I've discovered on-line a 10 question form that the Census bureau is supposedly going to ask everyone in April. Frankly, I don't see how these questions are constitutional. You'll see once you read the questions and see the video that I've also posted on my blog. For instance, what business is it of the government whether I rent or own my property? Are they planning on looking up my mortgage and putting pressure on the bank to foreclose if I don't answer these questions? They already have my address, can't they just go look? Or is that unconstitutional? Isn't this voluntary? If I answer, does that imply consent? Are they just assuming that I'm giving consent? What if I don't want to give consent for them to look into my records?
I believe the constitution states that the government has a right to COUNT the people of the United States every 10 years. It doesn't say anything about finding out how many of them have a mortgage and how many of them own their houses free and clear, or rent. And what do they mean by occupied without payment of rent? We still have squatters in America? Can I take the 5th amendment on that one?
And I thought it was for your family? This census wants to know if there is anyone living or staying in your house, apartment, mobile home. Then it asks did you leave anyone out? Are you lying to us? Are you kidding me? Are there any additional people staying there that you didn't tell us about in question 1? What kind of question is that? And you want my phone number? I think not. The person coming to my door is going to be a stranger to me, no matter that they have a census badge. They are going to be some Joe Blow you hired off the street, for a seasonal job. Do I really believe you did a background check on him/her? Not a snowball's chance in Hell are you going to get me to give this person my phone number. And dirt bags can hide behind a suit, too. Look at Ted Bundy.
And now they want everyone in the house to supply their name, age, date of birth. I worked for the Police Department. Did you know with a name, state, address and date of birth, you don't need a social security number? So it's a moot point that they aren't asking for your social security number. They can get all your information with your name and date of birth. They already have your street address, they're at your house. Once again, I'll pleading the 5th. Another question I'm not answering. They'll have to cross reference my tax returns. Ask Tim Geithner. He has all that information.
Plus you have to give the relationships of all person's in the house. Plus you're supposed to divulge their nationality. Now, do I say I'm part Native American? I do have Osage and Blackfoot in my background. Would that get me more funding from the government? I believe I'm about 1/16th, maybe more. That makes my children 1/32nd. Woo hoo, there was a clause in the health care bill about free health care for Indians.
I don't know what the penalties are for not answering, but I'm gonna risk it. I'm gonna mail a copy of the constitution in with it and ask them to find in it where it states I have to answer those questions. As soon as they can point out to me where it says I have to answer those particular questions, I will. Until then, they can get my NAME and age and the relationship of the members of my household. And that's it. No date of birth, no mortgage, no phone number. If they need further information they have my address. They can send the black helicopters to get me.
I say we start a campaign to not answer the questions beyond name, age, relationship of people in the house. Mail them a copy of the constitution, or hand it to the census taker. Tell them when they can point out in the constitution where it's legal to ask those questions, we'll answer them.
________________________________
The instructions require respondents to count all people, including babies, who live and sleep in the household most of the time. Respondents should not count people living away at college, in the armed forces, in jail or prison, or in a nursing home. But respondents should include anyone without another permanent place to stay.
1. How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
2. Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Children, such as newborn babies or foster children
Relatives, such as adult children, cousins, or in-laws
Nonrelatives, such as roommates or live-in baby sitters
People staying here temporarily
No additional people
3. Is this house, apartment or mobile home -
Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan?
Owned by you or someone in this household free and clear (without a mortgage or loan)?
Rented?
Occupied without payment of rent?
4. What is your telephone number?
Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person living here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here.
5. What is Person 1's name?
6. What is Person 1's sex?
7. What is Person 1's age and what is Person 1's date of birth?
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
9. What is Person 1's race?
10. Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?
In college housing
In the military
At a seasonal or second residence
For child custody
In jail or prison
In a nursing home
For another reason
(For each additional person, answer Questions 5 to 10 above, plus this question:)
11. How is this person related to Person 1?
Husband or wife
Biological son or daughter
Adopted son or daughter
Stepson or stepdaughter
Brother or sister
Father or mother
Grandchild
Parent-in-law
Son-in-law or daughter-in-law
Other relative
Roomer or boarder
Housemate or roommate
Unmarried partner
Other non-relative
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Federalist Papers Critiqued Part 3
I, once again, am not the end all, tell all authority on the Federalist Papers. I heard Glenn Beck throw down the gauntlett in asking that someone interpret it in common language, and this is my attempt. I have done the first 2 chapters, if you want to look at my other blogs, this is chapter 3. Thanks for reading, I hope this makes it a bit easier.
Number 3: The Same Subject Continued (Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence) by John Jay
It's not new that people of any country, even an intelligent and well-informed country such as America, seldom adopt and can go on for years with the wrong opinion regarding their own interests. This is the reason why Americans naturally respect the high opinion and why Americans have considered it important that we have a federal government that is vested with a power, powers sufficient for the general and national purposes.
