4) So that states don’t compete with each other foolishly in trade pacts with Europe.
5) So that the federal government can directly raise an army, rather than each state contributing men.
6) To be able to quell insurrections in states, should they happen.
All these reasons are outdated. And our analysis of the constitution should seek evidence that it was a short term document designed to evolve past its necessity in our country’s perilous nascent years.
1) The states are not likely to war one another; there are not disputed territories. The indian lands are gone–nor were they fairly handled by the federal government.
2) The one purpose for a federal government may be a united defense–there is little danger from Europe–if States became countries, they could join up in defense leagues. Or a spiritual world could be tried.
3) The prohibition of duties, economic alliances and bills of credit, Article 1 Section 10, by states, so no state could become economically dominant and rupture the peaceful coexistence, — now holds back states from relating to one another, caring about their own economies, and being a true market economy.
4) Likewise, competition between states in trade with Europe is true market economy and healthier than the limits of federal devices.
5) The need for a large army to unite us, may argue for the need of a federal government to provide defense—but also limit’s the input of states and people in the manifestation of defense—and may be less needed than we think – and possible through pacts and treaties.
6) There have not been insurrections in states lately—moreover a state can care more adequately and wisely for its particular land, than a federal government concerned with a vast area.
I think this very clearly shows the federal government is an outdated institution—not designed to solve problems- but designed as an authority to prevent them. We need to look for the clues that illuminate the nature of the federal constitution as intended for certain circumstance which we have moved beyond; and find a way to take off the swaddling clothes that sartorialize the states in such untailored fashion now.
The Federalist Paper The federalist papers starts off with arguments justifying the former colonies becoming one nation, rather than 3 or 4 separate countries. Several times they refer to the alternative and option the constitution saved us from; being a part of a land mass of 3 or 4 countries.
This, of course, as they themselves mention, is a reference to England being a dominion of Britain, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Those separate autonomies, to this day, are appreciated and seen as respectful of a grace on Britain’s part, to allow such autonomy and distinct culture, within an auspice of England.
To me there is something communistic, and homogenous about combining different regions in one republic. I see small countries as having governments that can care more about their area, than states of a large federal government. This is too logical and natural to dispute. The measure of effectiveness regarding such government, must be their treatment, or lack of treatment of education. Education should always be a first hand concern of the community. And that its jurisdiction is relegated out to much larger governments who provide guidelines, rather than truths being taught by the community directly to their young; the taking of that priority (the actual structuring of education) by state government from community governance obviated natural and important societal impulses. If a small state does not take on this domain, it’s improvement is nuanced and niche, cultural and better; but not great or as notable.
In some ways the issue of small vs. large country; it is conspicuously contradicted by the lapses of Holland; a small country and less a republic in Europe, which is repressed by homogenous housing, prostitution, and legalized pot; prostitution having horrible ripples, and legalized pot providing no help against an illegal society of incorporated officials making local decisions, rather than naturally deciding being done so in free assemblies.
So I set about here debunking some of our founder’s arguments; to show them, cloying; and their praise, phony. In that the constitution is a legal mechanism for the improvement of this country, the federalist papers are positive foil for any attempt to substantively improve this land. When one learns of the reasons for something; he is more able to attack it: Thus one must always know the rationales of the other side, to advance causes.
The single greatest mistake of our founders was founding our country on political rather than spiritual or religious foundations. The earth I have found myself on, requires spirituality to deal with. At the same token, the restriction on human life that causes the kingdom of god, is sufficient to reflect a restriction on the ken of government, to the ages old failures of political government, as opposed to the potentially ground-breaking age, more spiritual political understandings may have. So it is done on purpose, we could not be this stupid, we would put our heads together and live far more wisely. Yet who are we; but the kingdom of heaven. Thus government is a consensus of heaven rather than actual humans running things
Everyone knows what the truth is; it is just the people running away from the truth; who have yet to register their opinion; are some ungarnered force not replacing impetuses with wiser ones.
In the second essay, “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government”; This is precisely where they slip from spiritual understandings of the goodness of the human soul, to this negative viewpoint of human nature that has rallied throughout history along with government. This is where the shift is made from how good humans would be, to how beings can be represented to conform appropriately to the correlation between a lower form of altered life, and its cause in the universe. Certainly this indicates the consistency between the human being; insofar as that stands for the altered human, and the negatives of the universe which cause such alteration or alteration. This lack of consciousness may be monitored by the Universe.
Community, dialogue, ascertained values, standard of life, all these things are far more certain and indispensable than government. This sentiment of our founding fathers upon the indispensability of government is traditionally classified as the crass desire to have more power, in emulations of nobles and feudalism, but couched in constitutional law, and exigent for a shorter duration than under feudalism, nor allowing for hereditary primogeniture.
The ancient Romans, after five very good first kings, succeeding Romulus, replaced the kingship with a senate, precisely so more of them could wear the trappings of power. Thus the political legal model for government that is representation of heaven, more than of people, and of course, consistent with the universe: replaces the flimsier government of kings.
Thus one could even extrapolate from these motives, that more people could enjoy power, were the powers invested in one federal government given to three or four concentrations of power within the colonies. In the sense that that the motive of giving more people the chance to experience power would manifest itself more in several heads of government, the advocating of one federal government by these founders reflects a misguided spirit of thought I would like to point out throughout. This may indicate that greed is a slander determining government rather than an actual determinate himself.
Jay goes on to say, in 2, the next one he writes in in 57, how wonderful it is that America has the same language, religion, ancestors, and manners and customs; whereas I think homogeneity is notoriously noncompetitive and overly simplistic. I simply fail to see the delight in the sameness of everything. One of the wonderful things about new jersey is how the geography and culture, to a degree, changes every ten miles; surely these culture would govern themselves more wisely than Washington. And yet these governance would stem best from local free assemblies, with some auspicial state government perspective in the guiding background.
And from here I start to see how where the new path of politics should be to increase as necessary the communication and form between the different, that facilitates peace between the different, a sort of lower crass sentiment to Catholicism, in the sense of sameness develops. And yet the noemic and energy of the afterlife, may signify how our history exists on paper, in writing; or in thought, and mind; and the actual translation of that consensus process into binding discussion of free assemblies; abridged by the lack of adeptness in the transition of mind to body; dualism has not provided the language popularly. The Kingdom of Heaven acknowledging itself, is such a break from TV; that such does not happen.
The union created in joining together to fight the British is precisely a confederacy, not a union. In this sense the confederacy and the civil war, is a signaling of confederacy and alliance, not union and nationhood. And how nice would it have been to have had a friendly and competitive nation to our south? Look how beneficial our breaking away from England was, and how hypocritical it makes the union’s impetus to civil war.
We must understand, in many ways the model for our constitution was the early part of ancient Rome: An executive office elected frequently: in Ancient Rome every one year, in America every four. Two executives elected; in America, a vice president; in Rome, a “master of the horse”. A two party system, one of republicans and patricians to whom the system was weighted; and the other to democrats who were to encompass everyone out of power, yet fail to adequately represent the people.
However to repeat, we see the flaws developing three-fold. The assumption of a political, not spiritual understandings of government: The assumption of government as an absolute: And a focus away from a government whose form could accommodate differences. This last though: In Rome, many people grew to encompass roman citizenship and in various degrees: And in America, there are many different states and colors. Yet as expansive empires; Rome and America were fundamentally separating tribes, and diluting indigenous culture; by never affirming those principles of unity; to the degree nativity may garner; they are against those principles. This is parallel to the weakness of the democratic party of the people; both in Rome and America; they did not equal the prowess of the grander, older, party; through their own clumsiness and fuzziness.
Ancient Rome’s spirit of unifying Italy under Roman rule, is actually a spirit of diluting or dissolving other cultures and stripping older ways; much the way communism plays out to. By these links, America has a communist heritage, rearing its head today in the regulation of school, and the usurpation of discussion of the economy from free assemblies to an officials-media domination, as well as the prominent dismemberment of the Indians.
Of course the number one cause and case for one federal government, is from the survival chakra: safety. It is not hard to follow the logic that between the Indians and the foreign powers, a larger country is more defensive than a small one. Like Ancient Rome, America started small, yet overtook many square miles around it. Nor can we not see the principle Reagan went by; from strength there is peace.
The flaw in this reasoning is the assumption of warlike nature: much the way warlike nature was prevalent in Italy with the origin being Rome in the 500 years before Jesus Christ. At least insofar as recorded history through Livy recorded a yearly record of wars from ancient Rome, often initiated by insignificance; Of course Herodotus recorded war as well; and the question why war exists, exists beyond Ancient Rome.
It may seem impossible for the founders of any nation to not assume a warlike nature to their world; unless we remember the emergence of Christianity’s gentle teachings alongside the emerging magnitude of the Roman empire. Yes, war seems everywhere, but if you look a little to the right of it, you can also see the professions to the Kingdom of God, and Heaven; you can see how the acknowledgement of society and war as sin, reduces such to an easily rectifiable dimension.
Jay goes on to argue that the fewer differences on the land, the less causes, both real and imagined, that can be, for war, as the causes of war comes from differences of people. The less difference, the less war: is essentially Jay’s justification of the homogeneity a federal government causes. Thus the real faith, is in encouraging cultural difference, and not seeing war. Moreover, Europe has been very unwarlike since world war 2- thus disproving difference causes war; if proving widespread destruction by war prevents war.
Now if I can speak coldly on the subject of war: War protects the environment. The outstanding problem of contemporary America is the trashing of its countryside’s farmland and forest, in a way Europe eschews; because European wars fought for those fields on those fields, and there is something about blood on a field that keeps that field from being built on in reckless population growth. Case in point, all the civil war battle grounds are not built on.
Now if I can speak coldly on the subject of war: War causes Free Assembly, wherein the genesis to a better society can only take shape: War causes free assemblies, because when you are an Italian town with Hannibal attacking from the north, and Rome intending you to be her ally or else, on the south, you must absolutely hold a free assembly to determine what to do: the stakes are to high and the cost too great for rulers to decide. Whereas when things are kind and comfortable, there is less necessity to and people forget the necessity to put their powers heads together in free assemblies.
Thus an explicit focus on governing a land, as led to our constitution, should focus on means of communication that allow difference without war, rather than the preventing of war by discarding difference. The development of laws regarding common safety, and the development of laws regarding trade, and commerce, this is where the muscle of genius should go. The reigning alternatives of simple wisdom grounded in unity, and the common interests and issues of regions, is a way of thought; but the argument that the best men will rise like cream to the top and benefit our federal government should not be a way of thought. Because the outer orbits of human concourse are more prone to corrupt conduct that those orbits closer to the people, and more inclined to natural good.
Moreover for a book claiming to derive from, and cite, frequently enough the lessons of history; to not note and learn from the derivations of freedom of assembly and protection of the environment from law, is hypocritical.
There are many wisdoms, not just one, much less the one a larger federal government will find; and while in theory the best men may rise to state government, where the common issues of the counties are discussed; to assume that from these pools the best of these pools will rise to federal government overly discounts that the more an official rises to the lens of the press, the more pressure is on that official, the more inhibiting the microscope becomes, as the sinews of character are paralyzed under the constant excitement the media makes government out for.
Imagine our great networks each divided up into 50 state networks with each state having its own shows; not only would there be 50 times the work for actors and actresses; but you can imagine the shows would be more risk taking, daring, and illuminating; because instead of being constrained by one vast audience, one is in competition with 50 others to relate to their particular audience in the best way possible.
The assumption that the simplicity of a large federal government, is the most graceful and safest administration of governmental wisdom, assumes a communing that such is so, based on an assumption of warlike and negative human nature. This communing is where communism begins. Communing about something being true, which readily isn’t; such as the greatness of TV, or the greatness of our federal government, or the greatness of school or the greatness of our economy; is where communism begins; communism begins where there is an assumption of communing (which is the opposite of discussing) that something is good and great; when it plainly is not.
I believe that the less communing there is, the more democracy there is, the less war there is, because war will less accidentally be slid into through false assumptions.
Then Jay exercises the assumption that wars are prevalent because wars are about wealth. Was Hitler, exerxes or viet nam about wealth? No they seemed to be about pride. Was Troy about wealth? No, Pride. While Germany would get rich from winning the law; it was such a misguided venture, no German was successful off it. There are too many common denominators of oppressive schooling, lack of community discussion, and lack of truth of the kingdom of god; for this positing of class opposition thus, to be more than the cunning of communism making things worse.
Jay makes the case the federal government is much less provocative to the Indians than the several aggressions incurred by the tenuousness of several states; So, I say the focus should obviously be on kindness and respect to the Indians as opposed to imposing a mandatory form upon states stemming from federal policy. And certainly the removal of the Indian by the federal government in the near future must discount Jay’s appeal to wisdom there.
Jay makes the case states have more pride than federal government; to be sure the largeness is to ensure a comfort greater than pride; and moreover, a large country will not take the abuse smaller nations have been subjected to by larger ones.
Yet this only opens up the age old question of why there is war, when it can be quite known that the way to deal with bullies is to get them in private and indicate the Kingdom of God. Thus the influence of Christianity should spread, and not the influence of constitutional law.
Without Christianity Jay goes on to cite the difficulties of other foreign and commercially competing powers around to the old refrain of a federal government efficiently simplifying over a large region; yet I say that has led to an overextended federal government incapable of caring about the many different local and state issues everywhere.
Jay cites England’s colonial prominence as arising from its strong federal unity but who wants colonialism? Hasn’t that been firmly disproven, by no less than history? Isn’t that union for evil, not union for good?
Jay cites the fear of foreign dominions from England, Spain and France, in the argument for a central government of this scope, but look at ancient Greece and how it resisted foreign influence so well? Yet of course, look at all the war the Greeks had among themselves.
War and its transmission should be very much the focus of governmental convention. Why war is fought has long been the unanswered question. How wrath, so easily soothed in individual form, and how logically soothed by good government, can so frequently manifest itself in history as war, is the conundrum of the ages. How to end war, once and for all, through some political formula, is like the holy grail of international politics and diplomacy in general.
And the answer seems to be writing. The manifestation of wrath may be written as part and parcel to the cover up of the kingdom of god, but not nearly as easily actually experienced. In some sense, western civilization, which never reckons the kingdom of god, and is therefore somewhat two-dimensional, has a written word which is communism in the assumption that that which is written is believed in.
How is war transmitted? I can only begin to partially answer by stating it is easy to write of war.
Jay though says wars are caused by inequality and jealousy from one worse state onto another better one. Likewise this argument does not hold up to the empiricism I have seen in my travels. Clearly Eastern Ohio is better than Illinois, and Illinois is better than Indiana—and yet there is only the harmonious recognition of the natural law of some equality to experience everywhere, no matter what experience you are in; and that there is unique good and bad to all places. Moreover I am led to believe that Holland is inferior to the rest of Europe, yet a notoriously peaceful nation. Furthermore New England is superior to most of the rest of United States, whose karma may have caused the patriots of late as we notice that their free assemblies, where decisions are made through ayes and nays of those present, are vastly superior and more democratic than the incorporation of local decision-making to a few local officials, in violation of the tenth amendments reservation of powers to the state or the people, and abridging free assembly and free assembly’s locus.
This roman impulse to generate the justification of political feuds is not something we can just commune to be true—because it is not–and I hope I am consistently showing you specious reasoning within the federalist papers.
In the promotion of spiritual understandings and government, we must find a difference between cases of writing versus experience. Or else you buy into falsehood.
Nevertheless in six, as Hamilton cites the love of power, commerce and personal issues, as the causes of war, he neglects to see such propagation as done by powerful national figures already in the public eye, captured by history, not hidden in locality or of neutral experience but jaundiced from godly knowledge by acts of writing specifically designed to keep western civilization two-dimensional and not dealing with the kingdom of god, and spiritual paths.
