Wasn't it former President Clinton who told top democrat officials in a closed door meeting about a year ago, after they pass healthcare reform, Obama would get a 10 point bump? Wasn't it the democrat pundits on radio and television saying, after the bill passage, this would go away and America would forget about the ramming through of healthcare reform? Like most things democrats are wrong on the facts. Today, Rasmussen reported that ObiWonKenobi's numbers were at their lowest percentage evah! Obama needs to re-evaluate his strategy team and get real. Americans feel like they got the shaft from the democrats and that will be aptly demonstrated in November. So much for the outpouring from the downtrodden supporting the biggest entitlement giveaway and redistribution of wealth in history. So, where are the Obama zombies, the ones that would jump off the cliff with him? They are saying, wow, I would have to pay more taxes if I paid taxes! I can't wait for some of these healthcare reform law lawsuits start to come to fruition right before the November midterm elections. The democrat incumbents will run for cover with this paramount issue at the forefront of politics and the tea party protesters will be rather vocal in opposition. I love it when a scenario comes together. Obama will experience the rath of the American voter as he (and the democrat congress) attempts to present Immigration reform and Crap & Trade. Between the republican congress and the patriotic American people, the democrats will have a tough time getting anything accomplished. Normally, I would be disappointed with a congressional stalemate, however, with the anointed one doing major damage with his socialistic policies to our country as a whole, I am all for it. Even the state run media isn't helping the Obama bangwagon. The AP is usually in Obama's corner, but, they can't hide the undeniable progressive radical (socialistic) ideology and destruction of the Constitution. Now is the time to get involved. I am so inspired by the Americans I've met who now are getting involved in taking back America who have never been involved or cared about politics. They see their country slipping away. We will not let this happen. I would like to wager a bet that as long as Obama campaigns on his pyrrhic healthcare reform law, his numbers will go down even farther. Economists and Wall Streeters are skeptical about the economy emerging from this recession. FDR's New Deal economy was in the commode for nine years before it emerged. Why you ask? Because he raised taxes and initiated all types of social programs that drained any recovery effort. Correct me if I'm wrong, Obama seems to be emulating FDR? In conclusion, what we are doing is working. Tea Party protests, opposition, patriotic Americans are scaring the hell out of democrat politicians and pundits. Join the patriotic train. Find a conservative organization you feel comfortable with. Take back America!
Jon Voight on Huckabee:
The dems are petrified of the Sarah:
Halt the assault!:
By Daniel J. Flynn on 4.9.10 @ 6:08AM
There are two kinds of political movements, the trendy (Single Tax, Grangers, No Nukes) and the transformational (New Left, Moral Majority, 1970s Tax Revolt). In the aftermath of transformational mass movements, politics is never the same. Whereas the trendy movement reflects a snapshot in time, the transformational movement leaves an imprint that outlasts its time.
Two new books by conservative authors offer history-as-it-happens takes on two seemingly transformational, albeit conflicting, mass movements. New Human Events editor Jason Mattera's Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation dissects the president's spell over young people, while Boston radio host Michael Graham tackles the tea-party movement in That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom: Team Obama's Assault on Tea-Party, Talk-Radio Americans.
In case the title or arresting drone-like images on its cover didn't give away the author's political sympathies, Obama Zombies liberally invokes Barack Obama's middle name and employs a thesaurus of insults -- "throne sniffers," "schmuck," "thug," "dork," "toolbag," "girly boy," "nitwit" -- when speaking of the president or his votaries. It is catharsis through reading for those awaiting January 20, 2013 as impatiently as the Bush Haters awaited January 20, 2009.
Obama Zombies is surprisingly then at its best when praising rather than bashing Barack Obama. Especially instructive is the section on the Obama campaign's exploitation of new media for votes, donations, and publicity. Mattera relays that Obama's Facebook Friends outnumbered John McCain's by almost 4-1, his website's unique visitors in the week leading up to the election beat the Republican's by more than 3-1, his campaign videos on YouTube bested his opponent's by more than 5-1, and his Twitter followers dwarfed the Arizona senator's by roughly 23-1. Mattera's point is that Obama's thrashing of McCain among young people wasn't just for the superficial reason that the Republican was old enough to be the father of his opponent (who, it should be remembered, was old enough to be the father of most first-time voters). Barack Obama communicated to young people through the media in which they communicate. They communicated their approval by voting for him.