The more I investigate the reasons for the beginning of this opinion, the more I am convinced the reasons are convincing and final.
Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people leads to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and you have to give freedom to act to those who wish to define it precisely and understandably.
Right now, I only mean to define it as the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as well as from dangers arising from domestic causes. As the former comes first in order, they will be discussed first. Let us examine whether a friendly Union, under a national government, affords them the best security that can be given against hostilities from abroad.
The number of wars which have happened or will happen will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or made up, which provoke them. If this is accurate, then we have to look at whether just as many wars will be started by a United America as a disunited America; for it should turn out that a united America would probably give the fewest, because it will follow that a Union would preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violations of treaties or direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain and with respect to the two latter (Spain and Britain) being neighbors to their territories (Canada and Mexico).
It is of high importance with America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and it would be easier if she were one national government than thirteen separate States or three or four distinct confederacies. For this opinion, I can state various reasons.
Once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but will be appointed to manage it. Though town or country may place men in State assemblies or senates or courts of justice or executive departments, there will be need for men of talents and other qualifications for offices under the national government. Though it is not uncommon to want for proper persons of experience in some States, we'll have the whole nation to pull from for the nation. It will result that the administration, the political counsels and judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematic and judicious than the individual States and therefore more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.
Under the national government, treaties will be explained in detail, and executed in the same manner, the hearing of court cases on the same points and questions in thirteen States or in three or four confederacies, will not always be consistent, or as well by a variety of independent governments from different local laws with different interests and influences. The wisdom of the convention in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed only to one national government cannot be recommended too strongly.
It may tempt a State to swerve from good faith and justice because they will be giving up the advantage they currently hold; but those temptations, not reaching other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, will be fruitless, and your good faith and justice must be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.
Even if the governing party in a State should resist such temptations, they may persist. They result from circumstances peculiar to the State and may affect the inhabitants of that State and the governing party may not always be able to prevent the injustice meditated, or punish aggressors. The national government, not being affected by local circumstances, will neither be persuaded to commit the wrong themselves, nor want the power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.
So far, therefore, violations of treaties, either designed or accidental, and laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be grasped under one general government than under several lesser ones, and this favors the safety of the people.
As to the just causes of war that proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it's equally clear that one good national government gives vastly more security against dangers than that which can be derived from any other source.
Such violence more frequently occur because of the passions and interests of a part, rather than a whole, of one or two States rather than a Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been produced by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is, but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by improper conduct of individual States who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, causes quarrels more immediately with those border States. It might cause those States to incite war, under impulse of sudden irritation and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury; and nothing can so get rid of that danger so quickly as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence which will lower the passions and act in the interests of both parties involved.
But, not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them by friendly means. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect as well as others, will be more in capacity to act with more caution than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases will not be affected by this pride, and will proceed with moderation and candor and decide on means most proper to get them out of the difficulties that threaten them.
Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State of little consideration or power.
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa, having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain or any other powerful nation?
PUBLIUS [Jay]
Number 3: The Same Subject Continued (Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence) by John Jay
It's not new that people of any country, even an intelligent and well-informed country such as America, seldom adopt and can go on for years with the wrong opinion regarding their own interests. This is the reason why Americans naturally respect the high opinion and why Americans have considered it important that we have a federal government that is vested with a power, powers sufficient for the general and national purposes.
The more I investigate the reasons for the beginning of this opinion, the more I am convinced the reasons are convincing and final.
Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people leads to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and you have to give freedom to act to those who wish to define it precisely and understandably.
Right now, I only mean to define it as the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as well as from dangers arising from domestic causes. As the former comes first in order, they will be discussed first. Let us examine whether a friendly Union, under a national government, affords them the best security that can be given against hostilities from abroad.
The number of wars which have happened or will happen will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or made up, which provoke them. If this is accurate, then we have to look at whether just as many wars will be started by a United America as a disunited America; for it should turn out that a united America would probably give the fewest, because it will follow that a Union would preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.
The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violations of treaties or direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain and with respect to the two latter (Spain and Britain) being neighbors to their territories (Canada and Mexico).
It is of high importance with America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and it would be easier if she were one national government than thirteen separate States or three or four distinct confederacies. For this opinion, I can state various reasons.
Once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but will be appointed to manage it. Though town or country may place men in State assemblies or senates or courts of justice or executive departments, there will be need for men of talents and other qualifications for offices under the national government. Though it is not uncommon to want for proper persons of experience in some States, we'll have the whole nation to pull from for the nation. It will result that the administration, the political counsels and judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematic and judicious than the individual States and therefore more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us.
