Sinking of the Steamer "Liberalism"

Opinion at large

It is rather amusing to see the liberals showing their true colors as we get closer the day of reckoning, November 2nd. It reminds me of the republicans making the headlines and losing their seats back in '06. The democrats seem to not have learned a thing. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I've been following Charlie (Tax thee but not me) Rangel, 13 violation by his congressional peers. Why doesn't he retire. As a conservative, I hope he fights this to the end. This would bad for the democrat incumbents who know they are in hot water without this paramount news debacle. The democrats are poised to lose the House, and possibly the Senate. Even if they retain control of the Senate, it will be close to equal. I fear this is what the anointed one wants, so when the state of affairs gets worse, he will conveniently blame the republicans. His administrations' modis operandi is to blame the economy on Bush. I know, it's only been 19 months since ObieWonKenobi took office, however, it is surely George W. Bush's fault, otherwise, he would have to blame himself. Let's face it, the democrats' Keynesian economic theory is a unequivocal failure. Imagine at night, when the liberals are sitting on their big cushiony couch, with a single malt scotch in their hand, wondering how their dream of a socialistic, western European government-run-everything has emerged as a huge disappointment and colossal nonacheivement. Take Maxine Waters, D-CA, has been charged with ethics violations and awaiting a public trial. It was a small conflict of interest, she solicited TARP funds for a bank where her husband sat on the board and owns thousands of shares. We, the American public can't allow Maxine to lose money if that bank failed. My Dad use to say, "don't do as I do, do as I say. He might have heard this from the democrats. "If I did this, I would be in jail. Anyway, I hope Rangel and Waters go on trial and appear on the front page of the state run media's newspapers. This will help the republicans stampede over the democrats. I got such a chuckle when Al 'Sharpie Sharp" Sharpton introduced the race card once again. He said since Rangel and Waters are black congress people, there has to be racism. Not that they broke the law, or anything like that. Pathetic! Where is Jesse Jackson, I'm surprised he hasn't jumped on the bandwagon. Next, we have Pete Stark, D-CA, who inserts foot into mouth, weekly. He said at a townhall meeting in CA, that not hiring an illegal alien could be "unconstitutional." What? Also, he asked a constituent who was he going to kill today concerning the tea party. I think we can agree, the politicians, from both sides of the aisle, have forgotten who they work for. They are eletists who do not care what the American people want. I want to start a campaign for term limits in congress after the republicans take back the House. I realize we would need to win the Senate and Presidency along with the House to accomplish this enormous feat. When they leave their represented state and move to Washington, they become "inside the beltway" politicians. Cocktail and dinner parties influence their decisions. Two terms and out. I am so excited about the Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in DC on August 28th. Even though the state run media will report that 92 people showed up, I am confident that thousands will attend. We have attended other rallies like the 912 rally and different tea party afilliated protest and it is one of the best times we have ever had. I hope you get involved and join or participate in some type of conservative cause. Correction - the American Movement. If you don't, then don't complain. 

Speaking Stark:
   

Troubled Waters:
 

It was my staff's fault:


Obama's Immigration Power Play

By W. James Antle, III
8.2.10 @ 6:09AM


Last week, the Obama administration got Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Bolton to at least temporarily throw out key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Within 24 hours came more evidence that they weren't done eviscerating immigration enforcement yet.


That proof came in the form of an astonishing internal memo outlining ways the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) could effectively legalize at least tens of thousands of illegal immigrants even if Congress fails to enact amnesty. Some would be granted resident status with the USCIS simply giving them green cards. Others would be allowed to evade deportation, possibly indefinitely.


"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different parts of USCIS for the agency's director. Two of the memo's authors are Obama appointees, as is USCIS head Alejandro N. Mayorkas.


Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made the 11-page document public last Thursday, arguing in a public statement, "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan." In June, Grassley and six other senators sent President Obama a letter asking him to deny rumors that his underlings were contemplating amnesty by executive fiat.


Now we have good reason to believe the rumors were true. One proposal contained in the memo was that the USCIS grant "parole in place," which comes with a work permit and the right to apply for a green card, to various illegal immigrants. Another suggestion was to give "deferred action," delaying deportation indefinitely and preserving eligibility to apply for a work permit, to illegal aliens who would have benefited from the DREAM Act.


That would be the same DREAM Act, incidentally, that Congress has repeatedly failed to pass, much as it has shot down broader-based amnesty proposals.


Finally, the memos' authors suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could simply stop issuing the "notice to appear" letters that begin the deportation process. The only exception would be in cases where the illegal alien is found to have "significant negative immigration or criminal history."


The exposure of this memo understandably generated controversy, which the administration was eager to tamp down. A hastily issued USCIS statement insisted that the memos were just a draft and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."


"To be clear," the statement continued, "DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"


Even if the memo merely shows mid-level bureaucrats engaging in a brainstorming session about how to undermine the immigration laws they are being paid to uphold, it captures the essence of this administration's approach to immigration enforcement. Criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are down and worksite raids have virtually stopped. The DHS official running the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has admitted the administration is, as a matter of policy, trying to avoid arresting illegals.


According to one report, through May administrative arrests were down 81 percent from 2008, criminal arrests down 67 percent, indictments are down 73 percent, and convictions down 75 percent. "I think there have been very few operations that have generated arrests of undocumented workers," David Venturella, the acting director in charge of such operations, was quoted as saying at an Urban Institute event.


But what about reports that the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the Washington Post that they planned to deport 400,000 people this fiscal year, up 10 percent from 2008 and 25 percent from 2007.


Like their predecessors in the generally lax Bush administration, Obama's immigration henchmen can be counted on to periodically ratchet up enforcement when doing so will aid the call for "comprehensive immigration reform." Most of this uptick reflects a recent effort to identify illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.


Yet neither the deportations of criminal aliens nor the ballyhooed audits of companies that hire workers with bogus Social Security numbers really turn off the jobs magnet luring illegal immigrants into this country. Remember: as amnesty advocates are always fond of reminding us, we cannot deport every illegal immigrant in the United States. The main goal of attrition through enforcement is to entice large numbers of illegals to in effect deport themselves.


Focusing on the worst criminals among the illegal population -- and relatively light civil fines of employers who flunk their audits -- while giving de facto amnesty to everyone else will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants here to a manageable level. It will merely allow the Obama administration to appear tough while actually undermining attrition through enforcement.


States like Arizona have learned that serious immigration enforcement is a dirty job the federal government won't do -- and one that the Obama administration won't let anyone else perform, either. Even if they must rely on unaccountable federal judges and bureaucrats, it is amnesty or bust, the will of the people and their elected representatives be damned.

Polls we can live by:
Rasmussen Reports:
27% Stronglt agree of Presidential job performance
42% Strongly disagree
Presidential Approval Index Rating: -15
46% Somewhat agree of Presidential job performance
53% Somewhat disagree

Gallup:
41% Presidential approval rating (lowest ever)

Funny & Pathetic:

A Bleak Picture of Government Debt


By Thomas Sowell


August 3, 2010



Rumors of Congressional Democrats privately expressing disapproval of the Obama administration's actions and policies have been given more credence by such things as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public criticism of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. But when two long-time Democratic pollsters, Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen, called President Obama "cynical" and "racially divisive," that was a dramatic statement. It was like saying that the emperor has no clothes.


A much more rhetorically subdued but nevertheless devastating implicit criticism of current government spending policies came from an even more unlikely source: the Congressional Budget Office, whose director is a Democrat.


Without naming names or making political charges, the Congressional Budget Office last week issued a report titled "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis." The report's dry, measured words paint a painfully bleak picture of the long-run dangers from the current runaway government deficits.


The CBO report points out that the national debt, which was 36 percent of the Gross Domestic Product three years ago, is now projected to be 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010-- and rising in future years.


Tracing the history of the national debt back to the beginning of the country, the CBO finds that the national debt did not exceed 50 percent of GDP, even when the country was fighting the Civil War, the First World War or any other war except World War II. Moreover, a graph in the CBO report shows the national debt going down sharply after World War II, as the nation began paying off its wartime when the war was over.


By contrast, our current national debt is still going up and may end up in "unfamiliar territory," according to the CBO, reaching "unsustainable levels." They spell out the economic consequences-- and it is not a pretty picture.


Although Barack Obama and members of his administration constantly talk about the so-called "stimulus" spending as creating a demand for goods that is in turn "creating jobs," every dime they spend comes from somewhere else, which means that there is less money to create jobs somewhere else.


There is no reason to believe that all this runaway spending is creating jobs-- on net balance. The fact that the unemployment rate remains stuck at nearly 10 percent belies the idea that great numbers of jobs are being created-- again, on net balance.


White House press Secretary Robert Gibbs' recent rant against Rush Limbaugh for criticizing the bailout of General Motors went on and on about how this bailout had saved "a million jobs." But where does Gibbs think the bailout money came from? The Tooth Fairy?


When you take money from the taxpayers and spend it to rescue the jobs of one set of workers-- your union political supporters, in this case-- what does that do to the demand for the jobs of other workers, whose products taxpayers would have bought with the money you took away from them? There is no net economic gain to the country from this, though there may well be political gains for the administration from having rescued their UAW supporters.


The same principle applies to money that came from selling government bonds, thus adding to the national debt. People who bought those government bonds had other things they could have invested in, if those government bonds had not been issued.


As the Congressional Budget Office puts it, if the national debt continues to grow out of control, a "growing portion of people's savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that 'crowding out' of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur."


Just paying the interest on a growing national debt can require higher tax rates, which "would discourage work and saving and further reduce output," according to the CBO.


It would probably do no good to send Robert Gibbs-- or Barack Obama, for that matter-- a copy of the government's own Congressional Budget Office report. Spending vast sums of money in politically strategic places helps the Obama administration politically, and that is obviously their bottom line.

I wish Thomas Sowell would run for President.

 

Quote du jour:

"Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master."

Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Video of the week:
Anthony is a Weiner:

 
 

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 53


The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives


From the New York Packet.


Tuesday, February 12, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


I SHALL here, perhaps, be reminded of a current observation, "that where annual elections end, tyranny begins. " If it be true, as has often been remarked, that sayings which become proverbial are generally founded in reason, it is not less true, that when once established, they are often applied to cases to which the reason of them does not extend. I need not look for a proof beyond the case before us. What is the reason on which this proverbial observation is founded? No man will subject himself to the ridicule of pretending that any natural connection subsists between the sun or the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power. Happily for mankind, liberty is not, in this respect, confined to any single point of time; but lies within extremes, which afford sufficient latitude for all the variations which may be required by the various situations and circumstances of civil society. The election of magistrates might be, if it were found expedient, as in some instances it actually has been, daily, weekly, or monthly, as well as annual; and if circumstances may require a deviation from the rule on one side, why not also on the other side? Turning our attention to the periods established among ourselves, for the election of the most numerous branches of the State legislatures, we find them by no means coinciding any more in this instance, than in the elections of other civil magistrates. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, the periods are half-yearly. In the other States, South Carolina excepted, they are annual. In South Carolina they are biennial as is proposed in the federal government. Here is a difference, as four to one, between the longest and shortest periods; and yet it would be not easy to show, that Connecticut or Rhode Island is better governed, or enjoys a greater share of rational liberty, than South Carolina; or that either the one or the other of these States is distinguished in these respects, and by these causes, from the States whose elections are different from both. In searching for the grounds of this doctrine, I can discover but one, and that is wholly inapplicable to our case. The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also a full power to change the form of the government. Even in Great Britain, where the principles of political and civil liberty have been most discussed, and where we hear most of the rights of the Constitution, it is maintained that the authority of the Parliament is transcendent and uncontrollable, as well with regard to the Constitution, as the ordinary objects of legislative provision. They have accordingly, in several instances, actually changed, by legislative acts, some of the most fundamental articles of the government. They have in particular, on several occasions, changed the period of election; and, on the last occasion, not only introduced septennial in place of triennial elections, but by the same act, continued themselves in place four years beyond the term for which they were elected by the people. An attention to these dangerous practices has produced a very natural alarm in the votaries of free government, of which frequency of elections is the corner-stone; and has led them to seek for some security to liberty, against the danger to which it is exposed. Where no Constitution, paramount to the government, either existed or could be obtained, no constitutional security, similar to that established in the United States, was to be attempted. Some other security, therefore, was to be sought for; and what better security would the case admit, than that of selecting and appealing to some simple and familiar portion of time, as a standard for measuring the danger of innovations, for fixing the national sentiment, and for uniting the patriotic exertions? The most simple and familiar portion of time, applicable to the subject was that of a year; and hence the doctrine has been inculcated by a laudable zeal, to erect some barrier against the gradual innovations of an unlimited government, that the advance towards tyranny was to be calculated by the distance of departure from the fixed point of annual elections. But what necessity can there be of applying this expedient to a government limited, as the federal government will be, by the authority of a paramount Constitution? Or who will pretend that the liberties of the people of America will not be more secure under biennial elections, unalterably fixed by such a Constitution, than those of any other nation would be, where elections were annual, or even more frequent, but subject to alterations by the ordinary power of the government? The second question stated is, whether biennial elections be necessary or useful. The propriety of answering this question in the affirmative will appear from several very obvious considerations. No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate. A part of this knowledge may be acquired by means of information which lie within the compass of men in private as well as public stations. Another part can only be attained, or at least thoroughly attained, by actual experience in the station which requires the use of it. The period of service, ought, therefore, in all such cases, to bear some proportion to the extent of practical knowledge requisite to the due performance of the service. The period of legislative service established in most of the States for the more numerous branch is, as we have seen, one year. The question then may be put into this simple form: does the period of two years bear no greater proportion to the knowledge requisite for federal legislation than one year does to the knowledge requisite for State legislation? The very statement of the question, in this form, suggests the answer that ought to be given to it. In a single State, the requisite knowledge relates to the existing laws which are uniform throughout the State, and with which all the citizens are more or less conversant; and to the general affairs of the State, which lie within a small compass, are not very diversified, and occupy much of the attention and conversation of every class of people. The great theatre of the United States presents a very different scene. The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State; whilst the public affairs of the Union are spread throughout a very extensive region, and are extremely diversified by t e local affairs connected with them, and can with difficulty be correctly learnt in any other place than in the central councils to which a knowledge of them will be brought by the representatives of every part of the empire. Yet some knowledge of the affairs, and even of the laws, of all the States, ought to be possessed by the members from each of the States. How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulatious of the different States? How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated, without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other respects? How can taxes be judiciously imposed and effectually collected, if they be not accommodated to the different laws and local circumstances relating to these objects in the different States? How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided, without a similar knowledge of many internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation, and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. The other interior objects will require a proportional degree of information with regard to them. It is true that all these difficulties will, by degrees, be very much diminished. The most laborious task will be the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draughts will every year become both easier and fewer. Past transactions of the government will be a ready and accurate source of information to new members. The affairs of the Union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among the citizens at large. And the increased intercourse among those of different States will contribute not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge of their affairs, as this again will contribute to a general assimilation of their manners and laws. But with all these abatements, the business of federal legislation must continue so far to exceed, both in novelty and difficulty, the legislative business of a single State, as to justify the longer period of service assigned to those who are to transact it. A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned is that of foreign affairs. In regulating our own commerce he ought to be not only acquainted with the treaties between the United States and other nations, but also with the commercial policy and laws of other nations. He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations; for that, as far as it is a proper object of municipal legislation, is submitted to the federal government.


And although the House of Representatives is not immediately to participate in foreign negotiations and arrangements, yet from the necessary connection between the several branches of public affairs, those particular branches will frequently deserve attention in the ordinary course of legislation, and will sometimes demand particular legislative sanction and co-operation. Some portion of this knowledge may, no doubt, be acquired in a man's closet; but some of it also can only be derived from the public sources of information; and all of it will be acquired to best effect by a practical attention to the subject during the period of actual service in the legislature.


There are other considerations, of less importance, perhaps, but which are not unworthy of notice. The distance which many of the representatives will be obliged to travel, and the arrangements rendered necessary by that circumstance, might be much more serious objections with fit men to this service, if limited to a single year, than if extended to two years. No argument can be drawn on this subject, from the case of the delegates to the existing Congress. They are elected annually, it is true; but their re-election is considered by the legislative assemblies almost as a matter of course. The election of the representatives by the people would not be governed by the same principle. A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is an inconvenience mingled with the advantages of our frequent elections even in single States, where they are large, and hold but one legislative session in a year, that spurious elections cannot be investigated and annulled in time for the decision to have its due effect. If a return can be obtained, no matter by what unlawful means, the irregular member, who takes his seat of course, is sure of holding it a sufficient time to answer his purposes. Hence, a very pernicious encouragement is given to the use of unlawful means, for obtaining irregular returns. Were elections for the federal legislature to be annual, this practice might become a very serious abuse, particularly in the more distant States. Each house is, as it necessarily must be, the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members; and whatever improvements may be suggested by experience, for simplifying and accelerating the process in disputed cases, so great a portion of a year would unavoidably elapse, before an illegitimate member could be dispossessed of his seat, that the prospect of such an event would be little check to unfair and illicit means of obtaining a seat. All these considerations taken together warrant us in affirming, that biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public as we have seen that they will be safe to the liberty of the people.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
http://www.gallup.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.cancertutor.com/
http://www.nro,com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
Thomas Sowell
W. James Antle, III
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
http://www.goldengateminuteman.org/
C Span

Remember November- 14 weeks to "Change we can believe in."

Opinion at large

I count the days. 98 from today, before we take back our country, our heritage, our way of life. We are the greatest Republic that has ever existed. Not even Rome, Athens or London has accomplished in such a short time what we have accomplished. Americans have always boasted a proud, innovative attitude towards the land the of hope, prosperity and opportunity. What the heck has happened in the last 18 months. I realize everything that has happened in the Obama administration has been George W. Bush's fault, or was it Reagan's fault? or was it Martin Van Buren's fault? We all know it isn't Barry O's fault, he inherited all this, he is the one we have been waiting for. NOT! Jimmy Carter is partying like it's 1976. He is relinquishing the title of "Worst United States President." Obama, his administration and congress have lost what little faith the American people had in them. Consumer confidence is below 50%. Ouch! In a good economy, it should be between 85 and 90%. It is off slightly. This congress has spent more money it this short period than any other congress. It's like they are addicted to spending. They stopped listening to the people they work for and decided to prosecute their socialist agenda. Big government, less liberties, less control over our lives. Redistribution of wealth, the cornerstone of  socialism, is at the top of the democrats agenda. I was debating urguing with a liberal today about the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of the year. I mentioned they would help this suffering economy if they were extended for a year or two. This guy is a small business owner. He is the one the tax cuts would help. He said they only help the "rich people." I told him that he is the rich people whom they will target. The democrats have done such a wonderful job fooling the people. He will find out at the end of 2011. In their minds, people making $500K are the rich people. Wait until this SBO is paying 39%. He will be the first one to complain. Obama will blame Rutherford B. Hayes. They are ID 10 T's. On a positive note, I've never seen an uprising of the conservative movement in my lifetime. Obama has awoken a sleeping giant. "The American movement." It's not a Tea Party or republican movement, it is an American (conservative) movement. Why? Simply put, everyday Americans are fed up and highly offended by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Kerry (he served in Viet Nam), Frank and the rest of the eletists who believe they are smarter and better than us. Kerry docks his $7M sailboat yacht in New Hampshire to evade Massachusetts' tax laws ($500K & 70K yearly). He said (after he was exposed by the media) that it was just being repaired. don't they have boatyards in Boston or Nantucket? Things that make you go, Huh? Let's not forget ol' Charlie (Taxes for thee but not for me) Rangel, who was in Nancy (Elvira) Pelosi's office today massaging her feet trying to cut a deal on his financial indictment woes. And one of my favorites, Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Bill and Hillary are estimated to spend $3 to $5 million on their wedding. As liberals, shouldn't they feel bad about the starving kids in Harlem where Bubba's office is located? Shouldn't they scale down the wedding and give some of that money to the needy? Then why in the hell do they expect us to do it? Kerry's 7 million dollar yacht would feed a lot of hungry kids in the housing projects in Boston? My point, they are pompous hypocrites! Eletists! Term limits. Term limits. I want to eliminate career politicians. They are cancerous. 42% of congress are millionaires, how can they say they are like us? They feel our pain? Not from Washington, DC cocktail parties or feasting on a medium rare New York in a trendy Adams Morgan restaurant. Lastly, we have a President in name only, who has tarnished the office of the President. We look weak to the rest of the world and Mr. Obama is a serial narcissist. I don't think I've agreed with anything he has done. He is the disaster I thought he would be times ten. Novenber 2nd is the first step. We need to stop this President and change as many members of congress as possible. If we don't, The liberals will bankrupt our country. They still are dreaming of a public option, Cap & Trade, Immigration ( Obama sees 12 to 20M undocumented democrat voters) and more socialistic policies. My wife and I are attending the Restoring Honor Rally on August 28th in DC at the Lincoln Memorial. Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent, JoDee Messina and possibly, Sarah Palin will be in attendance. Afterwards, on September 12th, there will be another 912 Rally which will be an incredible time, just like last year's.  In retrospect, We must rise up and let the debutantes in our government, remind them they work for us. Show up and be counted.  
    
Video from the Reublican Governor's Association:

14 Weeks from Republican Governors Association on Vimeo.


Video of the week:
Take that Chris " chill up my leg" Matthews:


Capitol Hill Shill of the week:

Charlie has the gall to blame his staff for his woes. WTF?

Why the Left Hates Conservatives

Liberals don’t just hate conservatism as an ideology; they hate conservatives as individuals.


Of all the recent revelations to come out of JournoList, an e-mail list consisting of about 400 liberal/left journalists, perhaps the most telling is the depth of their hatred for conservatives. That these journalists would consult with one another in order to protect candidate and then President Obama and in order to hurt Republicans is unfortunate and ugly. What is jolting is the hatred of conservatives on display, as exemplified by the e-mail from a public-radio reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death — and the apparent absence of any objection from her fellow liberal journalists.


Every one of us on the right has seen this hatred. I am not referring to leftist bloggers or to anonymous comments by angry leftists on conservative blogs — such things exist on the right as well — but to mainstream, elite liberal journalists. There is simply nothing analogous among elite conservative journalists. Yes, nearly all conservatives believe that the Left is leading America to ruin. But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the Left’s hatred of conservative individuals. Would mainstream conservative journalists e-mail one another wishes that they could be present while Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Michael Moore died slowly and painfully of a heart attack?


From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people of the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. The question is, why?


Here are three possible answers.


First, the Left thinks the Right is evil. Granting the exceptions that all generalizations allow for, conservatives believe that those on the left are wrong, while those on the left believe that those on the right are bad. Examples are innumerable. Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic party, said, “In contradistinction to the Republicans, Democrats don’t believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.” Rep. Alan Grayson (D., Fla.), among many similar comments, said, “I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It’s very simple: We have a conscience.”


Has any spokesman of the Republican party ever said anything analogous about Democrats’ not caring about the suffering of children or not having a conscience?


Second, when you don’t confront real evil, you hate those who do. You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or out of fear that the one who confronted the bully will provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the Left expressed far more hatred for Ronald Reagan than for Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. When Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” the liberal world was enraged . . . at Reagan.


Those (usually on the left) who refused to confront Communism hated those (usually on the right) who did. They called the latter “warmongers” and “cold warriors” and charged them with having “missile envy” and with loving war.


Today, the Left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words “War on Terror.” To the Left, such a war is manufactured by rightists for nefarious reasons — oil, self-enrichment, imperialism, etc. Indeed, the Obama administration declines to use the term “Islamic terror.” America is at war with a nameless enemy. The enemies this administration is prepared to name are the Republican party, the tea parties, Fox News, and talk radio.


Third, the Left’s utopian vision is prevented only by the Right.


From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion. As Ted Kennedy, paraphrasing his brother Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Some men see things as they are and say, Why? I dream things that never were and say, Why not?” That exemplifies left-wing idealism — imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives. How could a utopian not hate a conservative?


This hatred will only increase if the Left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections. The problem is that this hatred does not decrease when the Left is in power.


Hatred of conservatives is so much a part of the Left that the day the Left stops hating conservatives will mark the beginning of the end of the Left as we know it.


Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. He may be contacted through his website, dennisprager.com.

 Year of the Tea Party Voter


Text By JOHN FUND Republicans are winning over voters who are disgruntled with both parties.




It seems every election finds political pundits trying to come up with a shorthand description for the latest bloc of voters to exercise undue influence in the current year's races.


In 2000, "soccer moms" were the group du jour, and enough of them were disgusted with the Clinton scandals that they cost Al Gore the White House. In 2004, it was "security moms," who in a post-9/11 world were concerned about terrorism and the safety of their children. In 2008, a video featuring "Obama Girl" captured the enthusiasm the Democratic candidate generated among young voters.


This year, the hands-down winner for the key voting bloc might be called "Tea Party Supporter." Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning firm, reports a major reason Republicans are poised to make major gains this year is that they "are cleaning up with a voting bloc that accounts for 26% of the country and could end up being the most important group of people at the polls this fall: voters who hate both congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans."


While these voters, who are mostly white and mostly male, harbor no loyalty to either party, this year they are much more upset with the Democrats who hold power in the White House and Congress. "The GOP has a 57-19 generic lead with this group of voters that could perhaps be described as the angriest segment of the electorate," reports PPP. "Their support is fueling the GOP's success right now."


The party-affiliation breakdown of the "pox on all politicians" segment is fascinating. Only 44% are Republicans, while 34% are independents and 21% are Democrats. That breakdown roughly mirrors the profile of people who in other polls identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Interestingly, however, PPP finds that only about 35% of the "angriest segment" actually call themselves Tea Partiers. That's compared to about 25% of voters in the electorate as a whole who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters.


www.djreprints.com


Statement du jour:
Chris Matthews accused Fox News of "whipping up white hysteria" over allegations about the new Black Panther voter intimidation case.
(This is why Hardball has an audience of 27 viewers)

Pathetic but funny: 
 

Obama voters aren't allowed around razor blades for obvious reasons.

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 52


The House of Representatives


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 8, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison


To the People of the State of New York:


FROM the more general inquiries pursued in the four last papers, I pass on to a more particular examination of the several parts of the government. I shall begin with the House of Representatives. The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.


The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option.


It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution. The qualifications of the elected, being less carefully and properly defined by the State constitutions, and being at the same time more susceptible of uniformity, have been very properly considered and regulated by the convention. A representative of the United States must be of the age of twenty-five years; must have been seven years a citizen of the United States; must, at the time of his election, be an inhabitant of the State he is to represent; and, during the time of his service, must be in no office under the United States. Under these reasonable limitations, the door of this part of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith. The term for which the representatives are to be elected falls under a second view which may be taken of this branch. In order to decide on the propriety of this article, two questions must be considered: first, whether biennial elections will, in this case, be safe; secondly, whether they be necessary or useful. First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured. But what particular degree of frequency may be absolutely necessary for the purpose, does not appear to be susceptible of any precise calculation, and must depend on a variety of circumstances with which it may be connected. Let us consult experience, the guide that ought always to be followed whenever it can be found. The scheme of representation, as a substitute for a meeting of the citizens in person, being at most but very imperfectly known to ancient polity, it is in more modern times only that we are to expect instructive examples. And even here, in order to avoid a research too vague and diffusive, it will be proper to confine ourselves to the few examples which are best known, and which bear the greatest analogy to our particular case. The first to which this character ought to be applied, is the House of Commons in Great Britain. The history of this branch of the English Constitution, anterior to the date of Magna Charta, is too obscure to yield instruction. The very existence of it has been made a question among political antiquaries. The earliest records of subsequent date prove that parliaments were to SIT only every year; not that they were to be ELECTED every year. And even these annual sessions were left so much at the discretion of the monarch, that, under various pretexts, very long and dangerous intermissions were often contrived by royal ambition. To remedy this grievance, it was provided by a statute in the reign of Charles II. , that the intermissions should not be protracted beyond a period of three years. On the accession of William III. , when a revolution took place in the government, the subject was still more seriously resumed, and it was declared to be among the fundamental rights of the people that parliaments ought to be held FREQUENTLY. By another statute, which passed a few years later in the same reign, the term "frequently," which had alluded to the triennial period settled in the time of Charles II. , is reduced to a precise meaning, it being expressly enacted that a new parliament shall be called within three years after the termination of the former. The last change, from three to seven years, is well known to have been introduced pretty early in the present century, under on alarm for the Hanoverian succession. From these facts it appears that the greatest frequency of elections which has been deemed necessary in that kingdom, for binding the representatives to their constituents, does not exceed a triennial return of them. And if we may argue from the degree of liberty retained even under septennial elections, and all the other vicious ingredients in the parliamentary constitution, we cannot doubt that a reduction of the period from seven to three years, with the other necessary reforms, would so far extend the influence of the people over their representatives as to satisfy us that biennial elections, under the federal system, cannot possibly be dangerous to the requisite dependence of the House of Representatives on their constituents. Elections in Ireland, till of late, were regulated entirely by the discretion of the crown, and were seldom repeated, except on the accession of a new prince, or some other contingent event. The parliament which commenced with George II. was continued throughout his whole reign, a period of about thirty-five years. The only dependence of the representatives on the people consisted in the right of the latter to supply occasional vacancies by the election of new members, and in the chance of some event which might produce a general new election.


The ability also of the Irish parliament to maintain the rights of their constituents, so far as the disposition might exist, was extremely shackled by the control of the crown over the subjects of their deliberation. Of late these shackles, if I mistake not, have been broken; and octennial parliaments have besides been established. What effect may be produced by this partial reform, must be left to further experience. The example of Ireland, from this view of it, can throw but little light on the subject. As far as we can draw any conclusion from it, it must be that if the people of that country have been able under all these disadvantages to retain any liberty whatever, the advantage of biennial elections would secure to them every degree of liberty, which might depend on a due connection between their representatives and themselves. Let us bring our inquiries nearer home. The example of these States, when British colonies, claims particular attention, at the same time that it is so well known as to require little to be said on it. The principle of representation, in one branch of the legislature at least, was established in all of them. But the periods of election were different. They varied from one to seven years. Have we any reason to infer, from the spirit and conduct of the representatives of the people, prior to the Revolution, that biennial elections would have been dangerous to the public liberties? The spirit which everywhere displayed itself at the commencement of the struggle, and which vanquished the obstacles to independence, is the best of proofs that a sufficient portion of liberty had been everywhere enjoyed to inspire both a sense of its worth and a zeal for its proper enlargement This remark holds good, as well with regard to the then colonies whose elections were least frequent, as to those whose elections were most frequent Virginia was the colony which stood first in resisting the parliamentary usurpations of Great Britain; it was the first also in espousing, by public act, the resolution of independence.


In Virginia, nevertheless, if I have not been misinformed, elections under the former government were septennial. This particular example is brought into view, not as a proof of any peculiar merit, for the priority in those instances was probably accidental; and still less of any advantage in SEPTENNIAL elections, for when compared with a greater frequency they are inadmissible; but merely as a proof, and I conceive it to be a very substantial proof, that the liberties of the people can be in no danger from BIENNIAL elections. The conclusion resulting from these examples will be not a little strengthened by recollecting three circumstances. The first is, that the federal legislature will possess a part only of that supreme legislative authority which is vested completely in the British Parliament; and which, with a few exceptions, was exercised by the colonial assemblies and the Irish legislature. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration; and, conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be protracted. In the second place, it has, on another occasion, been shown that the federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, but that it will be, moreover, watched and controlled by the several collateral legislatures, which other legislative bodies are not. And in the third place, no comparison can be made between the means that will be possessed by the more permanent branches of the federal government for seducing, if they should be disposed to seduce, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the means of influence over the popular branch possessed by the other branches of the government above cited. With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.


PUBLIUS.


References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.michellemalkin.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.nro.com/
http://www.americanspectator.com/
http://www.americanthinker.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers
Dennis Prager
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
John Fund
Republican Governor's Association

The Media's MIA in Obama's Crisis of Confidence

Opinion at large

In all my adult life, I have never witnessed a U.S. President forced to make a speech and execute a political campaign to reiterate how his administration is PRO-BUSINESS! Even the corporations who voted for Obama and contributed large sums of money are hoarding cash instead of investing in our economy. Why? It's very simple, no one in America has any confidence in our economy, the administration's flawed economic recovery strategy, job creation and unemployment, wasted stimulus money (1+ trillion) and the weakness and lack of confidence that this governement extrudes. Remember way back when George W. Bush was President and the liberals analyzed everything and every little report that happened in the Bush administration? Where is the Media now? Where is the detailed reports on unemployment, Katrina (oil spill), secrecy in the administration, favoritism, DOJ accusations, foreign policy, and a plethura of other issues? Anyone in  the state run media should surrender their press credentials if they have any sort of conscience. I thought things couldn't be worse as when Jimmy "Jimmy cracked corn" Carter was President. I remember sitting in those long odd/even day gas lines waiting for my allotment of fuel for the '63 Mercury Meteor wondering if we would recover from that time. Fast forward to present day, I wonder now if we, as the greatest country on the face of the earth, will recover after the deliberate and calculated dismantling of our economy and life in general as we know it. I've said in past posts that I truly believe Obama is following the Cloward-Piven Theory how to bring down capitalism. It isn't that extreme of a concept. Even liberals and political pundits on the left are starting to question what the hell Barry O. is doing with the country? It is very obvious to me that Obama has a major chip on his shoulder concerning the United States of America. He has pitted whites against blacks, Americans and illegals, conservatives against the Obama regime and so on.  Did anyone see visions of Reverend Wright in the Back Panther leader's speech. Hate, hate and more hate. Why did Eric Holder dismiss the voter intimidation case against this obvious Philadelphia racist? Could it be that DOJ doesn't see these types of cases as racists or hate crimes? Or is it they do not want to prosecute anyone of color, since they are simply victims. There are so many issues with the Obama administration that the media on both sides are having trouble keeping up with it. This Executive order to bring in Donald Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid is ludacrist. He is a socialist! Even democrats are speaking out against this appointment. Barry doesn't care, he will do what he wants. A characteristic of a narcissist? You be the judge. Obama is out wasting taxpayer money traveling around attempting to convince the public that the economy is good, getting better and his administration is capitalism and pro-business. (Saul Alinsky is turning over in his grave.) Tell that to the people who can't find jobs or just graduated from college and find yourself working at Starbucks. If Barry O. keeps on this path, we will revert back to a deep recession (double dip) or in my dream of dreams, the republicans will take back the House and possibly, the Senate and make Obama a lame duck President for the rest of his term. This would minimize the damage he could perpetuate on America. God willing! This November, we must show up in great numbers and show the world that we are the greatest in the world. The conservative movement will persevere. America will persevere.

Obama stumping:


Feel the love:


Ignorance is, well Ignorant:


Savage with J. Christian Adams:


Obama underwater in Carville poll?
by Ed Morrissey
 July 9, 2010


James Carville runs Democracy Corps, a liberal political-action group that also does regular polling on elections and issues. Normally it provides the Left with interesting, if not necessarily compelling, data for debate, but today’s poll results have plenty for the Right to discuss. Not only does it show Barack Obama underwater on job approval, it also shows that Obama has created a wide impression that he is a socialist in practice, as Jim Geraghty points out:

Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” …

When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”

In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.

That’s not the worst of it, though. In this poll, which had a 35/31 Democrat-Republican split — better than some media pollsters manage — Barack Obama sinks underwater on job approval, 46/50. More strongly disapprove (38%) than strongly approve (27%) of his job performance. Among likely voters, the gap widens to 45/51, with 40% strongly disapproving of Obama’s performance. The same exact splits occur on Obama’s handling of the economy, although those strongly approving drop to 22% among all respondents and 23% of likely voters.

On the Congressional ballot, the bad news continues for Democrats. The GOP wins overall on the question, 46/43, but among likely voters the split goes to six, 48/42. Twenty-six percent said there was “no chance” they would support a Democratic candidate, while 18% said “no chance” about the Republicans.

Americans remain pessimistic about the economy as well. Forty percent believe we have hit bottom and have started to improve. However, 22% say we’ve hit the bottom and are staying there, while 34% think we haven’t hit the bottom yet at all.

It probably doesn’t come as a big shock that Obama doesn’t get good marks on the oil spill, but it could be worse. His approval numbers on the spill almost mirror that of the economy and his overall approval, 43/50 in both likely voters and the overall sample. For those who disapprove, 66% say he’s been ineffective and 36% blame his bad leadership (the categories overlap, with multiple responses).

Perhaps most problematic, Obama can’t score a majority for any of the positive qualities listed by the pollster in the survey among likely voters. The best he does is a 49% for “hopeful vision” and the same for “strong leader,” both of which are ties. Otherwise, Obama sinks underwater on every other quality mentioned. The “socialist” label reflects that, but even more significantly for the midterm, 61% of likely voters think “big spender” fits well or very well.

Obama v. Arizona


The administration will have a tough time making its case against Arizona's immigration law.