Though conservatives can learn from Obama's thrashing of them on style points in the 2008 election, they can win young people over with substance in upcoming elections. Mattera sees ObamaCare as a generational wealth transfer, in that caps on insurance premiums for older Americans necessarily boost the premiums of younger Americans. The national debt, which, if current trends prevail, will be greater during an eight-year Obama presidency than during the constitutional regime's 219 preceding years, sits as a weighty burden upon the shoulders of Generation Y.
Unemployment, which the stimulus package promised to rein in, has gotten more out of control since the passage of the spending bill. The pain is felt acutely by young people, whose unemployment rate is higher than the national average. The "Obama Zombies" whose first votes were cast for a better future ironically now face the bleakest job prospects for college graduates in decades.
"The numbers aren't looking good," Mattera concedes. "The GOP is getting older, and younger voters are aligning with liberal candidates." As Obama offered young people change, Mattera's message is that conservatives must change tactics if they wish to win young people back.
The Tea Parties are in part a reaction against the success of the "Obama Zombies," though the runaway spending they rail against certainly predated Barack Obama's arrival in the White House (or even in Washington). However tempting it would be to see Mattera's "Obama Zombies" as photographic negatives of Graham's fellow tea partiers, the equation of an issue-driven movement with a personality-driven movement doesn't compute.
"Every president has spoken out against his rivals," Michael Graham posits in That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom. "But I can't think of another president who treated typical citizens this way -- not even Nixon, who at least confined his enemies list mostly to big-name political opponents. No administration before Obama's has cried 'Hater!' and released the dogs of war upon the general population. Trashing politicians is good fun. But political attacks against the American people. That's a new low."
The template was evident on the campaign trail with the demonization of Joe the Plumber, the stereotyping of rural Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion, and the implication that New Hampshire primary voters cast ballots based on race and not the candidates. In governing, the Obama Administration predictably remains stuck in that mold in its rhetorical attacks on tea-party demonstrators. The script, the book hammers home, has been to paint Obama's opponents as racist, fascist, terrorist, angry mobsters. The attacks on America's most listened to radio show and America's most watched cable news outlet are symptoms of the disease that That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mob lays out. As Graham vividly puts it, "You're either with the plan, or in the Klan."
The strategy of attacking the electorate may be suicidal as far as politics go, but as far as naming the enemy, the Obama Administration has theirs correct. The greatest impediment to its designs on issues from health care to Miranda rights for foreign terrorists has not been Washington opinion or media opinion. It has been public opinion.
In round one of Tea Partiers versus Obama Zombies, which took place last month at the U.S. Capitol, the Obama Zombies attained victory by extending health insurance benefits to 32 million uninsured Americans. Round two takes place this November in polling places across the country. The Obama Zombies' victory in round one foreshadows their defeat in round two. The outcome of round three may determine which of these seemingly game-changing movements will be remembered as more trend than transformation.
Daniel J. Flynn blogs at www.flynnfiles.com and is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left.
Crying Democrat of the week:
Florida, rid yourselves of this nutjob, Alan Grayson!
2 Comico:
Green Piece:
Drop in world temperatures fuels global warming debate
Roberrt S. Boyd
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?
Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998.
That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change. The skeptics argue that the current stretch of slightly cooler temperatures means that costly measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions are ill-founded and unnecessary.
Proposals to combat global warming are "crazy" and will "destroy more than a million good American jobs and increase the average family's annual energy bill by at least $1,500 a year," the Heartland Institute, a conservative research organization based in Chicago, declared in full-page newspaper ads earlier this summer. "High levels of carbon dioxide actually benefit wildlife and human health," the ads asserted.
Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.
"The preponderance of evidence is that global warming will resume," Nicholas Bond, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, said in an e-mail.
"Natural variability can account for the slowing of the global mean temperature rise we have seen," said Jeff Knight, a climate expert at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, England.
According to data from the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala., the global high temperature in 1998 was 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.37 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average for the previous 20 years.
So far this year, the high has been 0.42 degrees Celsius (0.76 degrees Fahrenheit), above the 20-year average, clearly cooler than before.
However, scientists say the skeptics' argument is misleading.
"It's entirely possible to have a period as long as a decade or two of cooling superimposed on the long-term warming trend," said David Easterling, chief of scientific services at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"These short term fluctuations are statistically insignificant (and) entirely due to natural internal variability," Easterling said in an essay published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in April. "It's easy to 'cherry pick' a period to reinforce a point of view."