Shays rebellion is caused by a local desperate debtor: But its solution seems to be working with the people regarding debt, not implying a large national government would not be so prey to influences of personal vicissitudes. Nor are the real issues of racial difference addressed yet.
Instead of believing there is war, nations are enemies, unite and be more common and catholic; we should ask how war is contrary to the kingdom of god, and focus on the blessedness of peace-making and difference.
But the number one reason, greater than commercial problems, Indian problems or foreign powers problems, all of which should be solved by knowing how to deal with bullies Christianly, why the united states should have one core federal government rather than each state being a country or former colonies dividing up into 3 or 4 countries, is that territorial disputes would erupt into war.
This is a fascinating and intriguing assertion because number one, does that claim still exist, and ergo, is it still in our best interests, now that the Indians are in south America and the states have been friends so long. Even more, claim the claim be made that Connecticut and Virginia would have fought, had there not been the federal government? That states would have warred, had they been given more power and there been no congress and senate to the power it is now?
This is fascinating because people from different states are such good friends naturally. And it is intriguing because our federal government has never taken credit for its aversion and stopping of wars between states. And it really makes you think what if, what if we had the papers of the confederacy instead of the constitution? One really sees the fork in the path here between a land of many or several states and the one nation we are…but even more so, one sees how the path we did take has made all the difference. But it was snowing that night, and was it really the right path. And should we consider the other path now, now that we have gone down the path we chose so long, well, and to our results?
The claim in 8 that we of states would fight each other, is of higher magnitude and degree than other issues, in some ways we been set up for this, in others, we need confidence for there are frankly specious arguments, written and perhaps communed as true, but obviously refutable. And the larger calculation is quite a calculation I am not sure comes in in our history or political debate up to the present; that if we did not have our representatives in Washington, and there is a need for different areas to discuss common interests, but somehow our representatives in Washington, the president we elect, and of course our federal judiciary is averting war, between NJ and PA, or Massachusetts and Virginia; and even more so, how we have forgotten that is an issue, and how we have forgotten how that is about half of what our representatives are doing now; keeping us from attacking each other; and more so, how this philosophy may not so be needed now; and how by taking on the federalist papers, using it as constructive foil, we take advantage of where and what we are in history to show the light for a new place and a new direction.
There is reason to be suspicious of the initial claim that the states would war over terrorist were there not a strong federal government in the argument of 8 Hamilton makes. “The sword would sometimes be appealed to as the arbitrator of their difference”. The federal court disputes would be submitted to, under the articles of confederation, would be ultimately disrespected. And rogue individuals making plays for powers in individual states, like myself perhaps, would be more ably dealt with. Maybe this is so. I can not claim to know, because I have not experienced such. Suffice to say, such claims are forgotten now, and should not be, because they are still relevant as to the justification of our constitution. And at least initially, I have to predict, as a believer in humanity, states would not have warred over territory, but perhaps picked out a meritorious form of assigning terrorist, whose political study should be the focus of conventions.
But I can not dispute, states have gotten along so well for so long, leading to a dominance of America upon the world, that the stage has been set by our founders, for a return to christian understandings facilitating the safety of many states rendered into countries out of our union now in history.
So maybe we are set up, I add that the tenth amendments reservation of powers for the state or the people makes the local decision-making process for the people in free assemblies; that we don’t know this indicates a higher power and higher issues.
You see when Hamilton says, “Competition of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention.” I have to look at him like he is an alcoholic, for precisely the oposite is true. As is the ban on states being trading partners. Different states developing different economies would be a wonderful and sustaining thing. Now with the concentration in business mirroring the federal government concentration of government powers, we have a huge reduction in the actual production of varying states, because economic idiosyncrasies are not supported by the principal of federalization, but by its oposite principal, of self-sustaining communities.
So when this argument by Hamilton which is clearly specious and damaging to the land is made, after the claim that the states would war each other, when the unique opportunity was given for that not happen, I have to be suspicious about this roman like impulse to larger federal government which has defined America on the world stage by being larger than traditional countries. The only argument for such speciousness, in historical dimensions, is that the goodwill between the states will enable a christian or spiritual subcontinent in later days, where war is done away with through christian or religious or more so scientific understandings as religion can be seen as a gateway for the methods of pioneering science. And of course, the factor of dealing with the Indians with kindness and respect is far away but reckonable as well.
“The public debt of the union would be a further cause of collision between the separate states or confederacies.” Again, resolution of public debts, contracts, would be a concern of a convention trying to work things out. The character of politics is to try to work out precisely difficult matters, not abscond from them through the imposition of authority. In this sense, the constitution can be construed as a better of two evils, or necessary negative; and this is not what its public relation firm describes it at, or as it is known. It is known as a document, trampled perhaps, when congress doesn’t exercise its check on the balance of war by withholding funds; or when free assembly as a form for community decision-making is not know, or when the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers for the state or the people is violated by local officials incorporated by state law, or when eminent domain can be applied to create a tax base to fund many things, rather than public use in the singular such as utility sites or parks or libraries.
It is a document know to not provide the final answer but a former forwards which evolving answers and improvements can be galvanized and finessed. This is how it is known. It is not known as an alternative to the logical supposition of many states arising out of this land mass, through justice, with care.
In essay nine, it is said that were there separate countries, the existence of armies and soldiers would lean into war. And without garrisons and traditions of discipline like in Europe, particularily in such divisions early days, war would break out easily. This whole assumption is communistic as it needs to be debated by members of the various states, who would or may not profess good will, then, or now, but adherence to this principle is communing about something not discussed, which may be bad and needs discussion. It is almost the destiny of elaborate government to be communistic in so far as they rely or create these communions as to their greatness and viability, which are not backed up through any assertion or specific activity.
What about south America no war there, maybe stronger commercially, but integrity to regional differences not wimpy; and economic crisis better dealt with by states, manufacturing not business, common values more time, self sustainability, put that to the state, they inhibited by fed
Seems to make pt fed gov till territory runs out, and short term, means to insulated end, achieved, states will protect far more, fed gov forgets, doesn’t care, seems free assembly preempts claim fed gov to not forgive debts because can work out economy there wisdom prevails, ever free assembly? Worked?
So the federal government is starting to seem as a short run short term necessity to insulate the states from war fare, and allow peacetime to develop sophisticated and good mechanisms, to say nothing of providing the prosperity war is meant to destroy.
Yet nowhere has it been mentioned of the intrinsic short term nature of the federal government I am beginning to see.
Kentucky and Tennessee seem two central areas potentates for dispute, so the rendering of their statehood by the federal government without historical dispute seems to prove the ability of the federal government to render terror ties into state hood, without dispute, and even preventing disputes that might have arisen between states.
The irony of ancient Rome, was that as it spread its codified citizenship, much like international communism professes, much like current government governs you, tribes and tribal ways were wiped out. A few of these tribes were nomadic.
America was comprised of nomadic tribes refer erred to an Indians, in an ironic mistake of Columbus. The federal government took their land, and their nomadic way. The word roam is a homonym on testament to nomadic magic ways.
The first test of the federal government would be how well they handled the issue of the nomadic tribes. As soon as the compensation to Indian tribes was seen as absent, the greater good should have stepped in and ceased the federal government as mockery of humane values. The United nations arrived two hundred years too late, yet the morality of this seems to be commonly perceived, leaving us perplexed as to our disrespect.
And of course this is analogous to our destruction of farm and forest for population growth and spread. Any tourist to Europe soon notices how the greater extent of preservation of farm and forest than what we enjoy. Any constitutional scholar should know the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people precludes the tyrannical usurpation of local officials, and that the federal constitution provides for free assembly as a form for local decision-making by the community with ayes and nays; a practice that would have not allowed the destruction of farms and forests.
These historical and citable atrocities, involve ignorance and uneumpowerment and lack of assertion of basic and primal morality.natural aw not animals
We are forgiven and absolved by The Kingdom of God. A great awareness of this phenomena shows a far greater tragedy than these. These horrific destructions, the kingdom of god shows as metaphysical, and impositions upon history and the individual, human kind and all physical and essential by the kingdom of heaven in its creation and tales of Western Civilization, whose context as such is phony, is definitive. Great suction core f consciousness.
Nevertheless one hopes for the demonstration of necessary understandings capable of taking on core understandings of western civilization. The long tradition and history and western civ ignoring the kingdom of god, emphasizing the difference between government and religion.
In any event the renditions of statehood, justify the federal government, while its treatment of the Indians, expose it.
way to untailored fashion now with clothes that fit well. Yes we may need a common defense; but that is as far as the federal government need go; and even there; there are instances where a consensus of the people object to war’s conduct on the field of diplomacy.
Look how ultimately the federal government handled the Indian situation. If you were to imagine one way “America” would consist of warring countries it might have been through alliance with Indians. You say there is a two party system? Maybe it’s the white man and Indian?
Does “America” justify its international military might? If we broke up into regions or more independent states, looking to each other in earnest dialogue; but not turning to federal government for replace the swaddling clothes that sartorialize the states in such much more than united defense. The tenth amendment restricts federal powers because a federal power is too authoritarian to be effective at a problem solving level–it is a lower form, fit for defense—but we should not practice turning to it to solve our problems. State governments have a much greater knowledge of the land they care for. The federal government became separated from its prime purpose in the early 1900’s, as the whites established the west. And it seems certain segments of the country and population have the power to try out their views in a public state arena—rather than being ignored by a small minded national media, that by focusing on the small locus of federal government; they miss the potential idiosyncrasy and development in 50 state governments.
The Federal government is there to prevent problems through an authoritarian structure; prevent states from warring, uniting in common defense; quell insurrections within states: It’s not designed to take care of old people; or make sure you get a good deal with your doctor. Those important and legitimate concerns are a more likely domain of a state government; and ideally the concerns of a proactive local citizenry.
Yet this isn’t to say federalism prevented conflict between the states as America was expanding. But what kept us from recognizing an increasing uselessness of the federal government might have been world war—certainly the devolution of towns being run in free assembly, to towns incorporated by the state with local officials in the state constitution of 1947. This historic movement is quite ignored. And Free Assembly , as the only logical and natural way for community decision making–what distinguishes us from animals, misunderstood. Yet the federal government has shown itself incapable and unaware of the civil and natural right to community decision making being made by all present–not letting a few decide for a many; this societal breach may only be explained by God; if God is the notion of wrenching something vital out of the people. Because there is no way the human would accept this situation. Thus the devolution of the human into the human being explains how law and human nature be so undervalued.
Who cares more about a locality, the state or federal government. Obviously the state government knows what a town is like, the culture of the people there; whereas the federal government is quite homogenous and ignorant in the application of its culture of the more native culture.
There is also an understanding in a federal government that wealth be less tested, nor deepened. Smaller and stronger state governments would fall prey to the vicissitudes of fortune more so than one federal government. Likewise the judiciary, which is the shortest of the federal articles, is small enough to be unwieldy in its examination of the status quo. In fact my two least favorite things about the state constitution is article 1 section 9 and ten which holds back economic alliances and bills of credit among the states as well as the states with Europe; and the decision in our constitution to let the federal government create currency; But the third worst thing is the judiciary; because there are no spiritual guidelines; our judiciary is far too ignorant of the kingdom of god or the human being; because our news media officially ignores the way the human race is; and the judiciary is small enough to be influenced by our daily media; and what it rejects as unfit for print. Whereas if we had many people hearing cases for a short term, a more perspicacious, legally aware, less inhibited, judiciary and populace may develop. One or three or 9 judges serving for life and burnt out to resolve basic issues causing societal symptoms; whereas if hundreds of people heard and discusses a case; fundamental issues would be exposed.
The limitation on imposts and duties are limitations on economic complementariness, creative contract, and creative economy.
A major problem in our founders view of how America should be, was Europe’s history of wars. They turned and looked to Europe and saw wars, and prevented that from happening hear, at the expense of homogeneity and detailed care of local culture; this is an odd echo of the roman empire.
The history of Europe previously; and really Europe only started to set an example of not warring each other in the past 60 years; so gripped our founders mind, that they did not consider the potential for spiritual guidelines upon government that could make war unnecessary; an art of contractual negotiation between state, nuanced finely enough to provide untold economic benefits.
Then of course the Indian issue; tribal consciousness wasn;t able to deal with the ceaseless efforts of individuals in the west. Tribal consciousness sits its people down for a while; doesn’t manifest individualism, but acknowledges the kingdom of god as foremost in the step to tribal movement. So historical negotiation was never able to happen. You would think Indian gods and the Whiteman’s gods would negotiate the spiritual guideline demonstrating a lasting good deal to all; but in a totalitarian way; the way of the printed word, has prevailed without a printed fight from the other side because they have a tribal consciousness; and don’t write; much writing obscuring the kingdom of god or human being. The moral ambiguity of writing, and metaphysical domain combine to make it historically dominant; the name of the game is recognizing other cultures; all of whose first line seems to be dealing with the takeover of earth by the universe. Removed from this essential truth; western civilization expands; and the gods do not seem to care; though there be opportunity to address this issue in the media, and apparent connection to some honest direction; the overall energy going to producing out the written world, subsumes any honest integrity; so it is asked; what wimps you are for not wanting to discuss this? Maybe it is the necessity of sorting out my mind which this is in which will eventually promulgate these issues. Suffice western civ is built for population, while tribal modes for less people; and most importantly, the population of western civ may provide a rampart for something.
In my mind, our founders were obviously not spiritual enough; you see this in their strong assertion of the need for a federal government to provide peace, there is an assumption depending on spirituality development is futile. And this is not an open-minded or opportunistic way to think. Being handed the foundation of a country is quite a responsibility; adaptability is needed; purposes known, and a hold by the people, essential; as well as spiritual guidelines which could start with a truth tribal culture seems to know, our written word intentionally tries to obscure. Balance the evil of the lies of the media, with the evil of the universe; What would have been the benefit to metaphysics if this had started yesterday? It’s a simple little thing to change the world. We need to move on to spiritual issues. There may be some metaphysical enjoyment of the superficial western fantasy. It may be as a luminous light to consciousness of darker realms. There may be orders holding back out of fear of the universe: Though it seems to me we would want to decrease the media; and create a fairer land. The Lord moves in mysterious ways; but he must be worshiped, and feared; I would not trust my opinion in such matters; Yet I do not think it is such a big deal; and that I may grow into an opinion worthy agent.
While I have heard the claim many times that our founders were religious, there is a distinct and disheartening unchristian, religiously unaware and illiterate; in the federalist papers. Likewise; the anti-federalist writers have really been tossed to the dustbin on history; because the debate was very vigorous, the prospective path of a nation, very exciting. Yet we definitely did not take the more exciting path; we took the safer, less risky, route; and while it got us to harmonious states; now that it got us there; what is its point; we must test state relations; we ignore each other too much; we need regional councils; we must risk war between the states; but if we win; gain a more careful attendance of our affairs.
The first amendment only says congress may make no law respecting religion; this is the oposite of separation; this is not being able to raise a finger against the dominance of religion. The Supreme Court misconstrued this out of pressure from a news media that does not recognize the kingdom of god, and obscures the human as the human being. This is because too few people judge, and for far too long. Judging is not terribly special, the theory is that the more jurists you have, the greater the wisdom; this after all is the logical justification for republic dominions over smaller states: more people decide the laws. The laws may be aimed more at the people in power who create the context for misbehavior. And the issues of legal discussion easily and effectively made ready for debate by public.
The federal government inhibits the number of people practicing government; as TV networks hinder the development of actors if the each state had its own three networks that only based their art on that state; The federal government Washington DC locus reduces and inhibits the dialogue that could be; it is a taciturn government; no more than tacit; yet frequently attempting to extend past the tacit unsuccessfully.
