areas, the backlash may not end this November.
"Washington lawmakers have crossed a line somewhere that has resulted in a very deep-seated resentment by the people who elect them. The president who promised change has certainly brought change to Washington, but this polling data shows that any hope that still remains is skipping town on the next train out of Union Station."
The poll shows 40 percent of respondents expect the quality of health care will get much worse under "Obamacare," as the president's plan is dubbed, and another 10.4 percent said it will get a little worse. Some 19.8 percent they believe and hope it will improve much.
Nearly 72 percent of voters said they were much less likely or somewhat less likely to support an incumbent in Congress who backs "granting citizenship to millions of people who are now living illegally here in the U.S." – essentially an amnesty program.
Some 82 percent of voters are much less likely or somewhat less likely to support incumbents who back more bailouts for banks and companies. Nearly 60 percent oppose incumbents who support "economic stimulus" legislation.
Support for "cap and trade," a plan expected to raise taxes on energy dramatically, earns opposition from nearly 50 percent.
The antipathy towards Congress also extends to Obama, the survey revealed.
Not that President Obama is riding high after signing the health bill into law – in fact, his job approval rating has dropped to 41 percent from 46 percent a month ago. Men have turned hard against the president … just 30 percent of men say he is doing a good job."
Women had a higher opinion of Obama, with a bare majority of 52 percent giving him positive marks.
Last month's poll had included a warning for incumbents.
At that time 54 percent of those who had a "very favorable" opinion of the tea party movement said they would vote for the challenger – any challenger – in November. One-third of those who held a "somewhat favorable" opinion and four in 10 who held a "very unfavorable" opinion would do the same.
While those who were not sure was a statistically high 33 percent of the total, 41 percent of respondents said they would support a challenger to only 26 percent for the incumbent.
The February poll showed only 2.8 percent of Americans believed Congress' job performance is excellent, including only 7.5 of Democrats.
Quote du jour:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry (1736 - 1799)
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
For the Independent Journal.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.
On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.
Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.
First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.
But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.cbsnews.com/
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.breitbart.com/
Robert A. Hall
Dry Bones
Bob Unruh
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.snopes.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment