- Here's one more opinion regarding Federalist #10 (written by James Madison not Hamilton). It primarily addresses the age old well understood problem of "factions" or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today's discourse the term would apply to all sorts of advocacy or special interest groups. Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection."It is my observation it is cited by scholars and jurists of all types as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the political theory underlying the Constitution. Furthermore it describes the most probable means by which our Republic would fail and I submit the described failure is playing out before our eyes.I’ve said it in this forum and others and I’ll say it again here. All other considerations aside, accurate or not, if I were forced to recommend only one of the Federalist Papers, it would be #10 HANDS DOWN.You could read and study this one paper over and over and it would IMO do you no harm whatsoever.Here is a LINK to this profound paper. Read and decide for yourself.
- Permalink Reply by on
- here are some quotes from Madison which will provide some insight into his thinking in N0. 10If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction. – Letter to Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21)
Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience, which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection for which the public faith is pledged by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact. – “Property” in The National Gazette (29 March 1792)I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – Annals of Congress (1794-01-10)Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – Political Observations” (1795-04-20)Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. – Letter to Thomas Jefferson (1798-05-13)
- Permalink Reply by on
- I think that you understate the word ""factions" or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others."" I believe that it refers to any group period. It could be labor Unions, It could be the Tea Party the Idea is to not allow any group to gain the majority against the existing controlling power in today's world. That would IMO be the Progressives in control of today's political machine at the time of founding of the country it would have been the Federalist.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I absolutely agree with you on this. A faction in the context of this paper is:
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."This definition could as you suggest apply to any group or special interest "...adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
- Permalink Reply by on
- John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."[2] Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[3] The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
No single individual is allowed to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead, these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. In a constitutional republic, "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."[4]
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court by a vote of 4-3 put down the Judges decision the "Union" law was void. In the decision the SC said that the Judge had USURPED powers that the State Constitution gave exclusively to the legislature. She had not power over the legislature. The article was in today's WSJ but did not give many details.This could be a land mark case for future challenges to courts and legislatures as it addresses the USURPATION ISSUE?
- Permalink Reply by on
- I do not think the Unions will want to be exposed to a National case on usurped powers as they are the beneficiaries of same. Organizing RULES and FORCED DUES might then get questioned on a National floor? Not in their best interest IMO.With the 10th amendment issues working their way through the courts and the nullification issues working through the courts - Justice Kennedy becomes the most powerful man in American legal history.
- Permalink Reply by on
- In response to Tuesday’s state Supreme Court ruling, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) and other unions filed a federal lawsuit. According to WEAC’s parent union, the National Education Association,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jun2011/pers-j16.shtml
The Wisconsin Education Association Council, a National Education Association affiliate, has joined a broad coalition of Wisconsin unions in filing a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin challenging the constitutionality of the state’s Budget Repair Bill. NEA worked to develop the lawsuit and will assist with its litigation.
http://neatoday.org/2011/06/15/unions-file-suit-in-federal-court-to...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan - those are scary sites? Interesting that they are most concerned about having money directly deducted from employees and sent to the UNION MANAGEMENT.Remember our 14th amendment arguments here it is again to limit States Powers and rights?The lawsuit charges that the Budget Repair Bill violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by stripping away basic rights to bargain, organize and associate to engage in union and political activity from most Wisconsin public sector employees. The suit contends that it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution for a legislature to discriminate among classes of public employees, particularly when doing so does not advance legitimate policy objectives and instead simply rewards political allies and punishes political opponents.
- Permalink Reply by on
- So many people think the 14th is no big deal but it gives the courts a way to obscure the and usurp the 10th amendment. That is why I have always supported revoking the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments which would restore the Article I section enumerated powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- So many people think the 14th is no big deal but it gives the courts a way to obscure the and usurp the 10th amendment.
Far too many think the 14th is no big deal or worse, that it is a wonderful and beneficial amendment. I think mainly it's the misinterpretation of 14A that has been the problem but see no way of undoing the misinterpretation other than repeal.
I fully support repealing 14A, 16A and 17A.
- Permalink Reply by on
- While it's a big unknown how this will be ruled on by SCOTUS, the only way to undo the harm is to bring the issues to light. NEA, DOE and others, have only been as successful as they have been by operating in the dark; through regulation, recommendation and equivocation [almost sounds like B.Dylan lyrics doesn't it :) ].
However this plays out it will be good to have it in a national forum. It will highlight the issues at stake and raise awareness of them to many more individuals. I personally think the unions have made a catastrophic mistake and as Napoleon once said: 'Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.'
No comments:
Post a Comment