If ultimately, in contrast to religion, government is a pretend structure; the claim and practice of the federal government unduly inhibits the reaching out by the polity upon its concerns. By subsuming functions of government at a reduced federal level; the complexities of issues handled by each state government decreases the job of government, which is to work things out, make a state better.
The federalists are against factionalism. The political scientist, says factional, well handled, are wonderful, complex contracts. The federalists say, “no, too risky, we need a republic/” Now it’s true, a lot of crazy liberalism came with Athenian democracy. But America’s vision seems to be forestalling liberalism with true democracy. Rather than placing a check on liberalism, they create a republic whose centrality draws the air out of factions.
Hamilton also dares to make the case in essay nine, that a republic, which compresses more area and people than a smaller democracy, will have wiser policies because the ideas are filtered upward through many more people than in a democracy. But this assertion isn’t even true. The locus of federal government is so small and crude; it is the care of complexity of state governments where culture within a state works out a problem. This is where debate happens; at a national level, the national media is an inhibiting factor, which at the same times hinders state debate by not focusing on state power nearly as much. The case is made the people’s voice is wiser going through a representative; when history has shown the reprehensive to lack the homespun wisdom of the people time and time again. And the removal of debate to Washington DC among officials who only know one tenth to fiftieth of the country truly well, is homogenizing and reductive; like a sea of water rather than idiosyncrasy of landscape. Rather than deal with factions, the federalist prefers the safer route of representative; which ironically is so inhibitive as to be pithed and dulled.
Vic Fedora When our founders assumed having more people elect federal officials will create greater officials than smaller groups of people electing officials in smaller states; they completely missed how there is greater inhibition on reason from a greater number of people you represent, and a greater concentration of press and media upon your focus.
Madison in ten concedes the states will have a lot of power ruling their own land. Yet health care and social security is to be solved by the federal government? Is the wisdom of the great many influencing the federal government to more compassion than states? Or do we just fail to turn to state solutions when problems arise? It also seems that when the issue of defense is taken out of the state, the capital of political reasoning declines.
The federal government seems to dilute the capacities of our country. I do not know what a stronger state government would be like. A federal government, grounded in common defense, seems to unwieldy a construct to change a whole large area if required. Yet Madison’s principal is that the more people making a decision, the less interests of faction will prevail. But the people are not making a decision, their inhibited representatives are; and what should they do, but compel the states with mandates to their own state; by which I mean education health economic welfare reform. Encourage the government closer to the people to care for their people. Yet so great and plumed is the domain of the federal, and the area and multitude they rule, that such humility is beneath them.
The spirit of people on our land is missing. In some ways, the leniency of the articles of confederation, were like hippies, sharing things; but Madison fails to recognize, these hippie sentiments are steeped in godly understandings, and genuine awareness as opposed to laziness.
By compelling a united navy, back in 1790. the federalists probably averted skirmishes between European and American boats. Yet it seems the nature of the international world now, at least among Europe and America, supports a spiritual tenor making America’s Navy today out of tune. There was a fear that smaller weaker former colonies, would fall prey to the dominions of warring states; forced to make subservient alliances. Yet there must be some way to test if these suppositions are true. We can’t write off a closer detailed care of a land by a closer government, without testing to see if these fears are still merited. You can have competitive and strong, separate and self-reliant states; or states reliant on federal governments. The point is this a legitimate debate; and while the federalists may have won 220 years ago; that does not not make the issues irrevelant. Quite the oposite: there are issues that are decided on, but the issues of the issues may naturally recur as times change.
Hamilton thinks the usurping of naval issues by federal authority, coupled with the ban on duties and imposts would make trade between states unfettered. However this ease of trade has had the ironic effect of not creating the supplemental and complimentary economies between states that there should be. When the route of Georgia peaches is in the hands of the federal government, there is no pressure for another state to obligate Georgia with a specific trade item. Thus the economy today is unsorted out enough to cause our reliance upon foreign food.
Understanding the economy is a local concern. Trade pacts between states may help production survive. But they are illegal, as is not using money, by Article 1 Section 9 and 10.
By giving such regulatory power to the federal government, instead of state government being more involved with industry, we actually become less economically competitive–because our federal government is overextended; individual federal officials really don’t know the whole country. The whole point is to let the states compete among themselves for the best society; Let a state sculpt its own development and stability. Don’t put this in the hands of a homogenous federal force beyond a necessary dictated time. When you see why we have a federal government, you see why the federal government is so ineffective.
Is the post office necessary; to unite our land yes; but that unity can be represented by companies. Should the federal government be concerned with a national currency? Should there be a national currency? I have always said no; open up the currency market and see what develops; gold may be suitable for a federal government and defense; but outside that splash; currency is a far more intimate part of the person than the government.
The assumption that human nature is wrong, that history must have wars, is the defect in the constitution of our founders; a defect good religion can remedy. America is not nearly christian enough to qualify as a christian nation; another myth by the devil the battle of good vs. evil strives to reject.
The assumption America would incline to imitate Europe might be false; we may never know; likewise the united battle against the Indian, may justify complex defense talks; a complexity the federal government never needs to delve in. The development of better political systems must be a constant motivating factor in political scientists and polity. Look at the gauls of northern Italy. My understanding is that they had many little princes, who though apt to take different sides in Hannibal V. Rome; rarely warred each other. Instead Hamilton and Madison are apt to cite the frequently warring Greeks whose republican alliances were never strong enough to deal with quarrels within the league. These princes, according to Polybius, arose out of natural competition, and not hereditary things.
The confederacy most likely to supplant federalism was 4 northern states, 4 middle ones and five southern ones. Just because an issue was decided does not mean the losing arguments go away. A wise polity is eternally aware of the arguments of all sides.
Truth is all its nuance, should not be handled by the “judicious arrangement of subordinate institutions” but grappled with as locally as possible. Some republican overview is required economically, but not at the expense of stultifying inferior governments from dealing with truth.
Likewise the founders fail to take in the concept that as the lands the federal government rules expands; might not at some point it prove too great for the energy of federalism? While conceding that a confederate division of states was unlikely to remain at 13; Hamilton fails to conceded that a republic can get dangerously too big. Did not the Persian empire attack Greece so often out of its tradition of expansion? Was not expansion linked to Wars of ancient Rome? Is not the civil war firmly a product of expansion testing the strength of federalism, and little more?
The colonization of nomadic and indigent Indian lands, our founders were concerned, would be too tumultuous a scene for a confederacy to resolve. And yet the federal government must take all the responsibility for not respecting tribal autonomies and claims. So we never got to see what would have happened. This is the most tantalizing and perplexing thing about our federal constitution; it never allowed us to see the bends of history that would have been taken by a confederacy. This diluted risk management, at some point in history, ceased to pay dividends; and compelled its own efforts, as the state government frequently weakened itself by passing on state government powers to towns incorporated with local officials, abridging free assembly as where community decisions are made, as well violating the reservation of powers for the state or the people, with local officials. Like Jim Crow laws; state constitutions have been co-opted to demonstrate an unsavory distrust of free assembly, consistent with a federal government that distrusts factionalism.
Republican federalism does not recognize that there are many paths to the truth, that could originate from states; and that we should consistently evaluate paths to take; Yes there can be pains and humiliations to growth; The federal government may have effectively protected our inner child, but at the expense of brow beating themselves, old children may mature from. And is it possible for a state to like its national government? Is there anyway for the natural harmony to manifest itself? At best a federal government can like a state that does things for it. At some level, for a state, at best, a federal government can defend it; and even that may harm the character of state polity.
There is a consistent and general trend and assumption that the evils of human nature will win out without the strong federal government we have now. The union has the ability to punish. The dark side of the federal government, which is a philosophic commentary on human nature, “Why has government been instituted at all, chap15? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason…” This ignores peaceful communities, and that wars are made by governments, and not people. This ignores the motivation of a king unto a community.
The philosophy that federal representatives represent for the good of the whole country, instead of their people; makes them servants of the federal government, not their people. Healthy rivalry between states is effectively dulled.
In this light, the civil war may be seen as a function of overexpansion of land by America, ripping an overextended union in two. Instead it is viewed in light of economic rivalry, or slavery.
Not only is the debate towards a confederacy rejected as unworthy, but there is no formal discussion or empowerment by the people regarding a discussion of the regulation of school, nor the economy, nor the kingdom of god, discussion’s capstone. The allowance to a federal government to directly punish and draft and tax individuals, rather that such routes going through states seems to have reduced the dialogue about what comports our lives.
At some point the concept of an insulated society becomes outdated as the states have lived in peace long enough for war not to be a worry. More time in this insulated state just keeps our state governments from caring about the states, and developing more popular and thoughtful economies. Health care, illegal immigration, the economy, education; all can be more effectively handled by the spirit of state government than federal.
Hamilton says in 17, “It will always be far more easy for the state governments to encroach upon the national authority, than for the national government to encroach upon state authority” But the oposite is what history has shown. As the rights of states got duller and duller, the federal government has taken on education, and a myriad of concerns. Hamilton also says here, “The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture, and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbably that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the=he attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory: and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government.”
Yet exactly this has happened. There has been not latitude and concession to state governments to handle these issues their way; everything is handled by the federal government, I think, because there is such a media focus on it. Of course state governments did not administrate with “uprightness and prudence” that illuminates innate weaknesses to federal constitutions; look how many states in their constitutions abridge free assembly and violate the reservation of powers to the state or the people, by incorporating towns with local officials. Federal, not state government and state affairs, grips the public mind in different states. Far from thoughts of owns own unique state being on ones mind, the national government dominates the radio.
Hamilton contends there is no danger to worry about federal usurping state government, because the passion of citizens is greater to the state, than the federal; as that of a man to his family is greater than to larger society. He claims the diffused and diluted quality to federal government will always be less attractive than the passion of state government to the passions of man; and that what state governments do should be vital enough to reciprocate as similar vitality from the public to state government.
What is out of the equation is the focus on the national by the media; and lack of conception of the potentiality of state government as well. The media’s focus on national government is very simplistic, crude, sensationalistic at the expense of intelligence. Federalism has triumphed over state behavior and action, because our media is not developed enough to change the focus where important action and discussion is. State government is perceived as less potent because the federal is charged with everything.
Hamilton states “the transcendent advantage belonging to the province of state government—the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice….This…is the most powerful….attractive source of popular obedience and attachment.” This reasoning is specious. For one thing, in ancient Rome, the judiciary was a source that provoked loyalty from the people, because it was a judiciary aimed at officials and powerful politicians, as a check upon them; the focus was on officials fostering a life where crime was unnecessary; as opposed to Hamilton’s referencing the prosecution of crime itself. He seems to think the federal government being more benign and diluted won’t come as close to home as the state government; so there is little to worry about regarding the usurping of powers from the state to the federal government; but the state government has been so messed up, and specifically corrupted from the true guideline of ensuring a society uncorrupted by poor government; that it is as irrelevant and burdensome as federal. This notion the protection from and prosecution of criminals will endear the people to state government, seems a slander upon the forgiving nature of Americans, as a conniving corruption of the tribunal system of Ancient Rome; whose judicial focus on officials as a check upon official power and corruption endeared tribunes and Roman law to the people.
He seems to think the states will be like the barons of Scotland; strong enough to resist a strong monarchy. (until England subdued their fierce spirit.) But these clans of barons had traditions dating hundreds and thousands of years; whereas the embryos of state are nascent enough as to make Hamilton’s reasoning shown as faulty; if not downright conniving. But I must add he was killed in a dual by the vice president, and that may have been karma from these erroneous and fearful assertions.
In 18 Hamilton seems to think, that without the federal constitution, something like Athens and Sparta would develop, competing cultures that would soon compete in war. After defeating Xerxes, it would have been logical for Athens and Sparta to strengthen their union; yet they were puffed up by their victory, to weaken it, and such led to great war between them.
Yet lessening cultures, and the distinctive difference of Athens and Sparta, were not goals to Hamilton. This was sacrificed apparently for peace. So there may have been a need for a strong union then. But surely we can get by without one now; maybe a defense league.
The point of a strong union in “repelling those domestic dangers which may sometimes threaten the states constitution….Usurpation may rear its crest in each state and trample upon the liberties of the people—while the national government (of a confederacy) could legally do nothing more than behold its encroachments with indignation and regret. A successful faction may erect a tyranny on the ruins of law and order” Yet for its powers the federal government failed to protect the people of states whose later constitutions incorporated towns with local officials from the abridgement of free assembly and natural and desirable forms of community decision making.
Yet the reason for a strong federal government was to ensure states more physically situated towards prosperity not dominate their poorer counterparts—I am not sure prosperity and war likeness go together; war often seems like an option for the poor and unhappy state. And it is hard to imagine a weaker sadder state attacking a more prosperous state, to economic extortion or advantage.
Likewise the assumption that economic competition, and the ability to deal effectively with foreign powers by the states, be sacrificed for a regulation of interstate commerce and exclusive right to negotiate with foreign powers by a federal government; while this view may have it positives, it is important the other side of economic competition, state competency dealing with foreign powers, and a positive view of human nature through the assertion of The kingdom of God and human being, not be lost; as it has been.
There has not been recorded history where international affairs be guided by spiritual understandings. This could be conspicuous absence on the part of history. Or such is not allowed in the metaphysic of the world dominated by the universe so. Yet the new opportunity of America and the current situation of the world today has some consistency with spiritual guidelines and a reasonable view of human nature. Often our own experience is at odds with what news and other media projects, as well as the issue of war itself. One wants to render this dualism consistent with a polity, and yet that seems blocked by the tradition of western civilization. Yet it remains a goal and dualism should not be ignored.
Trade and treaties by states, leads to a natural care of that state by that state. Europe has preserved her countryside, partly by virtue of her age, but partly because smaller countries have a greater proportionate concern for their land. The whole issue of money versus direct trade has been absented, removing us from a vital sense of the experience of living. The detachment of money, coupled with an overindulgence in education, has lowered the rate of productivity and sustainability in America. One wonders why in the free assemblies that have occurred, a more honest economy manifesting more common values has not been asserted; nor the regulation of education upon children been felt as an affront; nor the spiritual issues signified by “The Kingdom of God” been established as a necessary capstone to wise community discussion. And the answer is that the kingdom of heaven, bands together in evil to oppress society to the degree it does. This of course is the condign of the rigid unswerving rule of a cold universe upon earth—understood in that larger context, is different than judging the kingdom of heaven outright. But the point is, truth, while not outlawed, does not seem brought into play by the concourse of most society; thus that this works constitutes a harmony with metaphysical truth, renders it an opportunity similar to the ones our founders had.
In 22, there is a great fear “the interfering and neighborly regulations of some states,….if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended….till they became serious sources of animosity and discord.” This is the issue; would unfestered commerce result in problems between states, or a more efficient, self-correcting economy. Hamilton, “Yet we may reasonably expect from the gradual conflicts of state regulations that the citizens of each would at length come to be considered…in that of no better light than that of foreigners and aliens.” I am not so sure. There seems to be enough movement, in the new world to new places, and enough momentum from coming from Europe, and enough common sense of destiny of all states starting out together to overcome this bleak vision of human nature and international relations of Hamilton.