Under the national government, treaties will be explained in detail, and executed in the same manner, the hearing of court cases on the same points and questions in thirteen States or in three or four confederacies, will not always be consistent, or as well by a variety of independent governments from different local laws with different interests and influences. The wisdom of the convention in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed only to one national government cannot be recommended too strongly.
It may tempt a State to swerve from good faith and justice because they will be giving up the advantage they currently hold; but those temptations, not reaching other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, will be fruitless, and your good faith and justice must be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.
Even if the governing party in a State should resist such temptations, they may persist. They result from circumstances peculiar to the State and may affect the inhabitants of that State and the governing party may not always be able to prevent the injustice meditated, or punish aggressors. The national government, not being affected by local circumstances, will neither be persuaded to commit the wrong themselves, nor want the power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.
So far, therefore, violations of treaties, either designed or accidental, and laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be grasped under one general government than under several lesser ones, and this favors the safety of the people.
As to the just causes of war that proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it's equally clear that one good national government gives vastly more security against dangers than that which can be derived from any other source.
Such violence more frequently occur because of the passions and interests of a part, rather than a whole, of one or two States rather than a Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been produced by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is, but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by improper conduct of individual States who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants.
The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, causes quarrels more immediately with those border States. It might cause those States to incite war, under impulse of sudden irritation and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury; and nothing can so get rid of that danger so quickly as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence which will lower the passions and act in the interests of both parties involved.
But, not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them by friendly means. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect as well as others, will be more in capacity to act with more caution than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases will not be affected by this pride, and will proceed with moderation and candor and decide on means most proper to get them out of the difficulties that threaten them.
Besides, it is well known that acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State of little consideration or power.
In the year 1685, the state of Genoa, having offended Louis XIV, endeavored to appease him. He demanded that they send their Doge, or chief magistrate, accompanied by four of their senators, to France, to ask his pardon and receive his terms. They obliged to submit to it for the sake of peace. Would he on any occasion either have demanded or have received the like humiliation from Spain, or Britain or any other powerful nation?
PUBLIUS [Jay]
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Federalist Papers Critique, Part 2
Concerning Danger From Foreign Force and Influence
by John Jay (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs)
(As noted before, I am not a political analyst, nor am I the end all, tell all for the Federalist Papers. This is just my interpretation of what I think they are saying. Take it with a grain of salt.)
The question put before the American people will, by it's consequences become evident that it is very important. It is possibly the most important decision to ever engage their attention.
No one can argue that we need government. It's also undeniable that when government is put in place, the people will turn over some of their natural rights in order to vest those rights in the government. We should consider whether it be in the best interest of the people of America whether that should be under one nation or separate confederacies and give the head of each of those the said powers instead of one national government.
Up to now, it's been held that we should be united, and the wishes, prayers and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been concentrated towards that effort. But now politicians are now saying that's wrong, and instead of looking for happiness in unity, we should split up into separate confederacies or sovereignities. No matter how this sounds, there are those that support it, and the numbers are growing. The arguments don't matter. Before you allow yourself to be swayed, make sure they're based on truth and sound policy.
(He looks on this country and notices that we aren't made up of individual distant territories, but on connected, fertile wide spreading country.) Providence (meaning God) blessed this land with a variety of soils and produce and streams and accommodations for it's inhabitants. A great variety of navigable streams form a chain around its borders as if to bind it together, while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distance, make highways for transporting goods.
With equal pleasure, I've noticed Providence (God) seemed pleased to give this land to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs and who have by fighting side by side established their general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears to be designed by Providence (God). It seems our inheritance, for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest of ties, and we shouldn't be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.
This is a common sentiment among all orders and denominations of me among us. We're united in this thought. So far, we've been united as a people, enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of value and blessings of union caused the people, at a very early period, to set up a federal government to preserve and keep it going. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence, even while their houses were still in flames, while their people were still bleeding, before hostilities were even over. Starting a government before hostilities are over doesn't leave much room for calm and mature inquiries and reflections for the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It's no wonder that under such unfavorable conditions that a government started would be deficient and inadequate for the purpose it was intended to answer.
There were intelligent people who realized this and regretted these defects. So, still no less attached to union, than loving liberty, they saw the danger that threatened the former (union) and more remotely the latter (liberty), and being persuaded that security for both could only be found in a national government wisely framed, they met in Philadelphia to consider that subject.
This convention was composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people and many of who had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men. In a mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
And that's why it is recommended, and not imposed. It is not recommended that you throw it out blindly, nor accept it blindly, but that you give it the magnitude and sedate consideration and importance of the subject it demands, and which it ought to receive. But, it's been already remarked, that it is more wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined. Experience has taught us on more than one occasion that it is a high hope. Let's not forget it was the fear of imminent danger that brought the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet the press tore them apart and wrote against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, because they thought they'd be caught up in consequences, due to old attachments or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were untiring in their efforts to persuade the people to reject the advice of patriotic Congress. Many were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. They would be from different parts of the country, brought together and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired accurate knowledge in the head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations made the people rely greatly on the judgement and integrity of the Congress; they began to take their advice no matter the various arts and endeavors used to deter and dissuade them from it. But, if the people at large had reason to have confidence in the men of that congress, when they weren't fully tried or known, they have more reason now. They are even older now and have grown in political knowledge and proved their patriotism and are members of this convention and carry their acquired knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress as well as the late convention have invariably joined with the people in thinking that America's prosperity is linked to it's being a Union. The reason of the convention was to keep it a union. What good purpose is it to depreciate, or make it of less importance? Why would you even suggest that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always been right on this subject, and their attachment to the cause of the union rests on great and weighty reasons which I shall try to develop and explain in later papers. They who proclaim the substituting a number of distinct confederacies on the table as a plan for the convention to consider seem to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case and I wish every good citizen would see that if the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet:
FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.
by John Jay (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs)
(As noted before, I am not a political analyst, nor am I the end all, tell all for the Federalist Papers. This is just my interpretation of what I think they are saying. Take it with a grain of salt.)
The question put before the American people will, by it's consequences become evident that it is very important. It is possibly the most important decision to ever engage their attention.
No one can argue that we need government. It's also undeniable that when government is put in place, the people will turn over some of their natural rights in order to vest those rights in the government. We should consider whether it be in the best interest of the people of America whether that should be under one nation or separate confederacies and give the head of each of those the said powers instead of one national government.
Up to now, it's been held that we should be united, and the wishes, prayers and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been concentrated towards that effort. But now politicians are now saying that's wrong, and instead of looking for happiness in unity, we should split up into separate confederacies or sovereignities. No matter how this sounds, there are those that support it, and the numbers are growing. The arguments don't matter. Before you allow yourself to be swayed, make sure they're based on truth and sound policy.
(He looks on this country and notices that we aren't made up of individual distant territories, but on connected, fertile wide spreading country.) Providence (meaning God) blessed this land with a variety of soils and produce and streams and accommodations for it's inhabitants. A great variety of navigable streams form a chain around its borders as if to bind it together, while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distance, make highways for transporting goods.
With equal pleasure, I've noticed Providence (God) seemed pleased to give this land to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in manners and customs and who have by fighting side by side established their general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears to be designed by Providence (God). It seems our inheritance, for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest of ties, and we shouldn't be split into a number of unsocial, jealous and alien sovereignties.
This is a common sentiment among all orders and denominations of me among us. We're united in this thought. So far, we've been united as a people, enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
A strong sense of value and blessings of union caused the people, at a very early period, to set up a federal government to preserve and keep it going. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence, even while their houses were still in flames, while their people were still bleeding, before hostilities were even over. Starting a government before hostilities are over doesn't leave much room for calm and mature inquiries and reflections for the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It's no wonder that under such unfavorable conditions that a government started would be deficient and inadequate for the purpose it was intended to answer.
There were intelligent people who realized this and regretted these defects. So, still no less attached to union, than loving liberty, they saw the danger that threatened the former (union) and more remotely the latter (liberty), and being persuaded that security for both could only be found in a national government wisely framed, they met in Philadelphia to consider that subject.
This convention was composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people and many of who had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men. In a mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.
And that's why it is recommended, and not imposed. It is not recommended that you throw it out blindly, nor accept it blindly, but that you give it the magnitude and sedate consideration and importance of the subject it demands, and which it ought to receive. But, it's been already remarked, that it is more wished than expected that it may be so considered and examined. Experience has taught us on more than one occasion that it is a high hope. Let's not forget it was the fear of imminent danger that brought the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet the press tore them apart and wrote against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, because they thought they'd be caught up in consequences, due to old attachments or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were untiring in their efforts to persuade the people to reject the advice of patriotic Congress. Many were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.
They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. They would be from different parts of the country, brought together and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired accurate knowledge in the head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.
These and similar considerations made the people rely greatly on the judgement and integrity of the Congress; they began to take their advice no matter the various arts and endeavors used to deter and dissuade them from it. But, if the people at large had reason to have confidence in the men of that congress, when they weren't fully tried or known, they have more reason now. They are even older now and have grown in political knowledge and proved their patriotism and are members of this convention and carry their acquired knowledge and experience.