Climate experts say the 1998 record was partly caused by El Nino, a periodic warming of tropical Pacific Ocean waters that affects the climate worldwide.
"The temperature peak in 1998 to a large extent can be attributed to the very strong El Nino event of 1997-98," Bond said. "Temperatures for the globe as a whole tend to be higher during El Nino, and particularly events as intense as that one."
El Nino is returning this summer after a four-year absence and is expected to hang around until late next year.
"If El Nino continues to strengthen as projected, expect more (high temperature) records to fall," said Thomas Karl, who's the director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville.
"At least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year currently on record," predicted Jeff Knight, a climate variability expert at the Hadley Centre in England.
John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who often sides with the skeptics, agreed that the recent cooling won't last.
"The atmosphere is just now feeling the bump in tropical Pacific temperatures related to El Nino," Christy said in an e-mail. As a result, July experienced "the largest one-month jump in our 31-year record of global satellite temperatures. We should see a warmer 2009-2010 due to El Nino."
Christy added, however: "Our ignorance of the climate system is still enormous, and our policy makers need to know that . . . We really don't know much about what causes multi-year changes like this."
In addition to newspaper ads, the Heartland Institute sponsors conferences, books, papers, videos and Web sites arguing its case against the global warming threat.
The skeptics include scientists such as Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who thinks that climate science is too uncertain to justify drastic measures to control CO2. He calls the case for action against global warming "silly" and "grotesque."
Others go further. For example, Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, thinks the world is in a 30-year cooling phase.
"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," Easterbrook said in a talk to the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting in San Francisco in December.
Government scientists strongly disagree. "Claims that global warming is not occurring . . . ignore this natural variability and are misleading," said NOAA's Easterling.
In reality, global warming "never ceased," said Karl, the climate data center director.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/08/19/74019/drop-in-world-temperatures-fuels.html#ixzz0kvzFrvD3
Polls Obama doesn't want to see:
31% Strongly approve of President's job performance
42% Strongly disapprove
47% believe repeal of the healthcare bill would be good for the economy
33% believe repeal would be bad
66% say Americans are overtaxed
Congressional Generic Ballot: Republicans 47% Democrats 38%
Change we can believe in?
Quote du jour:
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
Thomas Jefferson
Writings of Our Founding Fathers
Federalist Papers
Federalist No. 43
The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
For the Independent Journal.
Author: James Madison
To the People of the State of New York:
THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:1. A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors.
The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress. 2. "To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. "The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc. , established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated, by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment. 3. "To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained. "As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author. 4. "To admit new States into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress. "In the articles of Confederation, no provision is found on this important subject. Canada was to be admitted of right, on her joining in the measures of the United States; and the other COLONIES, by which were evidently meant the other British colonies, at the discretion of nine States. The eventual establishment of NEW STATES seems to have been overlooked by the compilers of that instrument. We have seen the inconvenience of this omission, and the assumption of power into which Congress have been led by it. With great propriety, therefore, has the new system supplied the defect. The general precaution, that no new States shall be formed, without the concurrence of the federal authority, and that of the States concerned, is consonant to the principles which ought to govern such transactions. The particular precaution against the erection of new States, by the partition of a State without its consent, quiets the jealousy of the larger States; as that of the smaller is quieted by a like precaution, against a junction of States without their consent. 5. "To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States, with a proviso, that nothing in the Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. "This is a power of very great importance, and required by considerations similar to those which show the propriety of the former. The proviso annexed is proper in itself, and was probably rendered absolutely necessary by jealousies and questions concerning the Western territory sufficiently known to the public. 6. "To guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; to protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. "In a confederacy founded on republican principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchial innovations. The more intimate the nature of such a union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other; and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into should be SUBSTANTIALLY maintained. But a right implies a remedy; and where else could the remedy be deposited, than where it is deposited by the Constitution? Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature. "As the confederate republic of Germany," says Montesquieu, "consists of free cities and petty states, subject to different princes, experience shows us that it is more imperfect than that of Holland and Switzerland. " "Greece was undone," he adds, "as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat among the Amphictyons. " In the latter case, no doubt, the disproportionate force, as well as the monarchical form, of the new confederate, had its share of influence on the events. It may possibly be asked, what need there could be of such a precaution, and whether it may not become a pretext for alterations in the State governments, without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of ready answers. If the interposition of the general government should not be needed, the provision for such an event will be a harmless superfluity only in the Constitution. But who can say what experiments may be produced by the caprice of particular States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign powers? To the second question it may be answered, that if the general government should interpose by virtue of this constitutional authority, it will be, of course, bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no further than to a GUARANTY of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.