Amd internationally who can not say America is not like a too large clumsy dinosaur, annoying and irritating, all by being too large and not recognizing its impotent federal government, its stripped yet logical state government, or free assembly as a form for society deciding how it lives. Of course this is in context of the kingdom of god, and Christianity, whereby what opportunity exists for the worship of one saved from the kingdom of god; which though at hand, is far to reach, and therefore that crossing must be done must be done with christian terminology and perhaps invoking good Friday
The power to raise an army directly by the federal government is important because when the states were required to contribute quotas, manpower was harder to procure, and the states facing greater danger more energetic therein than states more removed. But the issue of raising soldiers, and far more so, where and which states are in danger, are constant relevant issues and problems. These problems should not be accepted and overcome through strong federal government but solved. War seems almost always to cause reluctance among individuals—and if states in danger had to take more steps to protect themselves; it would be similar to the work out different economic natures of different states would force. These are both like natural market forces to correct themselves; rather be subsumed in the authoritarianism of a federal government that doesn’t deal with the nature and detail of the economic and defensive particulars and nuances of each state and region. These are natural issues, not be glossed over by a crude federal government, but solved through developing communication and dialogue between states—a dialogue hindered by national representation, and encouraged by state autonomy out of necessity.
A federal government to draft soldiers into unpopular wars; may not be the best way. Establishing peaceful principals and skilled diplomacy seems a more difficult but potentially more rewarding route.
The advantage of the state interposition between the people and the federal government regarding defense and the economy; by which I mean states vote on an issue, and by a certain majority an issue may be decided; as opposed to representatives of a state in federal government; is that it places the people closer to the issues of defense and economy; a way they are removed from now. And this general trend of removing the people from issues, is what has enabled the tyranny of federal government to usurp powers not given to them by the United States Constitution.
Contracts with stipulations, negotiations, are needed to evolve past this simplicity. It has long been time to work on something wiser. Rather than worry about and assume problems, the situation should have been observed back then, and a federal strength imbued when and if problems requiring such showed its need. Thus the question to be asked is why did we go off in this federal direction: Was it to handle the Indians in a unified way? Was it for an elite to develop that could mastermind the union? Was it God’s way of giving us a coddled and unbeneficial childhood–a challenge for us to work out of.
It is simple and necessary enough for a kinder society to be enacted by the simple understanding of the term The Kingdom of God—that is the genius of Jesus–the terminology introduced by Him. Yet this understanding is not allowed to flourish, or other paths similar to it; because the situation with the universe causing the kingdom of god in the womb, is dire enough to mitigate truth to purchase good. This is the situation we are in. This is what holds back western civilization from its obvious solution.
It is obvious the kingdom of heaven joins together in evil, as opposed to in other forms which it does as required also, and writes daily and historical media, creates entertainment and pastime—and enters into the mind of some humans in a way designed to create society before their eyes and ears and mind. And it is obvious this is done not out of choice but in context of an uncaring and mitigating universe. What percentage heaven, what universe, how easy, changing forms of heaven I believe in. More like the universe, which doesn’t understand as the claim is made.
The case is also made in 22 for a supreme tribunal, a federal court and judiciary that arbitrates. Yet the judicial development in article 3 is the least developed article of the constitution and shows a defect of the national constitution. Too few judges means more inhibited decisions and less analysis of the status quo. Judging too long means burned out robotic judges reasserting themselves. And a lack of spiritual guideline leads to confusion in applying the law—-as well the turning of the federal judiciary on the people, and less the federal or state government themselves; this making the focus of the judiciary the people, rather than officials; when the wrongs of officials do far greater harm than the wrongs of individuals—makes me suspect the character of our founders. While the metaphysic of our creator is in power, not men; it is the weakness of our judiciary where an oppressive structure stems, for the righteousness of the people can not prevail as it should before the judiciary. And the legislative process takes too long. While the right to petition the court for redress of grievance allows any citizen to ask a judge a question regarding a grievance of his; I said before a federal government local officials abridge free assembly as a form of local community decision making, and violates the reservation of powers for the state or the people, since local officials exercise powers not given to the federal government and are neither state nor people; and I was not treated fairly by any stretch. Relevant constitutional federal questions, brought up, by me, in court—have consistently met with incompetent judges, no more capable of standing up for truth in a world of lies; But this sidesteps the real problem; which was I got no media coverage; for if issues are made known in public forum; the corruption that can fester in secret about them is disabled; how can one blame courts or officials, when the myriad of journalists do not find this a relevant story. It is the enslavement of the press through the lies enacted by higher power that is conclusively where the stultification of this country most comes from. Journalism must change its image to conform to the conception of covering change and information; from a robotic self-conception to one that needs to variously see what is going on about it but outside the locus of traditional power. Journalism is too a part of the cover up to have anything to do with this issue. The control of the press is where God limits America.
Without the ability to power spiritual guidelines, at least till the situation allows such, national security will not be as effective. Therefore one balances the natural collective urge to self-defense through unification of our nation in national officials empowered to draft; with a states interest in itself and self-defense. With a competition of many states inclined to deal with issues beyond their state, one may come closer to the spiritual example and effectiveness sought; that the rigid outline of federal government repeating itself through the constitutions dominance through time.
A peacetime standing army is argued for, even though many state legislatures even out rightly banned them, or made them contingent on legislative approval. Yet Hamilton calls them essential towards being ready before being at war. Even though the moral ambiguity of a defense industry is readily seen in history; the peaceful inclinations of states reflect faith and confidence; and militias exist as a front rank of defense.
Perhaps our reliance on a federal government stems from its necessity out of the chaos and confusion of transition from colonies onward; but the example in ancient Rome seems to have been lost; that when there is chaos and confusion and power need be authoritatively centralized and administrated through a dictator: this strong central authority may legally exist only for a short term; at which point government reverts back to a more democratic republic. This is the second example of ancient Rome not cited; the first being the judiciary of tribunes, chosen of the lower classes, aimed at officials and the powerful. The second is the concentration of federal power may be a short term necessity but not a long-term strength and benefit.
The astonishing hypocrisy of modern times is that while the Iraq war is complained about by the people; and the democratic congress has the frequent right to cut off funding; and there is a law stating congress must approve a war every two years; the democratic congress fails to stop the war, while blaming republican administrations for the promotion of war; this is sheer hypocrisy. By this fact, the institution of congress has lost its integrity; because it is foremost a check on imperial executive power. And the reason why, I believe, is the power of the media to create a despotic executive through unrelenting focus on the magnetism of the executive, at the total expense of congress; likewise the ability of the press to vilify and scare opponents of war, has also cost congress its integrity; and so the institution needs reform. At very least congress needs to address and take on the control the media exerts over politics; at least recognize that it is the media that has cost congress, and not executive power congress I licensed to stand up to.
The assumption of political upheaval and undealable debt, is consistent with the contradiction of the kingdom of god, or the human being, and voting. It is ironic that the alleged improvement upon monarchy, through the institution of voting, can imbue a greater falseness upon earth, than monarchy; and that falseness be the very cry of pride.
The assumption that factionalism from truer and more trusted democracy is what there is to fear, political upheaval from unchecked democracy; is not as traditional a call as the fear that officials are prone to corruption. Instead of having a strong federal government to prevent discord, one needs a strong check on the federal government to check its potential for corruption. Of the three units of checks and balances, executive, legislative, and judicial, they are all of the federal government; the federal government is really without a check upon it; which if noticed, is conspicuously absent. AS I said, Ancient Rome, which had two parties, senates and executives; gave its judicial check to the people upon its senators and executives, who could only come from the patrician class.
A federal army, would keep states from arming themselves, and mitigate the militia’s loyalty to their state. There may be a need for a common defense and army. But it is treating a state like a child, fearing they will war other states, not letting them grow strong economically through alliance and treaty, unable to diplomatically deal with other nations outside America—
There is a sense Alexander Hamilton is egregiously lying when he writes, “Money is, with propriety, considered as a vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion and enables it to perform its most essential functions.” Scientifically I have to disagree. Money is absolutely not necessary; and certainly not necessary or becoming to a federal government, which might use gold and impose a gold standard, but not print money. That was a real disappointment about the federal constitution and its eradication of state and private currency; as well as taking on the production of currency, which should the duty of those that produce, production being more primary than government. Much moreover, producing for the needs of the community, directly trading supplies for needs, seems to dwarf money as the primary direction of a true economy and what government should focus on.
There is another thing one can’t tell if Hamilton is blatantly manipulating the truth; or simply so zealous as to be out of his mind like an alcoholic; but he finally speaks in his essays on the right of the federal government to tax about how the Romans had the patricians, whose class supplied the senators, and the plebes whose class supplied the tribunes. But Hamilton makes out the tribunes to be like a lower house, when even though they scrutinized policy as a check upon the senate; they were for many years simply a judiciary, of tribunes, aimed at and scrutinizing officials and legislation from a standpoint of legality and honor.
Yet in the discussion of the necessity of the federal government to tax directly individuals, parallel to its power to draft individuals to the military, again one’s sees the virtues of the states being responsible for raising money and men for the union, countered by the claim the federal government requires the means to achieve its ends. And this segue ways into the ingenious situation where the state serves as judicial checks upon the federal government.
Give each state one or two checks a year; and if they object to or wish to raise an objection to federal behavior, before a court of what should be many jurists; upon objections of natural law and wisdom, and right; they may be encouraged to. All the wars and corruptions of federal officials could have been checked and punished by the states. States could have forestalled bailouts, and focused on what their own state requires. Yet free assemblies are required to discuss a wise economy, and the way earth is, of human beings, not humans; a greater problem, needs to be discussed. So all this economic complaint, and foolish injustice, seems secondary to the fact the universe does not allow such to live. Then larger issues, where the forum of public debate can not abrogate policy through logic; would be submitted to intra state councils of regions of America; for greater analysis; in proof, testing whether the larger representative sphere is wiser than the smaller. This, This is what will endear the state to the people; being a judicious check upon the federal government; the endearment of the protection of the state for life and property, misplaced by the kingdom of god, and fearful. A fine slogan no taxation without representation—by a collusion of federal interests in the form of representatives from states.
In his continued case for direct taxation, Hamilton writes,” How is it possible that a government half supplied and always necessitations can fulfill the purposes of its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or support the reputation of the commonwealth?” Isn’t this sentiment used to justify the socialism of Europe now? Isn’t what separates us from socialists our lower taxes? And even now, with direct taxation, our federal government is usually short of money. Praise Bill Clinton for balancing the budget in 2000. Moreover, aren’t the states perfectly capable of many if not all of these charges. The need of the federal government to dispense Indian land is simply not needed now; so this ego driven appetite for federal purpose should not be so easily funded.
On issues of defense, the people care much about, there is no direct line to the federal government, or interposition of state government; the link of the people to government is frankly broken by such federal auspices we have here. Free Assemblies in local towns, and a greater influence upon state legislators by the individuals and movements out there are not about factionalism as accused in Papers, but creative, popular and wise politics. Look how stuck in time, and unable to control change, we are; how much is that the federal governments taking away of powers and not enforcing free assemblies. When are we in the east going to get used to the lack of necessity for these extra layers of government we have on?
Hamilton provides the interesting inquiry of the value of militias, whose resonance I raise today; Certainly militias can do no harm. Especially if they are regulated by the unarmed; as opposed to the federal government, as Hamilton proposes. As it is, States with militias, are regulated by states, and I imagine all militias as registering with the state government, and as being seen as the peacekeeping force that they are. I always interpreted the second amendment as predicated upon alliance with a militia, to encourage militias; whose regulation, in converse, must be finally done by those who do not desire fire arms. I do not see how the Supreme Court got to “Federal Government” from “well regulated militias”. I would assume militias would be regulated by town and county, until and if, problems arise.
Yet the radiance of this light is not elaborately described by Hamilton; rather on this, and in the several following on the case for direct taxation he says little; and once the case for drafting a military is underscored, the point about taxation seems mute.
Evil as Hamilton may rightly have been; he is one of the few authors of a relevant and artfully written book, who died in a duel. As did his first son. Our founders, like assassinating communists, dueled each other. He was killed by the vice-president. Republicans were more liberal than federalists back then, and Burr fell out of favor with the administration to campaign for the NY governorship. To his credit, Hamilton noted he was not going to aim at Burr; many duels ended with shots into the ground. Dueling was illegal in NY, so they rowed to the cliffs on the other side of the Hudson and dueled there. So Hamilton is one of the few authors who karma led to duel death.
Yet when Hamilton writes the senate of ancient Rome, and the tribunes of ancient romes were both legislative branches countering each other; he misleads because the tribunes were a judiciary who could check federal policy in their courts. Their cause was to engender justice. But the senate had much greater legislative control through the belief that those related to the original 100 senators were better adapted to lead the ancient republic. This branch of justice, missing to today, possibly inherent in states prosecution of the federal government; Hamilton did not want recognized, for its glaring omission changes the eye of ancient Rome unfairly.
The first 40 papers are 90 percent written by Hamilton. Then Madison starts to write about the separation of powers. Among the last things Hamilton writes sum up his consensus and his judgment on the need for federal republican government. “To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude that the fiery and destructive passions of war reign in the human breast with much more powerful sway, than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and to model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility would be to calculate on the weaker springs of human character”
This is it, in a nutshell, the case for a federal government back then, was human nature is bad, and a federal government prevents war between the states. What would have happened, if we hadn’t gone so federal? We can only speculate. Are these reasons valid now, or intended to have been adhered to for so long? Didn’t the federal government hurt the Indians, whose ghosts are very much of this land. Isn’t human nature good? Haven’t wars in Europe stopped? Wouldn’t the states not war each other? These are the questions we must ask ourselves to see the relevance of the federal government; as well as exposing its flaws as of natural disposition.
The only explanation I can offer the academic or journalist or diplomatic as to why war exists is this. International relations compose the outer sphere from the center of people’s concourse; and thus the wisdom of the people has a hard time reaching it; and thus that international relations are more easily controlled by the press from where the strict afterlife exerts its rendition of western civilization; than the more modest and reasonable exertions known to characterize good society.
Entering into government without spiritual guidelines relevant to the metaphysical world we live in, does not work, because it can be too easily controlled by the kingdom of heaven. Peace is necessary to be created, through careful diplomacy and vital spirit of people’s, contracts and friendship; the issue is ensuring this orbit of government to contain the natural wisdom of the people and not the relentless assault on reason running through the newspapers.
In learning Hamilton’s positions, we take on what Hamilton cites as opposition. For instance he attempts to refute the idea different professions should be represented in federal legislator with the idea that the interests of producers is best held by the learned, and the finance and mercantile industry. This of course does not make sense; if more ordinary producing men were in federal government, the wisdom of the people would have rippled through international society; which may be said to have been done at times; but not to the streamlining level of reducing federal government for state government. Hamilton’s assertion that the character of men elected to federal office be naturally greater than those elected to state office ignores the medium competency of all men, and over inflates the egos of those who require the humility necessary to turn over federal powers to the state. The inclusion of productive professions into government by law, would have been a good thing, consistent with the spirit of Britain’s labor party.
“Will not the man of the learned profession, who feel a neutrality to rivalry of the different branches of industry, be ready to prove an impartial arbitrator between them, ready to promote either, so far as it shall appear to him conducive to the general interests of society?”
This omission of respect of the professions in the composition of the federal government has contributed to the current denigration of the culture of production; the lack of asserting the value of time over money; the importance of producing better quality good more accessible to people; of having a wise and interactive community.
Hamilton fails to take into account the fake quality of society, and as an outerring of society is controlled by the metaphysical negative rendition ignorant of spiritual context, the human being, and Christian terminology. He is also forgetting how controlled thus the man of official power may be by the press where the metaphysic operates its powerful tyranny.
This metaphysic exists to a point where to help me undertake it has almost a historical dimension; when it is precisely the historical dimension that is on the outskirts of society and inaccessible through the imposition of the historical potential upon everyone; thus impeding reason.
Not without checks on government by judiciaries of people, not without true parties capable of finding the best candidates, not without an evolving and transient entities of press that project the articles of spirituality, government, and metaphysic as it really is, not without true science and true economy; should we be advancing the interests Hamilton advises us towards peace by federal government.