It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress as well as the late convention have invariably joined with the people in thinking that America's prosperity is linked to it's being a Union. The reason of the convention was to keep it a union. What good purpose is it to depreciate, or make it of less importance? Why would you even suggest that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always been right on this subject, and their attachment to the cause of the union rests on great and weighty reasons which I shall try to develop and explain in later papers. They who proclaim the substituting a number of distinct confederacies on the table as a plan for the convention to consider seem to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case and I wish every good citizen would see that if the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet:
FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Federalist Papers Critique, Part 1 - Introduction
I will be attempting to put into everyday language the Federalist papers. This is a huge task, and I don't even pretend to be the end all, tell all expert on this. This is just my understanding of it, in my humble, Midwestern education.
The subject of this paper tells how important it is. Understanding just the very existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts that make up the UNION itself, and the fate of our empire are in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been remarked (to Alexander Hamilton or his generation) that the people of this country, by the way they act and their example, will decide this important question: whether or not we are capable of establishing good government or whether we are destined to for ever depend on accident and force, presumably of others. That decision is made in that era, for all of us in our era. If they make a mistake, it would be the misfortune of all mankind. (They felt the weight of their decision.)
This concept adds the motivations of loving all of mankind to those of patriotism, and heightens the solitude that good men feel for this event. They must examine their true interests and make sure they are unbiased by considerations connected with the public good. (But he knew it was hard to do. And he knew there were special interests at hand.) Men have passions, points of view, prejudices that would get in the way of the discovery of truth.
The biggest obstacle to the new constitution would be a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which would cause a lowering of power. (He knew that some men would lose power, and would be loath to give it up, once they got it.) Another obstacle would be the perverted ambition of another class of men who would hope to raise themselves by confusing their country, or to cause separations among the country instead of unifying the country under one government.
(But, that said, he doesn't want to dwell on that. Nothing to see here, let's move along. He knows he'd be lying if he thought he could squelch all the opposition of any set of men who are only interested in personal ambition.) Some will be seeking upright intentions. Some may be lead astray by others. We will see wise men on both sides of the questions and they may be serving a just cause out of a false bias to the judgement. So we must use our judgement and make sure we are right on any controversy. And those that advocate for truth are not always pure in their stand, either. Ambition, covetousness, personal animosity, party opposition and other motives are more praiseworthy sometimes and operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of the question. Just like in religion, you can't win people by beating them over the head with your ideas. (I believe the phrase here would be you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.)
(But he knows that passions will be unleashed across the nation.) According to the opposite party, we can conclude that they will together hope to show that their views are right and convince everyone of it by how loudly they talk and how bitter they attack. But their zeal is hostile to the principles of liberty. We will be represented as acting on the heart instead of the head, and against the public good. But, jealousy is usually the result of violent love, and noble enthusiasm of liberty and being infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. It will also be forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty. We need a sound and well-informed judgement, and their interests can never be separated. A dangerous ambition often lurks behind that zeal for government efficiency that masquerades as a zeal for the people. History teaches that the first has been found to be a certain road to the introduction to despotism. These are the men who have overturned the liberties of republics. These men usually begin their career by paying a meanly servile court to the people, and ending as tyrants.
I want to keep my eye on putting you on your guard against all attempts to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare other than the truth. These people are not friendly to the new constitution. After having considered it, I think it's in your best interest to adopt it. It is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity and your happiness. I'm not going to pretend to deliberate over it, when I've already decided. I will lay before you the reasons.
I propose in a series of papers to discuss the following particulars: The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government with at least as much energy to do this -- A Constitution with the principles of a republican government -- it's analogy to your own State constitution --and lastly, to preserve liberty and property.
I will also try to answer the objections that have come up.
It may be thought of as shallow to offer arguments to prove the necessity of a UNION, no doubt engraved deeply on the hearts of a great body of people in every State, and it may be imagined that we have no adversaries. But it's been whispered that 13 states are too many and we need separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This will probably be proposed until it has enough to be looked upon. It would be looked upon as an alternative to the new constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils and probable dangers that every state will be exposed to if it fell apart. We'll look at that next.
The subject of this paper tells how important it is. Understanding just the very existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts that make up the UNION itself, and the fate of our empire are in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been remarked (to Alexander Hamilton or his generation) that the people of this country, by the way they act and their example, will decide this important question: whether or not we are capable of establishing good government or whether we are destined to for ever depend on accident and force, presumably of others. That decision is made in that era, for all of us in our era. If they make a mistake, it would be the misfortune of all mankind. (They felt the weight of their decision.)
This concept adds the motivations of loving all of mankind to those of patriotism, and heightens the solitude that good men feel for this event. They must examine their true interests and make sure they are unbiased by considerations connected with the public good. (But he knew it was hard to do. And he knew there were special interests at hand.) Men have passions, points of view, prejudices that would get in the way of the discovery of truth.
The biggest obstacle to the new constitution would be a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which would cause a lowering of power. (He knew that some men would lose power, and would be loath to give it up, once they got it.) Another obstacle would be the perverted ambition of another class of men who would hope to raise themselves by confusing their country, or to cause separations among the country instead of unifying the country under one government.