BY Adam J. White

July 9, 2010

A federal lawsuit is never a laughing matter – especially when the U.S. Department of Justice signs the complaint. But the Obama administration's complaint against Arizona faces serious obstacles in the federal courts.

The administration needs to show that S.B. 1070, Arizona's law authorizing state officials to enforce federal immigration law, is "preempted" – that it runs afoul of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which confirms that federal law supersedes state law. To that end, the complaint's opening paragraphs stake an uncontroversial claim: "[i]n our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters."

Certainly no one would dispute that the federal government is the "preeminent" architect of the nation's immigration policy. But it is quite another thing to say that federal law, through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, preempts S.B. 1070. In U.S. v. Arizona, the administration will have to prove the latter point – and that will be no small task.

The administration's primary obstacle is De Canas v. Bica (1976), in which the Supreme Court emphatically declared that federal immigration laws did not prohibit the states from enforcing the policies embodied by those federal immigration laws. (In that case, the state law was a California prohibition against the employment of illegal aliens.) The Court reviewed the text and history of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, and found no indication that "Congress intended to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, or the employment of illegal aliens in particular." According to the Court, states may enforce laws consistent with federal immigration laws, so long as the state does not "impose additional burdens not contemplated by Congress."

Arizona drafted its laws with De Canas firmly in mind, as S.B. 1070's architect, law professor Kris Kobach, explained in a recent interview. In fact, Arizona's recent brief in a separate lawsuit makes this very point. Last month, Arizona moved to dismiss Friendly House v. Whiting, a class action lawsuit brought against S.B. 1070 by the ACLU and other groups. Responding in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was based on arguments that S.B. 1070 improperly regulates immigration, Arizona drew De Canas's crucial distinction: The ACLU is "confusing enforcement of federal immigration regulations (which S.B. 1070 seeks to accomplish) with enactment of Arizona-specific 'regulation of immigration' (which federal law would preempt)."

Arizona's brief lays out in straightforward detail the absence of any of the traditional bases for federal preemption of state law. As De Canas explained, the federal immigration statutes lack an express statement that federal law prohibits states from enforcing federal immigration law. Similarly, federal law does not so thoroughly "occupy the field" of immigration regulation that it leaves no room for state involvement in the federal statutes' enforcement. Finally, S.B. 1070 does not "conflict" with federal law: It neither interferes with the accomplishment of federal immigration statutes nor creates legal standards that contradict the federal statutes.

While the Obama administration phrased its complaint in broad terms, it appears to be framing this case primarily as one of "conflict" or "field" preemption. Namely, in administering the federal immigration laws, "the federal agencies balance the complex – and often competing – objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy," and that the "nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests." In fact, the Obama administration goes so far as to assert that S.B. 1070 prevents it from getting tough on truly nasty illegal immigrants: "S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety ... undermin[ing] the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement policies and objectives."


But that line of argument wholly misses the point. When courts decide whether federal law preempts state law, the question is not whether the state law conflicts with the president's selective enforcement of federal statutes. The question is whether the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment ... of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," as embodied by the federal statutes. S.B. 1070 satisfies that test – it does nothing more than allow state officials to enforce Congress's purposes and objectives as expressed in current federal statutes.

And while the Obama administration's complaint cites several federal statutes that stop short of levying upon illegal immigrants the sorts of criminal sanctions imposed by S.B. 1070 (e.g., humanitarian exceptions of asylum), it identifies no part of S.B. 1070 that specifically requires state officials or judges from incorporating those federal limits into their own actions, to the necessary extent. Indeed, by suggesting that S.B. 1070's sanctions against persons "unlawfully present" in the United States do not take into account federal asylum determinations, the Obama administration interprets S.B. 1070 in the worst possible light. But a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that courts should, whenever possible, interpret statutes in a way that minimizes or avoids such constitutional conflicts.

As it happens, the Supreme Court may weigh in on these types of questions long before the lower federal courts resolve the Obama administration's case. In the upcoming term, the Court will hear Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, which presents a similar constitutional challenge to another Arizona immigration-related statute – one that was signed into law, ironically enough, by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. In that case, the traditionally liberal Ninth Circuit ruled in Arizona's favor, holding that federal law does not preempt Arizona's law punishing employers that hire illegal aliens.

No one gets rich betting big against the U.S Department of Justice. Its lawyers are among this nation's very finest. But the Obama administration's decision to commence this controversial lawsuit will require them to put their formidable talents to the test.

Adam J. White is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.

Pathetic but funny:

 

Polls you live by:

26% Strongly approve of President's job performance % Strongly disapprove

Presidential approval index rating -17 difference

46% Somewhat approve

53% Somewhat disapprove

56% Oppose Justice Department getting involved in Arizona immigration law

61% Favor similiar immigration law in their state

Quote du jour:

I'm against a homogenized society, because I want the cream to rise.

Robert Frost (Take that Mr. Obama)

Writings of Our Founding Fathers

Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 51


The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments


From the New York Packet.


Friday, February 8, 1788.


Author: Alexander Hamilton or James Madison






To the People of the State of New York:


TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention. In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them. It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test. There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.


PUBLIUS.

References:
http://www.hotair.com/
http://www.wnd.com/
http://www.nro.com/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/
http://www.thehill.com/
http://www..drudgereport.com/
http://www.politico.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.quotationspage.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.newsmax.com/
Adam J. White
Ed Morrissey
Maroules
Library of Congress/Federalist Papers