Then the writing turns to Madison who argues the placement of power in the hands of many for short durations is an appropriate check on power. Yet this has met incumbencies of decades, and too few representatives ruling too many federally; while not bringing up the issues that truly unite us. Madison fails to account for the tendency for incumbents to win; a tendency driven not the logic of eternal dissatisfaction with officials; but a conservative media that keeps repeating the success of previous elections in its reporting of an electoral illusion. The illusion of voting fails to be accounted for, shown fundamentally so.
There is also the overwhelming theme to an analysis of the constitution that at some point America is going to be too big for the federal government; and the federal government as well is going to have created a stable and secure situation enough among the states to evolve into inter state senates, and greater practice of autonomy by state legislatures. This too, seems to be conspicuously lacking.
And yet we see the commentary by Madison having more republican virtues than the federalism of Hamilton, which in its purest seems to hope for a king of a republic of states; where the states agree to have a king through formal constitution; who would then concentrate authority, by the federalism, but not be warlike, through the unification of that states aspect of it.
A few thoughts come to mind as we leave Hamilton’s papers, and move to Madison’s. Such as: Can the weakness of state governments; their unfulfilled potential and general result of dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction amid the populace for their state; can that weakness be attributed to federal authority. It sure can. The usurpation of the tenth amendment’s limiting federal power to all in the original constitution; or at very least reserving all powers not gone over in the constitution to the state or the people; the federal government constitutionally limits state strength in the field of caring for the state’s economy, limiting illegal immigration, social security and health care. This is terribly rehabilitative to state governments and bad for the republic. Yet the effect of federal government on weakening and making ill state government, though directly seen, is not much of a cause these days.
In that the gospel of Hamilton switches to the gospel of Madison here, we note the stylistic similarity to the new testament. Madison argues the placement of power in many for short durations provides the necessary wisdom for federal governing.
And yet if the only point of federal government be to provide a situation where states get along and don’t war; are these many representatives capable of the transition to state rights, a peaceful situation engendered by the federal constitution occurs. Another fundamental flaw of the federal constitution may be an evoking of the egos of federal officials to a point whereby their federal egos fundamentally don’t understand the logical charge of empowering and strengthening state governments to maximize care of the land and people. Commanded in the glory of the constitution may brighten the eyes from the natural transition the peace of the united states occurs.
Madison seems more thoughtful and aware than the dynamic coda Hamilton promotes of strong federalism; but maybe not thoughtful or aware enough. Maybe a weak moderate check on the federalism of Hamilton.
Madison’s tone does bespeak the issue that changing federalism to state government, local officials to free assembly, education of the simple tenth amendment; means that anyone who helps me in this effort; as logically it will be successful, will take on almost historical proportions. And Madison knows, as the international affairs is the outer orbit of human concourse easily dominated by the foolish misrepresentation of humanity; and so are officials of federal powers far enough from common wisdom to be controlled to the detriment of society; so the reader must ask himself what are the restrictions upon him regarding his ability to enact logic he clearly sees. Is there a historical domain to this dialogue great enough to inhibit common action?
Do we see how the people, at least according to the newspapers, are unable to wisely and capably, to engage in the discussion that will ease their world from the tribulations of educational regulation and economic cacophony? That their different order must be commanded by a higher power whose recognitions commensurate with mine?
The size of the united states can instill a jealous hatred in others. Its disproportion ripple ineffectively, its lack of conservation of Indian culture, the holding back of state controls: All this can lead to a serious rupture in proper order. The federalist papers, like the gospels of the new testament, establish something, in the form of 3 or 4 authors describing the same state, with different spirit.
When Hamilton opposes quotas for professions in federal office, for mercantile representatives; this is a demented upper-class notion; and while I may be a monarchist, in no way should my power depend on tricking or lying to the people; such as I see Hamilton and in many instance.
Unfortunately, Madison is the same sort of huckster but with a different spirit. I am aware our founders have had a positive image, even though local free assembly has been abridged by local officials, the federal government isn’t designed to do more than keep states from warring; have an overkill of a defense treaty; stifle states economically for the good of republican dominion; uproot factionalism, which can be a positive reaction to status quo.
The incorporation of god and religion with the federal constitution is Madison’s warp. He calls this constitution blessed, and consistent with the Lord all mighty and creator, as well as consistent with the most mathematical logistics of his day; without incorporating the spiritual guidelines, or check upon federal officials, or short term necessity of the constitution. Thus the association is not between the constitution and religion, but as the approval of the constitution by religion, which is less important and not religious.
However Madison seems a more beautiful, less mean, and more moderately spirited, less confrontational. “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those entrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people buy a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent change of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men, : whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand.”
There are several things here asserted simply not true. Time has shown us how incumbent the incumbent is, in our political psychology and theory; so there is not frequent change of men.
The power for federal officials to acts is derived from the federal government, not the people. The people, through representation, are removed by one orbit from power. Monarchy be as monarchy get, but lie to the people? Don’t forget.
However, in the following paragraphs and pages of Madison’s first paper, quite eloquent language is used, evocative of religious or metaphysical discourse in a way never dimensioned by Hamilton, he speaks poetically on the warped quality of communication bound to western civilization’s affairs. Twenty four years later Madison became president. 17 yrs later, the current vice president shot Hamilton in a duel along the Hudson river in N.J.. A warrant was issued for Burr’s arrest, whose interest tended towards the governorship of New York, since John Adams no longer favored him, but after two years, charges were dropped.
When Madison says, “It shows the convention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous considerations”. And that is completely true: It is created out of worry, in a response to the difficulties of states getting along. This also indicates being written after Hamilton and after some convention on the subject of the constitution. “The convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure; extolling the federal constitution as the creation of necessity.
Then in religious tones he exalts and anoints the federal constitution; though there be no tribunal check on federal officials, as the army of Rome successfully went on strike for; nor indication of short term necessity; nor setting of any spiritual guidelines to aid the outer orbit of the people in its course within a metaphysical world that is calculated enough to require observation and analysis within the compass of behavior. So we do not have a constitution based on a religion; but a constitution praised by a religion. The two should be reversed. There is also a fear of factionalism, when factionalism should be an encouraged part of democracy, or certainly a political party. He also speaks in favor of bipartisan ship, which, while hard to mess up, isn’t often practiced in America today, or is it?
There are two types of originating forms of law—one from one lawgiver, like Lycurgus who imposed the laws of Sparta that made it last 800 years; and this includes the law of several Greek defense leagues over time. And there is the law laid down by council of several. Madison lays down that this law stems from Council, and not one. Which he admits may be seen as a misgiving, giving the greater sense of laws enemating from one lawgiver, than councils; This shines light on the very interesting legal claim that law comes from the good judge, rather than the principle of law behind the law. Hitherto for we are thought of as a nation of law. From herein on him, we are devoid of a lawgiver, from whose credence, the legal system is weighted. To what degree are a democratic people prone to concentrating power in the hands of one good man? In this general philosophic way he speaks of what the lawgiver in history remarked upon his own thinking, “As more to the toleration of their prejudice, than to their happiness” Solon the lawgiver of Athens; speaking the conservative anti-factionalist line.
Madison, in a paragraph find, also infuses those times with the sense the need for the federal government is urgent: States are disagreeing with each other and threatening military action. In which case the United States of America came about of necessity to prevent states from warring each other; and not as the produce of genius and wisdom; which contradicts the divinity he praises the recent convention with. More egregiously those times were not taught to us as that way. The road from the declaration of independence to The federal constitution was a stairway to heaven. Really it wasn’t. And the motives were questionable.
While Councils of Men leading conventions towards government often go on to figure prominently in it; as single figures who rescue a land may find themselves king; The single figure, can be a law giver, whose credence has more to do with law; than law itself.
More importantly why was the discord, cited as urgent, by Madison, not conveyed in American History as rivaling in turbulence the French-Indian war which was proudly taught as leading up to the war for independence. Is it so the federal government is not seen as necessary to prevent wars between states? Or is Madison overstating the case, and the federal constitution was unnecessary, unpopular, and imposed upon the majorities of states and burgeoning peoples? But the urgency Madison conveys to the situation is morally questionable because while Hamilton speaks eloquently on the virtues and advantages of the federal constitution; without specifically mentioning the protection of the local decisions being made in free assemblies, our first and tenth amendment provides; both laws which are not enforced, violated by local officials, because the press is pressed to lie about the situation in Toto because Western civ believable faith to change things a reckoning a manifestation of constitutional law, a transition to truth, however brief; or just a decoy, an excuse to increase the population for western civilization, as opposed to tribal forms that had and have less people; because the reason to have more population is that human beings serve as a rampart against the universe, a sacrifice against the falling howls of the universe which protects us. It does not seem the way may be changed. Slowly or quickly earth is decimated; She will require several centuries to heal. In that time, who knows what claims history will make; should there be a dialectic between sacrifice and healing; if any at all.
Seeing the formless life, is another matter; Examining the sense of realness and fakeness to the human being; seeing that which has been here eternity; these are harder to comprehend; because there is such a jumble of soul and disease upon my brain natural cognition is unintended.
Seeing either the formation of the constitution and the ignorance of the cause of the civil war being westward expansion tugging at the roots of the federal government; which oversaw westward expansion to a greater degree than a confederacy could have; and expulsion and appropriation of Indian, has not been cited at all as a prominent cause for the federal constitution; yets seems its most poignant and lasting legacy. So even this level exists in secrecy. To say nothing of the other shades reflected in ignorance by our educational system; as the philosophic stretching of the garments of government by westward expansion manifesting the sentiments of the Articles of Confederation; A confederation being defined as a defense treaty of states or nations, and a federal government as providing a central government for all lands involved.
That our federal constitution is allegedly praised by higher power; without incorporating the spirit of paths to truth, or humility before metaphysic; ignores the chances for a better material life through orthodox Christianity, or Presbyterianism, or Hinduism, or any other myriad and supportive paths to the same truth and reconciliation at the top of the mountain the paths lead to their different ways. Maybe wars between the states were imminent enough to signify divinity to the constitution; but the point of the presentation of American History seems to obscure the federal government as caused by a fear of war between states; obscure the federal government ruthless effectiveness dealing with Indians; and obscure actual conflicts between the states before the constitution; and obscure the civil war as a function of westward expansion; though I believe that was taught in A.P. History Class in 1982.
Theses systemic biases evident in education are consistent with the oversight of education placed in the federal government. There is nothing in the constitution about education; and the clause, “general welfare’, in my mind suggests a short term response to a crisis, not a long-term embedding of the regulation of education precisely because education is not specifically addressed.
In my mind the critical essential reform to American Society is reducing and pulsating the educational system of America. Yes we need Science and Math programs to advance the genius inclined there. But the scale and scope and regulation of education impedes the essential thinking for one’s self, being able to determine one’s time; impiously upon the righteousness of natural life. Education does not need to involve schools, but houses, small classes, myriad of educators, each of us teaching a little of what we know, whether it is biking, or a foreign language; such intimacy would engender the puissance necessary for more time for more enjoyable activities and living and thought for younger people. This in term, like agriculture, would illuminate society to the importance of time and production and quality than waste, unnecessity, and superficiality.
But such concerns are more likely to be held locally, and impeded by representative democracy at a local level, abridging the form of free assembly, where such issues may arise. And certainly more by state governments concerned about their people than a federal government.
Likewise concerning immigration, each state could have their own policy on it; and have to coordinate wisely its effects with other states; but would increase the muscle and capacity of state governments. Such issues like education and immigration require a spirit a diluted federal government can not, compared to the spirit particular cultures may impart upon and through state government. States would police immigration for their own state; much more than federal government care about its own borders because a smaller state government caring about a smaller state border is more effective than a vast federal government caring about a vast federal border.
Regional differences and cultural dialects do exist in different regions of America; But these differences must be lessened by the federal government, and these differences are good, as like religions all being different paths to the same truth, so are cultures; one needs many of them; developed too; in case some are thwarted, other paths exist. This is why communism, imperialism, world government is so evil; they reduce the number of paths for humanity to sneak by.
Issues that are too heavy for the concentrated federal government in D.C., and its diluted appendages across America; may be energized by the people through state governments much more vigorously. But the sacrifice of America into stupidities ranging from fast food, to suburbia’s extension into farmland—and our prey to education and undiscused economy; through a lack of spiritual reinforcement: Must happen for a reason. May have a reckoning. And it is a worthwhile job to discern those reasons, and analyze potential reckonings. This whole long term mistake of federalism maybe the trailhead to an analysis of human on earth; or a mere excuse for more population which protects the kingdom of heaven in a dire universe.
Madison compares the land to a patient, getting worse each day; such passionate appeal belies itself. He engages in conspicuously flowerily and ornamentally elaborate language; then acknowledges imperfections in the constitution calling it; “It is a matter both or wonder and regret (Sammy remember 2/4) that those who raise so many objections to the new constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which it is exchanged for It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect.”
So then how can he praise the constitution as he does in the paper before? Actually he invokes Christian terminology, where Hamilton doesn’t, in a literate, yet less praiseworthy than I thought, almost exculparily, of the constitution, “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it the finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” This referred to the bipartisan convention process he lauded, and how astoudished he was the former colonies came together in the way they did; rather than what they agreed to. And who is to say the finger of the Almighty is not backhand compliment to Hamilton’s paving of the way in his works apparently written previous to the convention; which seemed adopted.
Another religious reference by Madison; from which it may be said our founders were Christian. “When the Almighty himself, condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated. Papers 38” This reinforces the general mediocre but necessary reform allegedly consisting in the new constitution, as the vital conduit of wisdom, but imperfectly, and this imperfection to be forgiven or evolved from, as erroneously theorized politically, and consistent with the Christian transmission of forgiveness through the limitations imposed by The Kingdom of God.
Madison’s arguments repeats Hamilton’s but with greater metaphor and spirit in style, evidence of skillful debate, “No man would refuse to give brass for silver or gold because the latter had some alloy in it. No man would refuse to quit a shattered and tottering habitation for a firm and commodious building because the latter had not a porch to it…….is it not manifest that most of the capital objections urged against the new system lie with tenfold weight against the existing confederation? Is an indefinite power to raise money dangerous in the hands of a federal government?”
This last is exactly where we are now. On the one, the federal government theoretically is too benign, yet in a swaddling way; to be dangerous with money; on the other; this tendency to sensationalize by Madison, ignores the obvious, moderate and retarding nature of such powers; of long-run consideration that demands a check on precisely this.
The condition of the current congress, back then, was to requisite monies from states; yet states were poor, barely having enough for themselves. What was a federal government to do? In Hamilton’s extemporaneous upon taxation developing the need for direct taxation; I found a moment to give it pause, because the right of the federal government to draft and recruit armies and navies, superseded and created the right and necessity of the federal government to tax directly. One can not take on taxation, without taking on the right to have an army; And one must consider the entire venue of federal government to largely consist in defense league and national defense. Thus direct taxation is appropriate for military support. But of the right of states to mind their own defense; this is where the battle on taxation is rightly fought; for armies traditionally are too expensive; indeed, survived on plunder.
Madison’s exceptions to the current confederation, then include, an objection to a lack of bill of rights, and lack of dividing the congress of the confederacy which controlled everything, into an executive and judiciary as well, and Madison cites the new constitution as offering the importation of slaves, for only 20 more years, whereas the articles of confederation allow it forever.
The Articles of Confederation signify a check upon congress by the states. Madison decries this as the states negating the congress’s power, and therefore congress having no real power. He says the current situation is incapable of administering the vast wealth inherent to the west; but that a federal government is more capable. At least he is admitting the subconscious inclusion of conquering Indian lands as incumbent upon the national course; even though this conquering that needs the most debate, seems the least discussed.