(But, that said, he doesn't want to dwell on that. Nothing to see here, let's move along. He knows he'd be lying if he thought he could squelch all the opposition of any set of men who are only interested in personal ambition.) Some will be seeking upright intentions. Some may be lead astray by others. We will see wise men on both sides of the questions and they may be serving a just cause out of a false bias to the judgement. So we must use our judgement and make sure we are right on any controversy. And those that advocate for truth are not always pure in their stand, either. Ambition, covetousness, personal animosity, party opposition and other motives are more praiseworthy sometimes and operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of the question. Just like in religion, you can't win people by beating them over the head with your ideas. (I believe the phrase here would be you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.)
(But he knows that passions will be unleashed across the nation.) According to the opposite party, we can conclude that they will together hope to show that their views are right and convince everyone of it by how loudly they talk and how bitter they attack. But their zeal is hostile to the principles of liberty. We will be represented as acting on the heart instead of the head, and against the public good. But, jealousy is usually the result of violent love, and noble enthusiasm of liberty and being infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. It will also be forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty. We need a sound and well-informed judgement, and their interests can never be separated. A dangerous ambition often lurks behind that zeal for government efficiency that masquerades as a zeal for the people. History teaches that the first has been found to be a certain road to the introduction to despotism. These are the men who have overturned the liberties of republics. These men usually begin their career by paying a meanly servile court to the people, and ending as tyrants.
I want to keep my eye on putting you on your guard against all attempts to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare other than the truth. These people are not friendly to the new constitution. After having considered it, I think it's in your best interest to adopt it. It is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity and your happiness. I'm not going to pretend to deliberate over it, when I've already decided. I will lay before you the reasons.
I propose in a series of papers to discuss the following particulars: The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government with at least as much energy to do this -- A Constitution with the principles of a republican government -- it's analogy to your own State constitution --and lastly, to preserve liberty and property.
I will also try to answer the objections that have come up.
It may be thought of as shallow to offer arguments to prove the necessity of a UNION, no doubt engraved deeply on the hearts of a great body of people in every State, and it may be imagined that we have no adversaries. But it's been whispered that 13 states are too many and we need separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This will probably be proposed until it has enough to be looked upon. It would be looked upon as an alternative to the new constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils and probable dangers that every state will be exposed to if it fell apart. We'll look at that next.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Trust Me, I'm With The Government, I'm Here to Help
Well, I was always the rebel child, and I recognize condescension when I hear it. I recognize patronizing speaking when I hear it. I recognize telling people what they want to hear, when I hear it. Did he hold a private conference with all the Progressives and say, don't worry, I don't mean a word I'm about to say? You have Bobble-head Biden and Puppet Master Pelosi in the background. Why do I call them that? Well, I saw Speaker Pelosi grab the President of the United States and pull him in and say something to him. Now, who in their right mind, would do that? Since when does the Speaker of the House think she can shake the hand of the President of the Free World and feel she has enough power to pull him towards her for a comment? Rather familiar, aren't we? He was almost caught off balance. Is she the Puppet Master? Is President Obama the Key Master? We have got to get the two of these together...no wait, different movie. Who ya gonna call?
And how dare he start out mentioning the constitution, the man who has stomped all over it. Is he trying to pull together the tea party movement? Is he placating, or what? As an overall critique, I counted 3 blame Bush's, 1 blame Americans, 3 blame Wall Street and a couple blame the banks. But I was watching and not keeping close count. I have to admit, this is the first State of the Union address I have watched all the way through, ever. I also caught him in 4 lies. Me, and I am new to politics, caught him in 4 lies. I'm not a political analyst. I am an average American citizen, a mom. And I caught him in lies. I'm worried because my children's future is at stake.
1. He said he was against the bank bailouts. Didn't he do them? He sold us on it. He told us it was necessary. He told us it was a good thing. Now he's against them?
2. He told us if we had done nothing unemployment would be double what it is now. WHAT? He told us if we do nothing, unemployment will go as high as 8%....it's 10.5 reported if you don't count the people who have given up....if you count the people who have given up, I believe the numbers are as high as 17%...I don't have those numbers on hand. We HAD to do the stimulus because to do nothing would be BAD. Now doing nothing would have caused 20% umemployment? Wait, is that new math?
3. You can keep your doctors and your plan. I have read the health care plan. I know this is a lie. If ANYTHING in your health care plan changes, a deductible, they drop a doctor, ANY ONE SINGLE THING, the plan goes away. In the senate version, if the insurance company is out of compliance, they will be fined $1 per life covered PER DAY that they are out of compliance. Let's say they have 1 million people covered. The Secretary of Heath services says they're out of compliance.....they owe 1 million dollars a day until they are in compliance. Can they rewrite the policy in one day?