A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article. Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons. A recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for emergencies of a like nature. At first view, it might seem not to square with the republican theory, to suppose, either that a majority have not the right, or that a minority will have the force, to subvert a government; and consequently, that the federal interposition can never be required, but when it would be improper. But theoretic reasoning, in this as in most other cases, must be qualified by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations, for purposes of violence, be formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a small State as by a majority of a county, or a district of the same State; and if the authority of the State ought, in the latter case, to protect the local magistracy, ought not the federal authority, in the former, to support the State authority? Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven with the federal Constitution, that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other.
Insurrections in a State will rarely induce a federal interposition, unless the number concerned in them bear some proportion to the friends of government. It will be much better that the violence in such cases should be repressed by the superintending power, than that the majority should be left to maintain their cause by a bloody and obstinate contest. The existence of a right to interpose, will generally prevent the necessity of exerting it. Is it true that force and right are necessarily on the same side in republican governments? May not the minor party possess such a superiority of pecuniary resources, of military talents and experience, or of secret succors from foreign powers, as will render it superior also in an appeal to the sword? May not a more compact and advantageous position turn the scale on the same side, against a superior number so situated as to be less capable of a prompt and collected exertion of its strength? Nothing can be more chimerical than to imagine that in a trial of actual force, victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of the inhabitants, or which determine the event of an election!
May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of CITIZENS may become a majority of PERSONS, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage? I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in some of the States, who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk below the level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves. In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind! Should it be asked, what is to be the redress for an insurrection pervading all the States, and comprising a superiority of the entire force, though not a constitutional right? the answer must be, that such a case, as it would be without the compass of human remedies, so it is fortunately not within the compass of human probability; and that it is a sufficient recommendation of the federal Constitution, that it diminishes the risk of a calamity for which no possible constitution can provide a cure. Among the advantages of a confederate republic enumerated by Montesquieu, an important one is, "that should a popular insurrection happen in one of the States, the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. "7. "To consider all debts contracted, and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, as being no less valid against the United States, under this Constitution, than under the Confederation. "This can only be considered as a declaratory proposition; and may have been inserted, among other reasons, for the satisfaction of the foreign creditors of the United States, who cannot be strangers to the pretended doctrine, that a change in the political form of civil society has the magical effect of dissolving its moral obligations. Among the lesser criticisms which have been exercised on the Constitution, it has been remarked that the validity of engagements ought to have been asserted in favor of the United States, as well as against them; and in the spirit which usually characterizes little critics, the omission has been transformed and magnified into a plot against the national rights. The authors of this discovery may be told, what few others need to be informed of, that as engagements are in their nature reciprocal, an assertion of their validity on one side, necessarily involves a validity on the other side; and that as the article is merely declaratory, the establishment of the principle in one case is sufficient for every case. They may be further told, that every constitution must limit its precautions to dangers that are not altogether imaginary; and that no real danger can exist that the government would DARE, with, or even without, this constitutional declaration before it, to remit the debts justly due to the public, on the pretext here condemned. 8. "To provide for amendments to be ratified by three fourths of the States under two exceptions only. "That useful alterations will be suggested by experience, could not but be foreseen. It was requisite, therefore, that a mode for introducing them should be provided. The mode preferred by the convention seems to be stamped with every mark of propriety. It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other. The exception in favor of the equality of suffrage in the Senate, was probably meant as a palladium to the residuary sovereignty of the States, implied and secured by that principle of representation in one branch of the legislature; and was probably insisted on by the States particularly attached to that equality. The other exception must have been admitted on the same considerations which produced the privilege defended by it. 9. "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States, ratifying the same. "This article speaks for itself.
The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution. To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States, would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable. Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion: 1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. PERHAPS, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself. It has been heretofore noted among the defects of the Confederation, that in many of the States it had received no higher sanction than a mere legislative ratification. The principle of reciprocality seems to require that its obligation on the other States should be reduced to the same standard. A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void. Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate. The second question is not less delicate; and the flattering prospect of its being merely hypothetical forbids an overcurious discussion of it. It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.
PUBLIUS.
References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.clatchy.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.qoutationspage.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Robert S. Boyd
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Daniel J. Flynn
http://www.flynnfiles.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
My Fox Orlando
No comments:
Post a Comment