In very flowery language, Madison cruises for republicanism, “…no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the American People…with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” He defines republicanism as, “…a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of people, and is administrated by people holdings their offices….for a limited period, or during good behavior….otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles…might aspire…”
Yet this council of writers of the federal government seems very aspired to exert and yield The United States. The moral ambiguity to this issue is furthered by the justification of the republic in the election of federal officials generally through voting by the people. And yet, as pointed out, voting, within the context of the human being or Kingdom of God, is specious; and hard then to derive good from in this specific context of justifying and insuring the good from a good-intended contract. By the same token, this metaphysical context exposes the form of council as governed by a higher power to create a government ultimately suited for the reflected image of the desires of The Kingdom of heaven, or our Creator; Who, throughout history, has demonstrated a restraint from wisdom and a casting of the opprobrious upon society.
So it is not the fault of these councils; there are forgiven within Christian and religious content, even while they fail to note such mechanistic guidelines within their work. Such is the nature of Christian progress in a world of foil.
Detractors, Madison says, complain The United States as the consolidation of states and therefore a national movement; as opposed to confederacy of autonomous states; and that a republican government is more a confederacy than one nation.
To which Madison answers that the states agreement to the federal constitution is of proper confederation; which of course is logically nullifying, for the states are agreeing to give up their autonomy. But more significantly, Madison claims, as federal officials are derived from voters and be from different states, so there is an essential confederate quality to the nation. And this is true; yet state governments are so weakened.
The weakness of state governments, Madison agrees, weakens the confederate quality to the federal government as the direct link of officials to the people increases the national quality. So if a state has a particular issue, it and the people must push this through their federal representatives. But that sort of use and application and motion between state government and state representatives to federal governments, has not happened. The vortex of state government as place for anti-federal government sentiment to well up has not been landscaped. This could be because representing your state in federal government emboldens you to federal interests or a federal way of looking at things; as well as by making you one fiftieth of the senate, very little momentum through the limit of number of representatives in comparison to the number of all representatives there, to be able to bring up what is truly relevant or objected to by one state; without having to caucus up an alliance; Governmentally; this sort of disagreement brought up by a state, would be streamlined through a judiciary, that would sort the merits of the grievance.
By putting the issue in new terms of confederation versus nationalism, Madison has taken the gospel of a federal constitution from Hamilton and infused it with more general and broader arguments for it, and definitions of the debate as a whole.
“The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things….Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes it is vested in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures.”
Yet Madison argues this tension between state and federal interests and ways, can be safely determined by The Supreme Court, rather than local or state ones. And yet it is fair to say there is little proud commemorated tradition of states opposing federal government within the federal courts. Quite the opposite, generally states are found to be flawed in the eyes of the federal government and remedies ordered. So history has proven James Madison wrong is his avocation of the effectiveness of moving state interests through state representatives to federal governments, as well as the use of the federal courts to direct the care of a particular state in the way the particular state desires. And yet this lack of satisfaction to State Legislatures is neither resounding nor echoed. The power to states to naturally care for its land better than a federal government, neither resounds nor echoes; partly because national issues dominate state newspapers, and state newspapers are incapable of apprehending the benefits of a greater state government, capable of working with other states as a confederacy, as opposed to be so part of a national unit, that such motion of working with other states is stifled.
Madison concludes paper 39 that the constitution is neither wholly national or wholly federal. Since that were it national, the majority of the people, ultimately, is what would rule decisions; whereas were it federal, states would have the opportunity to block legislation; much the way tribunals for the people were able to block legislation by the roman senate.
And yet the majority of Americans voting on issues, is a finer way of deciding issues, than our representatives in congress. And the form of states objecting to legislation and specifying their reasons, is a greater form of legislative debate that highlights arguments and disagreements more accessibly than now. Thus it is possible, for the expedient, or pragmatic, to be less than the ideals of everything, without the benefits of anything in particular; like the famous lawgiver said, “I catered not to their capacity for pleasure, but to the avoidance of pain.” And the philosophy of this credo is meant to be debated. Is there a truth to it; Or is it a mask for Republic out of touch with direction. For a republic is unwieldy enough to drive right, or drive anywhere, national direction in America has often been unintentional and undirected, of free market, and societal flow rather than designed wisdom. This is because America is too big for a spirit to channel; the regional differences great enough to impede common spirit, but not great enough to galvanize its own regions spiritedly.
As Madison previews and cites a charge to the states to provide delegates to provide a union capable of dealing with exigencies, so real debate regarding the stated reform of the articles of confederation is mute, he says in 40. He also seems to suggest the vision of future government may be most suited from the genius of one man, rather than a putting together several visions that are not of the same vision. Yet if this is the path, “the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the mean.” This is very much what our liberal spirit has contradicted in faith that a government of gentle means is healthier than one of violent or strong means. The spirit of The U.S. has proclaimed the means ensure the greatest return of ends. This is probably because colossus as federal government is, it is benign, and flawed by design, not contemporary malice.
In this tone that encourages discussing, so it is a compelling job to discuss the claim that were legislation subject to the almost tribunal approvals of states; as the articles of confederation did; one state like Rhode island could object to legislation for all, and that this is wrong and unfair? Is it? I don’t know, we would have to see; certainly in the decade preceding the federal constitution it looked like fun to see what each state thought about everything and how they differently decided issues such as state armies, militias, alliances, war debts, foreign countries. It’s politically exciting, more European in its style and requisite diplomacy. That route was sacrificed for safety.
So, like a different song on the same issue, Madison reencounters Hamilton’s arguments: A federal government is necessary, not perfect; The division within the federal government is wise; And a new twist; While the individual state or even league of states, may not check legislation, like the tribunes in ancient Rome, corrupted as they were; because the legislature is from the states, the states may check legislation through their federal representatives. This though, we can see, theoretically comes out to poorer odds, than a small quorum of state prohibiting something/ The states are really left out of the equation, particularly in conducive conversation between each other. These thoughts to the other side are drawn out.
And another new twist in this song’s rendition. The ends justify the means. The federal government needs the power to arm and tax, because it is going to provide a great service it must not be shorn from. There can be no shortage of money/ That frugal mentality, from the get go, is never an issue with the federal government. Yet remember, the federal government isn’t an ideal, it’s a crude derivative of government with enough security but without spiritual guidepost, or one great law-giver; such esteem was given to a war-winner, but not a law-giver. Remember Lycurgus, who founded Sparta unto greatness from corruption, partly by replacing the currency with lead, so as to make money worthless and discourage profiteering. This is what made Sparta great; communal meals between all classes of free men; a rotation of responsibility for males; the ordered exercise and singing practice for all women of a certain age; this is Lycurgus; who even if his laws were not understood, his integrity was to a degree his laws were followed. Compared to the guts of Lycurgus, the founders isn’t got nothing. And yet Sparta was known for war after war; those these were short week and month long wars, so it seemed in those early years, a battle comprised and decided a war. And certainly war is bad, the stewardship of country through an avoidance of war, is not such a bad deal; but the encouragement of the mercantile, which Lycurgus did away with as the scourge of the cause of corruption, so efficiently, Hamilton swears by.
Crude as this new government may be called; the other side, which the federalists argued against, seemed to cease and desist. In a way, the tragedy is not that they lost; but that they did not maintain a loyal opposition holding fast to their ideals of state checks upon federal legislation; which would involve states working with each other, and states finding common state’s allies. Wouldn’t that be interesting; seeing which states N.J. ranked in its first, second, third and fourth fifths? Whether state diplomacy could pay dividends in an increase in quality of life? But somehow the questioning of federal government is more appropriate a few decades into its reign, because it has held its purpose and its purpose achieved something, and now that purpose has been achieved, maybe higher ideals are possible to aspire to. It is easier to debate something after it has been seen in action, rather than before hand. Yet the anti-federalist movement died out; and while it flickers today, I hope to lead it closer to its home. An analysis of how and what anti-federalist movement broke down through the 1800’s would be a relevant inquiry.
Madison asks in 41, “Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative.” And yet there is precisely another side that at least would be wise to acknowledge, that has a faith man can live without war, that history is a mendacity, that Christian terminology transcends thousands of history books; that the inner orbits of people exist without violence, and it is just the outer ones organized by and as government beyond the control of those within its orbit. There is so precisely an opposing view, traditional, and integrity-filled, that Madison’s askance gesture reveals him as forgetful of crucial issues. And yet he is meant to be foil. This is obviously a potential departure point for a real examination of history, the metaphysics in context. The absence of faith by Madison; intensifies the faith seen now.
Having States essentially have no input in discussions of wars, save through federal representatives whose agenda is dominated by the executive; the prevalence of general agenda limits the opportunity for federal representatives to enact state agenda; and the multitude of representatives from other states, limit’s the hearing those particulars receive; whereas states being able to issue formal objections and proposals regarding laws, through whatever requirements, would command the center stage needed for such inquiries.
History concretely shows, especially recently, a total lack of voice by particular states as identities regarding their opinions on Iraq and Viet Nam. This proves Madison’s claim that the representative legislature was from individual states, to a degree where such quality was confederate as opposed to national. Even though Viet Nam was unnecessary insofar as communism is doomed to fall of its own weighty collapse upon indigent culture, its unpopular attempt to cast religion as a weed; its imperial homogeneity; and ignorance of dualism, and one party cast; all show Viet Nam as unnecessary and even fueling communism’s false fire.
Likewise, whereas Islam can be seen as oppressing the Arab people and existing for tyrants to sell us oil; And America can be cast as a very wasteful and unproductive economy who does not deserve Mid East oil; so the conflict can be reconciled without a shot; and yet the war is grievously not run this diplomatically or honestly. And again, errant and foolish as attacking Iraq was, as bowing to Saudi Arabia may be; the states had little say in the matter, because their representatives sucked up to George the second too easily, because their fears were played upon by a warmongering press; because the press is the outer orbit from where the metaphysic works its magic far from the outstretched hand of the spiritual and faithful people, because western civilization may provide a rampart of people; but also open the hope of the outer reaches of international diplomacy allowing a guiding spirituality and understanding to impose a time of peace and truth and healing; until we see where that trailhead leads.
Madison likewise insists the top limit of approval of tax funds for armies and wars be every two years. War funding seem voted on several times a years in times of overseas wars; and despite the lack of success; indeed the positing of conflict at times it seems, which would be the opposite of just war, is continually approved; whereby if state legislatures were all equal a vote or vote and a half, and weighed in on the war; more wisdom would prevail, because 50 state legislatures isn’t gonna back down to no warmongering press because state legislatures are closer to the people, and state legislatures have more people involved, and a higher group, than represent their state in congress. Thus Madison’s system claiming the approval of appropriations every so often constitutes a check upon war, is refuted by history herself, and logic as well. He says, “..The best possible precaution against standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support.” And as I just said, this is conclusively shown not to be true. The genius Hamilton claims will arise from federal officials being of a larger pool than state legislatures is negated by the pressure on them from a press fixated on power, even creating powerful actions scrumptiously without accountability, and pressure from the executive. It would seem Congress and the Supreme Court would ally against the executive; simply because both of them are more mellow than the presidency, though the supreme court is benign, congress exerts a more reasonable tone.
Even when Madison eloquently and truly says, “America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibit’s a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited” , one may respond that there is a need for a common defense treaty, but nothing more than that.
Madison makes the case the potential for American wars between the state lands was greater than that of Europe, because in addition to the states having to worry about each other, they would also have to worry about Europe. Yet for that we must ask ourselves, “Do we truly distrust Europe?” Were the French ever that mean to us? Did not the brits almost lose to us? Has there been threat or conspiracy uncovered? IS the friendship of a European rival such a bad thing? There is a lot of foreign affairs in this intrigue line of thought. Fobbing off Europe as undealable, is not quite integrity. And likewise, if European nations did want to exert an evil force upon America, would not that unite the states, and as fulcrum, lead to greater and natural peace among the states; And does not this fulcrum seem remote compared to the fulcrum of Indian tribes. And much as discussion about whether Europe is good or evil is merited; it is several times more regarding Indian tribes. Likewise is it possible to discuss that we might unite Europe, and into putting a lot of ships together and sailing here. Though it would seem Europe values its differences.
But there is a worry there would be attacks from the Atlantic sea, and the maritime towns would be forced to pay ransoms while the inland areas failed to care. Yet the inland areas may need help against Indians. Moreover such a real politic would test the market into correcting itself, and the common interests of a defense league, have to prevail, through diplomatic and understanding negotiation. Would not the aid of troubled areas, by more impoverished places, stand to benefit all, in a continuing evolution of natural economy?
Then Ironically, Madison says power,” to lay and collect, taxes, imposts and duties and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to a commusion to exercise every power which may be alleged to be for the common defense or general welfare.” Now we know from history, Congress has used the general welfare clause for everything including health care. So it does amount to such a vast commission, even if it is not intended to.
Madison claims that since the specific powers of congress follows the general welfare clause, the general welfare clause may not be interpreted to give a wide latitude beyond the specifics listed right below it; power “to borrow money on credit,” etc. And if that was the intent, then either Madison is lying and knows fulwell how the general welfare clause may be construed to mean much more than the following powers, including health care; or the courts really misunderstand the lettering of the law.
Because I believe in greater state responsibility and local communities deciding issues in free assembly, I would say general welfare implies, ironically, a short term response to a negative situation, and not a long term solution. Whereas the powers following are of a more permanent nature. Yet it may be said money from taxes may be used for the general welfare of the united states’ if that means of the prestige of our government abroad, then our federal government may use that money appropriately, but insofar as it means the strength of the people, in the words welfare of the united states, such money may not be wise, for money may not make us strong; and at some point the federal government looking after education is a responsibility it needs to delegate. The failure to delegate to the states, is where the failure of federal government ultimately lies. States so dependant on central government forget their own importance and devices.
But when Madison insists the specific powers inclusion confound a movement by the words “general welfare” that specific argument is untrue, and suggestive of being taken advantage to expand the scope of federal government because those powers are only included in the category of general welfare rather than comprising it. Whereas seeing the power specifically mentioned as powers recommended for federal governments; and the phrase general welfare as signifying short term needs from situations that require thought, successively defines the specific powers, and short term necessities.
In 42 Madison debates the need for federal government to deal with foreign powers. A defense league would need a state department; but diplomats from states to foreign powers are relevant and may expose provincial understandings to sophisticated ones from longer duration. Federal diplomats need not rule out nor weaken state ones. Madison also again cites a clause prohibiting the importation of slaves after 1808, which I do not see in the current constitution. State diplomats may also facilitate commercial interests, even though Lycurgus rid Sparta of corruption by making Sparta as self-sustaining as possible. Thus comes to mind the diplomatic ideal of countries benefiting from exposure to better ways of other lands; indeed, Lycurgus got his wisdom from travels before he applied those lessons to Sparta.
That Madison cites a clause to do away with the importation of slaves after 1808, which did not make it into the final draft is relevant in two ways. For one, there is no mention of the 3/5 act which made slaves equal to 3/5 a person in relation to number of representatives a state had in congress. And secondly, had this clause gone through, it heralded an abolition movement that might have removed slavery as an issue by the time of 1860 when disputes over Kansas and Nebraska threatened war. There might have been less a phony excuse for war had the slaves been freed by 1860.
Madison then goes on to say that were the states to have the right to regulate their own commerce with other states, animosities would flare. This contention, is a battle, because I would think economic regulation would give the necessary prudence to avoid wars. And this sort of market correction is necessary and not to be feared by embraced. Now to be sure impediments of duties upon goods from other states, may increase the sustainability of regions by having the free market effect of reducing trade and thus encouraging sustainability; which seems the traditional point of duties to begin with.
He makes a point how Switzerland and Germany and Holland are not intended to have their counties or cantons impose duties on goods passing through within their respective nation; but while that is obeyed in Switzerland, to what effect of sustainability, and mischieveiously ignored apparently at times in Holland, and subject to national permission in Holland; indicates that this issue can be addressed and has been tried, by larger and more central governments, without necessarily damaging autonomy insofar as states may conversely be allowed to impose taxes such as each states agrees to the virtues of common and agreed rules.