4. The health care bill will reduce the deficit. This might be a lie on the surface, but if you count all the insurance companies that will be out of compliance, it might be the truth. And if you count the death panels and the number of people the health care will kill, it might be the truth. Now, libs, don't tell me there aren't death panels. Can you say mammogram guidelines? There's also a line in there about insurance companies will use established guidelines to determine what they will pay for, and what to cover. So, who can just go out and pay for a mammogram if their insurance company doesn't? I can't. Insurance company says no, you don't get one. I got breast cancer at the age of 41. I'd be dead.
Now, for specifics. He mentioned struggles. How does he know about struggles? He lived a life of privilege. Didn't he have a step father in the embassy? Then he got sent to his Hawaiian banker grandmother? He got a grant for college? Where's the struggle? Oh, he's read about it. Let's see, my brother got given a car, he didn't take care of it. He bought one and took care of that one. It's different when you live through it versus reading about it.
He talks about taxing all the big banks. Did he take any economic classes? I did. If you tax a company, do you think they will consider it their patriotic duty to just absorb that? No. They are going to pass it along to their consumers. They are going to suddenly start charging for everything. Just like suddenly we have to pay for every bag we check on the airlines. Oh, it's to pay for gas. That's like taking a cab ride and having to pay for the gas, too. Why doesn't he just shut down the banks? Because he knows the American people would scream socialism. They did that in the early 1900's. Have you noticed the definitions on the internet lately? No one really can tell you what socialism is. It's taking over the banks, businesses, by the government. This way he can regulate them out of business and say he didn't do it on a socialist ticket. Because what do you think the American people are going to do when their banks start charging them for everything...no more free checks, charges for transfers, charges for more than 5 auto transfers to cover a bounced check or whatever? They are going to look for a smaller bank. The big banks are going to be looking for a bail out, or they're going to collapse. And he said that all with that angry face...that's his I had to say it face.
And we didn't get a tax break....I didn't see it in my paycheck. I saw withholding go down. I mentioned that in my introduction. Am I going to owe it back? I'll let you know after I file.
And he did that whole "I don't accept second place for America," speech? Where did this patriotism come from? Since when is he even remotely patriotic? Since he became president? Since he's promoting a socialist Amerika? And that's not a typo, I think he wants Amerika. He knows so much better than WE, THE PEOPLE, what is best for us. It's like Hilary, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive. Progressive = Socialist. In her own words, America.
The sarcasm was just dripping from his speech, even the "I thought I'd get applause with that one." The Republicans could feel it. They don't like being locked out of the process. Even when the Republicans did have a majority, they didn't close the door and say you don't matter, Democrats, we're going to just forget you exist. And he speaks of trust? He wants transparency, without calling down the Democrats for hiding behind closed doors and making policy. And actually stand there and say he doesn't have lobbyists? Does he think we're all stupid? I've been in politics for a year, I may be naieve, but I ain't stupid. I know how to do research. And I don't get all my information from one spot, either.
And as a side note, someone should tell Pelosi that we can see her read the telepromter. Let the President read his own teleprompter. We don't need to know that you know before us what he's gonna say. At least pretend you don't know what he's gonna say.
And through the whole "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" part of the speech, he looked so bored. He doesn't believe or care if Americans are tough. He wants Americans to be European. Why is it that he can come up with such passion when another country needs help?
And in closing, I have a question? Where was the shout out to the police officers who took down the Fort Hood terrorist? I mean, they were sitting right beside your wife, Mr. President. Did you not see them? I mean, she is a petite little thing, sitting next to that Amazon of a woman. And I don't know her partner's politics, did you overlook him because they don't match yours, or because he's in the military? Or is it just because Major Hasan is Muslim, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions?
I may live in Texas currently, but I was born in Missouri. Show me I can trust you. Until then I feel like I stepped into Men In Black...Trust me, I'm with the government, I'm here to help. Only Will Smith is better looking.
And how dare he start out mentioning the constitution, the man who has stomped all over it. Is he trying to pull together the tea party movement? Is he placating, or what? As an overall critique, I counted 3 blame Bush's, 1 blame Americans, 3 blame Wall Street and a couple blame the banks. But I was watching and not keeping close count. I have to admit, this is the first State of the Union address I have watched all the way through, ever. I also caught him in 4 lies. Me, and I am new to politics, caught him in 4 lies. I'm not a political analyst. I am an average American citizen, a mom. And I caught him in lies. I'm worried because my children's future is at stake.
1. He said he was against the bank bailouts. Didn't he do them? He sold us on it. He told us it was necessary. He told us it was a good thing. Now he's against them?