Regarding the Indians, who today have their own nations on land reserved to them; Madison admits and agrees it is a perplexing question of how to regulate trade with them or bring them before our judicial authority. The notion of states maintaining their own currency, or barter or use bills of credit, is never seriously entertained. What is most an issue, and most needs to be worked out; is never seriously considered. What Lycurgus did to Sparta in making things payable only in lead, our founders never consider. In this symmetrical sense, they lack the tribunal check on federal governments through a lower class of people or state, which Ancient Rome prided itself on, and achieved through a strike by the army; though a soon corrupted system that conformed to the law of power corrupting; and rather than a disdain for money which Sparta was founded on for 800 years, an almost absolute love of money and mercantilism and focus on therein as some natural course of government. Thus being tight with money, or circumscribing money, were never concerned worries of federal government. And compared to this flaw of government, American understandings are quite different and oppressed.
The lack of discussion of different rights in different states that could ensue with the articles of confederation; and the issue that conditions for bankruptcy may be different among the several states under the articles of confederation; for the most part, misses the principals, that it is healthy for those entrusted with land and people, to practice their exercise of power so as to grow healthy, rather than be restrained so care can not emanate. Yet the latter has happened to an extent to wonder whether he design of our federal constitution wasn’t to weaken the care of our land. This of course would be a sacrifice commensurate with wars we hear of from history.
There is a lack of discussion of the entry of new states into the union. The articles of confederation seem to be of dissimilar states enough to allow a freedom of motion to evolving states, while the federalist argue regulation therein is of the essence. This issue too, is not fairly entertained. Likewise assumed is the protection of the states from monarchial or aristocratic governments. This is disrespectful to such forms of government that actually employ less people and are smaller than republican governments, and whose provisions are based in understanding that the people may be able to take care of themselves more independently of a king, than of a federal republican government.
Nor can a state per se be said to be prone to monarchal and aristocratic aspirations. And such aristocracy can be seen in classes that senators came from in Rome, and intended to arise from in America. It seems there is a great deal of talk by Hamilton and Madison about how the means are required for the ends of a federal government and how energy is so important for a federal government; when really a federal government stifles the ambitions of leaders within a state, and stifles the positive relations that can be accrued from the friendly guidance of a foreign power, and stifles creative cultures of emerging states. Madison and Hamilton argue those contingencies are likely to be bad; but certainly they are energetic, and energy is recognized as essential to good government.
This energy according to Madison in 43 is more likely to come out in attempts at dominance by more ambitious or vengeful states; rather than the contractual and governmental creativity our federal government has been falsely venerated as assuming. Though history may be full of confederacies where stronger parts eat their weaker confederates; I believe we would be very pleased to see if this actually happened, or has a chance to, and find it disproven, and then America would be that perfect land it feigns to pretend in its self-imposed moniker as the greatest nation on earth with the most perfect government.
There has been no discussion of a two party system. In paper 43 minor and majority parties are raised, and in the convention, bipartisanship is considered divine towards the agreement with a federal government. Yet what happened in America, and in Rome, is that the party of the people, became wholly corrupted, ineffectual, dysfunctional, and not responsible, for some great injustices stemming from the metaphysical control of the press, to dealing with real issues like the ineffective overabundance and regulation of school.
Yet the federal government is here understood as having the potential to coolly reconcile conflict between two parties or factions within a state through the interposition of the state’s representatives. Yet discord within states, has never reached that pitch in history I am aware of. Thus fear of factionalism is exposed as overstated, and the solution of federal representatives never required to. Though the healthy part of the nation could cure an unhealthy part—and the cool concerns of confederate states would care about each other through the transit of federal government; such has never been needed to be brought to bear. Is that because there is no factionalism ripping apart a state; And is that because one assumes a more vigorous and honest and essaying democratic party, there is such a vacuum of political form, that these fears are never manifested, hence their security checks ill-conceived.
Madison again argues that were the states to make treaties with many provisions among themselves, the damaging of one article of the treaties, could make whole collections of governing articles fall; whereas the humanist and faithful view would have these contractual studies develop the muscles and characters of government to demonstrate the positive nature of diplomatic interaction within America and its united concerns.
In paper 44, to me the place where economic stifling and artificial regulation sets in is article 1 sections 9 and 10 which prohibit Bills of Credit, which would facilitate direct trade without the use of money; of whose virtues I have spoken. The prohibition of economic alliances, also strikes me a reducing complimentary and beneficial relations between states that may aid in the self-definition of states. OF course this production must be consistent with local polities of free assembly to ensure common values assertion, rather than endless labor as dominates a long work week now without free assemblies. This and the prohibition of a state coining its own money, I believe is a little cited passage of the federal constitution where a great deal of trouble and misery comes from.
Because this portion is virtually verbatim from the article of confederation Madison foists it off as a no issue; when, in keeping with the other nonissues that actually deserve a great deal of consideration; these prohibitions are quite damaging. Why the articles of confederation outlawed alliance between the state and bills of credit, makes the articles more conservative than history and Madison and Hamilton make it out to be. Maybe the movement to constitution from articles while nullifying the opportunity for states to interpose vetoes on federal legislation, was still conservative enough to discourage political and cultural creativity within states. Suffice the integrity to production be contingent upon dialogue, as opposed to strict freedom, as well as production rather than mercantilism.
Madison’s condemnation of paper money as worsening the worth of currency ignores the paper of bills of credit as more transferable and intended so towards direct goods, from the export of direct goods. Bills of Credit are a way around money, and not necessarily a paper form of money which circumvents gold and silver. Again the negative characterization of human nature dominates in the form that assumes different currencies among the states would lead to animosity between the states, rather than cultural creativity. Is this a valid or fair assumption; must we not have the minutes of what each state says in regard to these charges? Are the states able to defend themselves specifically from these charges? From what I see, the states have no chance to address what might reasonable be defended from as slanderous, and liable.
Madison argues again, abolishing duties and imposts allows free trade between the states; as well as giving the federal government a check against potential abuses by states. And yet Trade is fundamentally not free. Trade is about goods and production which requires work. To not adorn our unique understandings of goods and productions, with understandings of government, is to not link the economy with government. In other words, trade is always an issue, while the exchange of goods may be free, the goods themselves are not, relatively speaking; and therefore there should be sets of rules protecting and regulating production from the unfair manipulation of their trade and market. Thus most laws of imposts and duties understand this obligation to their states own production; allow for the negation of what and how these should be determined; offer the opportunity for concessions on both sides. I produce potatoes; somehow I may say that my right to sell potatoes in my own state is rightly unimpeded; and that possibly how potatoes growers in other states respond to my potatoes and me to theirs in my state is an issue. While I would want my potatoes to sell without impost, nor want an impost upon potatoes from other states sold near me; I can see how this sort of thing needs to be reviewed, for maybe it is possible and logical for potatoes to go where they are nearest.
Madison says in 44, “No axiom is more clearly established in law, and in reason, that whenever the end is required, the means are authorized; whenever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included.” I do not believe it is true. If the government must uproot terror, spying on American citizens is not tolerated, because such ill suspicion does not damage the citizen, but the morals of the government administrating such affronts. Likewise if the law commands ending the wave of immigration illegally and population growth, the federal government seems unable to subsume the means to do this; even as the spirit of states and communities in this regard have the capability to be serious enough. Even the appropriate pressure upon the pride of south American governments that may be afflicted through American diplomacy is not effected. Thus warped means cause warped governments, and not long run benefits; whereas automatically granting the means to achieve something; may not be consistent with the innate abilities of the federal government. If the ability does not exist, no amount of means will make the ability possible.
Then the stanza about how the states can interpose a check upon federal government through casting out its representatives; whose consequent refrain is that incumbents survive illusionary elections; and that the federal government is not capable of the creative legislation, or meant to be, that government pursues. There will be and has been such an absence of relevant and truthful federal legislation, that the states were never galvanized to test their spirit as a political force. This may explain how states never have much taken issue with federal governments; and how the case is more fairly cast as the federal government recognizing the necessary humility to delegate to the states, than states assuming tribunal mantles and tilting at the federal government. That kind of knighthood, equestrianism, has been eschewed by the vast proportion of federal government. Though grievances may be checked upon the federal government through federal court by states and individuals; since power and energy and focus is within the federal government, this dynamic is more likely achieved by a humility of federal government assigning tasks of general welfare to states; yet the vastness of land, number of people, focus of media, seems to inflate the ego of federal officials beyond this efficacy.
Obviously the defense union will have to be designed to reconcile with the developing cultures of each state. Again this is the belief states can work things out; war is not inevitably turned to. It seems the threat of war is used to ascertain something evil.
Spirit of new world, states would have gotten along united by common defense issues like ancient Rome proven clean slate new hemisphere would have gotten along and done something amazing, instead of colossus, playing it safe, homogenizing, and broad. As I read the federalist papers I start to feel what America could be, or could have been, as a peaceful and united new world; not as gasconaded but actually, had not there been such a strong federal government and the states handled there own territory more.
There would have been more approaches to the problem of voting contradicting the kingdom of god. More economic allure and potential from allowing economic alliances and bills of credit; The care of the states by the states; that authority was severely crippled through the miscalculation, if it was simply such, of the federal constitution; The short term aspect of the necessity of the constitution till galvanized and united by America and American defense prospects is completely passed over, recklessly; as if what makes sense in 1790 must needs make sense forever. America took over the west very quickly, practically in 50 years. So we must not blink at the destruction caused by overpopulation and suburbs and malls we’ve done not so quickly in past decades. America moves fast enough that I hope an open forum for this stops it on a dime. All the building approved by local officials, abridge free assembly, which is a form to make community decisions that is logical and natural, has been done illegally. The incorporation of local officials through state constitutions violated the tenth amendments reservation of powers to the state or the people. Debate over this kind of stuff is in the media, yet the media is outside the orbit of the people, focusing on power, and has the power to create what people say, as where the news flows from, without a professional conscience that I see to acknowledge its moral ambiguity. This rule of the press is possible because the press describes the representation of the kingdom of god.
The power necessary to insure the protection and funding of federal ambitions is a part of the contract that crippled state governments ability to care for their own states as they should. There are a multitude of questions upon a cobweb of federal government that need addressing which the federalist papers glosses over.
“If it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different states—” More and more I feel the spirit of the new world where the states would and can live together; and harbor less ambition against the Indian–a new world deprived by the founders.
“IF it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty….” If by faction a no communicative power is meant—I don’t know what to say—certainly the democratic party is a faction today to me–insofar as they are completely unable to address the issue of free assembly, or much at all—-and if a faction is merely a particular way or movement, like the populists, or the nascent Tea Party—then factions are good and what democracy is supposed to provide opportunity for.
“If the union be essential for the happiness of the people of America…” I don’t see it that way. Indeed I feel the spirit that something wondrous could happen—a lot of states getting along and wisely caring for their land—a rule of local free assemblies—a genuinely popular state government enabled to check any federal defense treaties.
Was the revolutionary war to benefit the people or the states, Madison asks, “Was the American revolution effected…..not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty and safety, but that the governments of the individual states…might enjoy a certain extent of power…..” This is a very interesting question. When Madison supposes the people to be better off under a federal government than a dignified and more sovereign state governments; I anyway see how that is a very slick and not true argument since a state government be closer to the people whose welfare be its concern. Moreover insofar as the British government oppressed the people, the point be a state government more caring. It would seem wars are fought for better government, not for a happier people—yes the Greeks fought the Persians to avoid slavery and death—-but even that just recoils to the way things were, and is not about improving the people but fending off oppression; and once that shackle is shaken; what is the form to ensure such threats and actualities do not menace again. While the people accrue some happiness to the delivered promise of the union that there be no war between the states, by and large; this not necessarily be consistent with a better land and economic cleverness; far from it. The vexation is that we never experimented with some state autonomies in a region, to see if they are inclined to war and human nature be more likely bad in the breast of man; than a new world offer the fresh opportunity to show peace prevailing.
There is just faulty reasoning abound; with history as proof; so there can be little argument. Madison in 45 says state governments will have the advantage in the allegiance of their people. I do not think this is true; there is more identity with the United States than the particular state, and to the detriment of that state and spirit. Madison says the Federal Government is more dependent on the states than the states on the federal government. Well, first the federal government doesn’t do much to make the people’s lives better; its charge being broad in the area of preventing war, little else; second the state has been emasculated from doing good things for the people, because it is not prone to consider what the federal is not made to consider; with all the focus on the federal, what the state can actually do, is lost. The state lost popularity and prowess incorporating towns with local officials, thus preventing a state wide aegis of wisdom governing things like building and destruction of forests, for the tinier vision of every municipality; while the federal stood by and did nothing to enforce its first, tenth and 14th amendment. The power of the federal government makes it arrogantly not consider the importance of the state; and the state is so dwarfed by the federal that the state can not consider its own stature and potential as well either. The federal government frustrates state government, witness raising the drinking age by withholding federal highway funds; far more than a state has stirred to stop unpopular wars; or has even cause to prevent the blandness that characterizes federal governments inadvertent oppression of the land. This is just faulty reasoning, and easily seen as so, because as the book goes on, the spirit of what could have been, how good the new world could be, without the federal government, refrains more.
“The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of The United States will be much smaller than the number employed under particular states.” Well yes, but let us say from their own principal of representing more people than state officials, the federal officials have more power, if less people; and let us say measuring power in officials specious to the proven extent that officials really don’t interact in our life in a positive measure as it is; they uphold the status quo, don’t take on the regulation of school and the economy, much less metaphysic or proving the possibility of spiritual understandings with other nations–officials, like the press, is where the metaphysic that make western civilization so, works from—in that sense they are a negative, or at most benign not something of value towards inveighing popular change in our lives. And finally, the number of federal employees in a Republic, is many more than would be employed by a king or monarch.
An analysis of this argument by Madison reveals the psychology behind it. If Madison truly wants state power to be puissant compared to federal government; he must turn to the nature of a central king with disparate nobles outside his spokes. In this model, once can truly say, A noble may be more popular with the people than the king if the noble enacts that which makes the people happy. Or the people may be happier because of a king, if the king, with his less extensive federal structure than a republic, allows the people to do what they want. Feudalism, not republicanism is of the structure alluded to. Madison mixes up the advantages of feudalism with the disadvantages of the republic; because a republic has many more employees than a monarchy.
“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.” This is simply not true. Now it is based on a rougher draft of the constitution contingent upon state legislatures having a say in the election of the president; but that has gone to the electoral college; and in today’s world the states are neither consulted as constituents, or essential to the federal government; where as the federal government sucks the spirit out of state government, and limits its organization. This characterizes The Federalist Papers as words without meaning designed to propel a federal constitution, to the ultimate detriment of the land.
“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain to the state are numerous and indefinite.” This has been mitigated by the general welfare of the people including long term designs by the federal government; a lack of intervention by the federal government concerning the incorporating of towns with local officials by the state constitution; a spirit of leadership upon the people turned to the federal government; an apathy of leadership by illegal local officials, and emasculated in both directions leadership by state government.
“The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of state governments in times of peace and security.” This is a fine ideal, but is it true. When in war and fighting for what may be the most essential parts of man and society that drive to war; those secured by war thus endears the federal government to the people more than any state can and contradicts the endearing nature of state government the papers try to paint.
The regulation of interstate commerce, also checks the natural liberties of state governments. The media, which lies about the human being and kingdom of god, school, the presentation of history, the irreality of money, all this is better dealt with through 50 paths of 50 states, than one supreme path which is logically foolish; for evil need just stultify one path for the many to be stopped.