2. He told us if we had done nothing unemployment would be double what it is now. WHAT? He told us if we do nothing, unemployment will go as high as 8%....it's 10.5 reported if you don't count the people who have given up....if you count the people who have given up, I believe the numbers are as high as 17%...I don't have those numbers on hand. We HAD to do the stimulus because to do nothing would be BAD. Now doing nothing would have caused 20% umemployment? Wait, is that new math?
3. You can keep your doctors and your plan. I have read the health care plan. I know this is a lie. If ANYTHING in your health care plan changes, a deductible, they drop a doctor, ANY ONE SINGLE THING, the plan goes away. In the senate version, if the insurance company is out of compliance, they will be fined $1 per life covered PER DAY that they are out of compliance. Let's say they have 1 million people covered. The Secretary of Heath services says they're out of compliance.....they owe 1 million dollars a day until they are in compliance. Can they rewrite the policy in one day?
4. The health care bill will reduce the deficit. This might be a lie on the surface, but if you count all the insurance companies that will be out of compliance, it might be the truth. And if you count the death panels and the number of people the health care will kill, it might be the truth. Now, libs, don't tell me there aren't death panels. Can you say mammogram guidelines? There's also a line in there about insurance companies will use established guidelines to determine what they will pay for, and what to cover. So, who can just go out and pay for a mammogram if their insurance company doesn't? I can't. Insurance company says no, you don't get one. I got breast cancer at the age of 41. I'd be dead.
Now, for specifics. He mentioned struggles. How does he know about struggles? He lived a life of privilege. Didn't he have a step father in the embassy? Then he got sent to his Hawaiian banker grandmother? He got a grant for college? Where's the struggle? Oh, he's read about it. Let's see, my brother got given a car, he didn't take care of it. He bought one and took care of that one. It's different when you live through it versus reading about it.
He talks about taxing all the big banks. Did he take any economic classes? I did. If you tax a company, do you think they will consider it their patriotic duty to just absorb that? No. They are going to pass it along to their consumers. They are going to suddenly start charging for everything. Just like suddenly we have to pay for every bag we check on the airlines. Oh, it's to pay for gas. That's like taking a cab ride and having to pay for the gas, too. Why doesn't he just shut down the banks? Because he knows the American people would scream socialism. They did that in the early 1900's. Have you noticed the definitions on the internet lately? No one really can tell you what socialism is. It's taking over the banks, businesses, by the government. This way he can regulate them out of business and say he didn't do it on a socialist ticket. Because what do you think the American people are going to do when their banks start charging them for everything...no more free checks, charges for transfers, charges for more than 5 auto transfers to cover a bounced check or whatever? They are going to look for a smaller bank. The big banks are going to be looking for a bail out, or they're going to collapse. And he said that all with that angry face...that's his I had to say it face.
And we didn't get a tax break....I didn't see it in my paycheck. I saw withholding go down. I mentioned that in my introduction. Am I going to owe it back? I'll let you know after I file.
And he did that whole "I don't accept second place for America," speech? Where did this patriotism come from? Since when is he even remotely patriotic? Since he became president? Since he's promoting a socialist Amerika? And that's not a typo, I think he wants Amerika. He knows so much better than WE, THE PEOPLE, what is best for us. It's like Hilary, I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Progressive. Progressive = Socialist. In her own words, America.
The sarcasm was just dripping from his speech, even the "I thought I'd get applause with that one." The Republicans could feel it. They don't like being locked out of the process. Even when the Republicans did have a majority, they didn't close the door and say you don't matter, Democrats, we're going to just forget you exist. And he speaks of trust? He wants transparency, without calling down the Democrats for hiding behind closed doors and making policy. And actually stand there and say he doesn't have lobbyists? Does he think we're all stupid? I've been in politics for a year, I may be naieve, but I ain't stupid. I know how to do research. And I don't get all my information from one spot, either.
And as a side note, someone should tell Pelosi that we can see her read the telepromter. Let the President read his own teleprompter. We don't need to know that you know before us what he's gonna say. At least pretend you don't know what he's gonna say.
And through the whole "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" part of the speech, he looked so bored. He doesn't believe or care if Americans are tough. He wants Americans to be European. Why is it that he can come up with such passion when another country needs help?
And in closing, I have a question? Where was the shout out to the police officers who took down the Fort Hood terrorist? I mean, they were sitting right beside your wife, Mr. President. Did you not see them? I mean, she is a petite little thing, sitting next to that Amazon of a woman. And I don't know her partner's politics, did you overlook him because they don't match yours, or because he's in the military? Or is it just because Major Hasan is Muslim, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions?
I may live in Texas currently, but I was born in Missouri. Show me I can trust you. Until then I feel like I stepped into Men In Black...Trust me, I'm with the government, I'm here to help. Only Will Smith is better looking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)