The power to directly tax, Madison says, was only proved necessary had the states contributed what was needed and promised under the articles of confederation.
Metaphysically, one can not examine statures of government without contemplating the government of heaven and higher powers that influence earth from beyond and wondering what the government of that afterlife is like. Are all the souls equal? Are there varying states of afterlife consciousness and forms to reside in or is each separate soul essentially what there is? Are older souls more powerful? What is the extent of the form or lack of it to the afterlife? Are souls linked to the souls in whose time they entered the afterlife with. Is there rivalry, consensus, voting or pliability to forces more powerful than our afterlife? Without a working construction to the government of the afterlife, we have little stage for our own. Without agreement as to the nature of the afterlife; we gain little perspective on what is great about our life here. Is there really a need for government, or is that a false justification designed to take the power to life out of individuals and put it in officials, greatly stultifying possible progress in one’s own life.
Madison in 46 goes on, “to inquire whether the state governments or the federal will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. In some ways does the butting up against government, against rivals, prepare us for the strength the universe requires? That ghosts control society and government, in the rampart of western civilization, and those individuals outside it, used for greater freedom…
The idea, Madison says, is not that states and federal governments are rivals, but agencies with entirely different agencies. But making the federal more than a defense treaty, or more than what strictly is handled better for a larger aggregate, of which are few; and the restriction upon economic freedom, and genuine causation by diplomatic resources; means working together a cumbersome, unwieldy path; the demonstration of states referring to states, or working with the federal government, or doing anything to invigorate an apathetic status quo and false enjoyment of western civilization is simply not seen today.
Madison, says, “ultimate authority,….resides in the people alone. ….Truth… requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.” Yet today, the people are so apathetic, and the channels so not in place, largely through the usurping of municipal agendas by local officials; but the lack of interfacing with state and federal officials, the lack of consultation by officials of the people, the domination of debate by the media to the extent of making localized discussion feeble and underpowered….the people have been conspicuously not protected by the design of the federal constitution. So while the ideal is important; our laws must evolve to surfeit that importance.
Where the federal government is limited, for good reason, that superabundance of blandness there; has ill effects on state government towards picking up the slack–because if the almighty federal government stays from something; how can the state conceive to pick it up?
And the prejudices of federal representatives to their states power do not manifest themselves, because the culture of Washington exalts the federal government. So what is Madison thinking in citing otherwise. Likewise, as State governments are unlikely to include prejudices towards federal government; they have been so wholly quelled of spirit, and unobserved by media, and unfulfilled—that it is mute whether federal spirit interferes in state government because state government’s spirit has been so sapped through an ignoring by the press, and an emphasis on federal. Nationalism as it opposes one policy for many, is not a good thing, and keeps the roiled spirit and engendering policy-making from being developed and practiced as required by need and observation; though we can not forget this is in context of a higher power, a tragic creation of the kingdom of god.
“A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of congress than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the various states”. Really the case is that there is neither spirit, and little spirit found within the bland stifling caused by federal government; Local spirit either exists federally in the want for funds, which does little to take on the status quo but endorses such; And national spirit is great enough to relegate state spirit. This is done because the states have no pivot to turn to other states, or relate to national concerns. Look how the spirit of handling immigration or health care could be galvanized statewide, but is not allowed. Look how isolated the federal government renders the state, to a hollow echo of spirit, through the restriction upon state government dealing with state governments, or being able to take a lead in creating a better way of life.
Though illegal immigration be against the law, and undesired by anyone aware of the positive virtue the jobs they take offer, and the federal government fail to handle it; there is little state versus federal opposition on the matter; nor is there a tradition to be worked out in such form. Madison’s case that there is enough organization for states to effectively object to or create policy in defiance of federal policy is simply not true, and a part of his design for there to be a federal government, which is concomitant with a metaphysical desire for western civilization to be seriously flawed.
“But ambitious encroachments of federal government on the authority of state governments would not excite the oppositions of a single state, or of a few states only. There would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Paths of resistance would be concerted.”
Yet regarding health care and illegal aliens and the prosecution of recent unjust wars history has and will show as unnecessary, especially as our efforts do not address the enormous cruelty of Islam to the Arab people—there has been no such organization of spirit to the states. The states are very secondary in being turned to and activating legislation that appeals to the people, because it doesn’t not create a better economy or lessen school or understand spiritual concerns; and this is less likely to happen as states are not trained to turn to each other.
While state governments have not been annihilated, and federal governments have not used troops to take over states; the exercise of government, far from being invigorated and motioned dynamically; has been universally disappointing.
Madison extols in 47 the separation of the judiciary from the legislative. But he misses that judging for life, in small numbers, issues that effect millions, is no way to judge issue. As the flaw of the federal government is there is no check on it from states or people with grievances; so the flaw with the judiciary which entertains such grievances singularly laid is that the judiciary is of the federal government, does not to great proportion check or analyze the federal government–instead focusing on criminal behavior of the people; does not use nearly enough jurists to make decisions, or render decisions capable of being snappily understood–look at the wrong decisions of separation of church and state democrat process on established religion, and eminent domain use,—-and not only are tens or hundreds required to judge without inhibition or a bow to the status quo, so judges going on for long periods bound to bring about robotic interpretations, does not make the laws more accessible- but hides them in robes and cloaks—-so the separation of the judiciary is still flawed enough to negate its separation from the legislative and executive easily—-nor most grievously does it ever recognize free assembly as inhibited by local officials, who also violate the reservation of powers for state or people. The ignorance of these prominent laws, made with a lawgiver behind them, is incompetence; and for this governmental incompetence across the board exist, while Madison extol the virtue of the structure allowing such remiss, and the judiciary is ignorant of the relevance of religious studies.
When Madison cites the degrees of separation of powers within each state government; there is no mention of tribunal checks upon state officials, or channels for the people to oppose representative claims. The point being apparent more and more that government is meant to be cumbersome and stultify the progress the people may make being charged to order their own life. Were there free assemblies this might flow more. But free assemblies though in NJ till 1900 were cast over by state legislatures and constitutions, to their own great detriment. This, like so much relevant information, is not taught, and the assumption that locally we be represented as we do in state and federal and there is no place for the people to put their voice together and coherently demonstrate their consensus and discussion is ludicrous.
If government is designed to detach the natural volition to improve one’s life—the whole claim to good behind the federalist papers is lost. This separation of powers, while logical, and half empty, is a screen a decoy, a venerated aspect that obscures glaring liabilities.
In many ways the federal government, being concerned with post offices (another short term necessity for spirit, long term unnecessity) foreign powers and peace among the states; these are benign intentions; it is true while not helpful and too turned to, the federal government can not do anything really bad; this is true and within Madison’s compass. This makes the sole problem regarding the rectification of our polity based on the necessity of not turning to the federal government to solve issues, being too large, unwieldy and concerned with too vast an area; but to state governments. The federal government, at least it can be said and agreed upon, is too focused on, to glamorized, too accountable for more than it is capable. In some benign way, it is not the federal government that is at fault, but that the federal government is so turned to, and glamorized by the press, and that state governments and the exciting relevant things and examples they do, ignored by the national press.
Moreover, in 48, for purposes of argument, Madison cites in Pennsylvania how there was a body of censors designed observe and calculate whether the nascent state government has acted according to law and intention. And that also in Pennsylvania, the executive branch comprised of several if not many people. The allowance of greater state government among the states, as an increased object of focus, as of movement itself, highlights many different ways and vehicles to get things done; which would be of quite use to the development of the new world. The focus on one national government detects for the opportunity for governmental innovation, and traditional experiment resulting in political scientists dreams. The constricting effect of the national government is not the proper government for a righteous and unwarlike people. That this has not been noticed illuminates the fundamental background of the kingdom of god, and this writing a hope of changing western civilization to see what tangible comes of that.
Madison in 49 spends time elaborating the perfection of his separation of powers compared with existent in state governments. But really, we can look to history, Jesus no less, and see attention needed for foreign affairs to be ground in the unity of spirituality. We can look to ancient Rome and see the tribunal power of the people corrupted, much like the democratic party today. We can look at history and see the written word control the political word. We can take steps that we never war like Athens and Sparta without a federal government. We can examine the press and see what instills them with proper spirituality. We can look to the people and posit free assembly, and the state looking over statewide concerns, and broad concerns the federal government.
Jefferson mentions the compulsion to convention should two thirds of two of the three branches wish so regarding something. Madison does not recommend this fearing the interest of the people to be too impassioned; thus the argument for terms independent of popular approval. But government in the United States has made the people too inspirited, because politics, with the ending of free assembly is too removed from them to care, and to doing of little to inspire care. Really, the contracts necessary for good government should seek conventions of the people, and mark their input and count their solicitation.
All of his talk regarding the separation of powers pales before the larger issue, and the smaller issue is that the federal government essentially is not constructed to encroach upon our lives, and state governments and free assemblies must take on the issues nearest to us. The federal government already showing it is not meant to be that big of a deal with constant focus. Moreover, why have not Hamilton and Madison once mentioned free assembly as the only logical way for a community to make a decision because all are present. These founders are put down as venerated for the point of a federal governments imposition, without really settling a situation that responds to the people. In some ways this projection of our government is for a government essentially of western civilization, while western civilization’s explicit history has not been shown to achieve even truth, let along sail with her wind.
Around this point in the Federalist Papers, I find Madison has basically been explaining the arithmetic within the structure given. It is the structure I debate. The arithmetic within it does not occur to dispute me. So I will take some time to extemporize upon some issues that might fill out and further explain the perspective of my analysis on work we question. In my mind, the following issues form sort of a circle.
For instance, in my mind, what has justified the Federal Constitution as the great classical document it is; is its protection of free assembly from abridgement by local officials in the first amendment and in the tenth amendment’s reservation of powers to the state or the people. IN European Constitutions free assemblies are respected, but there is no reservation of powers to the state or the people; no backhand reinforcement of free assembly by a tenth amendment.
Yet free assembly is not understand as a form of community decision-making by all who care to participate through voice votes and consensus, nor is this respected as the only natural and logical form of community decision-making there is. It is where all are equals and all who care, may. It is as if we have forgotten the basic jurisprudence of not being able to hurt another, as essential to community.
Yet neither Hamilton nor Madison ever seem to mention this issue of local decision-making. Their argument centers chiefly around state legislatures. The greatest thing about the constitution is never cited by Hamilton or Madison. The perigee of my concern may be the absent apex of theirs. We cross swords, but not in each other’s hairs.
Almost in parallel lines, our state constitutions violate the tenth and first amendment when they incorporate towns with local officials; in the erroneous assumption of similarity between state and local needs for representation: Practically an error of ignorance. So the state negates it; our founders don’t mention it; so of course our federal government ignores our civil rights herein.
As I have noted; The tribunes of ancient Rome, who had to come of the lower class, to combat the political and religious dominance of the upper class; officials whose existence was established by the bold move of a strike and mass desertion to a neighboring hill by an army, in protest of an official inability to prosecute foolish conduct in the leadership of wars: These posts of tribunes swiftly descended into corruption and consistently fell far short of the ideals they were created for. Does this remind you of something? Jefferson’s Democratic Party; created with noble ideals, a party of the people, friendly to state rights, anti federal government; failing the people consistently like a poor sports franchise.
Why is this? This is because free assembly is rooted in the bill of rights, but enough towns in N.J. are wholly democratic enough to constitute a one party rule and abridge free assembly: an almost mythical democratic party machine; capable of making everyone democratic in a single blink.
So maybe, the tribunes of ancient Rome had trouble enacting goals of the people because Free Assembly in Rome, which was practiced by tribal meetings, for Rome was divided into a score or two of tribes, and supposed to practiced at a community level. Free Assembly seemed to compete, either as adjunct or solely to some level of patrician power, through Italy in Rome’s earlier days. This is evidenced most strikingly by Livy’s history citing free assemblies called by many an Italian town in order to decide whether to support Hannibal’s side, or Rome’s side, as both were fairly evenly matched, and choosing the wrong side was too great a risk for patricians to take or be able to take, and free assemblies were naturally concourse to spread the guilt around.
But perhaps the absence of free assembly is what knocked the tribunes akilter, as it certainly exists as a pretext here for the media of press to exploit. Perhaps the sheer written record constituting history back then, parallel to our use of the press, enacts the pressure to assert the corruption of officials; simply through the lack of balance the status quo may provide.
If Western Civilization is a preset to increased population; as both Rome and America advanced; and what differentiates the parameters of western civilization from tribal ways and thinking; then there is no guarantee the thought of creating an epoch of truth is more than an enticing advertisement for western civilization as opposed to something consistent with western civilization.
The press desires an extension of its slander, which an off-balanced democratic party provides; chiefly marked by an inability to get along; consistent with the thematic of local representative government; reinforcing the illusion of the need for the few to decide for the many.
This absolute emanation of press; within the legal structure seeking to ensure a free press; is one of the criteria for communism.
And we meet other criteria of communism as well. Imperialism, be it Roman or American against native tribes, or the ascension of communism in the far east; be a communistic movement defined. The homogenizing effect of federal government is consistent with the naïve structures of communism. Communism’s implosion of its own accord illuminates the folly of the Viet Nam as unnecessary. Little doubt Islam will fall of its own accord, or at least be recognized as the artifice it is to sell us oil; alongside the reconciliation of our communities with free assembly and wisdom and economy.
Yet our press may not mention these constitutional proofs, because it would show how the kingdom of god, can be easily controlled to be ignorant of our own precepts and laws. And the whole point of the press is to otherwise. Thus the press must at least meet with me to discuss this as an issue of professionalism; in the event revealing the universe as the cause of our condition falters.
Likewise the banning of religion’s guidance from government; an absence of the recognition of the spiritual, may be consistent with communisms greedy assumptions. The regulation of school, the lack of discussion of the economy, leads to a lack of free-thinking, and empowerment; consistent with communism; and as this discussion is abridged by one party representative rule, this is more communism.
I also believe were free assembly truly practiced, we would have a more agrarian society; making agricultural, especially an organic culture predicated on many hours, a political vanguard, and somewhat recognized as outside the political mainstream and culture.
I also find it curious how Livy and Suetonius sometimes mention without explaining how there is a lower house to the senate called the house, similar to the assembly of people; for though while things do have to be run by the people in roman republicanism; there is much less mention of those conduits than the senate, which is mentioned often. There are also tribal votes in piazzas of Rome, assemblies of people, and some lower form of legislative body, that merges into the form of assembly of the people.
Agrarianism was in the background of Livy’s tome; farmers didn’t want the fields trodden by armies; In the nights of Caesars farming was obviously greater and more surrounded as soldiers wanted farmlands as pension. It is outside the economy, well in The Kingdom of God, and thus neglected by Media; but were agriculture to assert itself, in its conservativeness; It could overcome the forces of false lies and create something kinder. But then the population would decrease. Thus we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our large population. How do we consciously reproduce the Kingdom of God, for that matter? Surely it is ordered by the Universe. The form of life after death seems more consistent or relative to existent forms in the universe; perhaps more accepting (of metaphysics) than the incorporated. Yet a more likely analysis is there is some sort of gain, to the afterlife of our human race; from condescending to this population, consistent with the structure of western civilization rather than the smaller population tribal society affords.
Indeed; insofar the structure of earth depends upon a rock at this ratio to star; one earthlike planet may be sold up the river for another; if one is to consider the vastness of the universe; this may be implausible; but certainly thought.
Attack and solve the problems that cause crime; a humanistic approach; then turn that caution upon the public figures who determine society to the degree manifested by media.
There is also a principal of many jurists judging issues of law with less inhibition and greater wisdom, than one judge; With more people aware and serving this capacity; short term jurists would be less capable of swallowed up socially by an upper class so conspicuously dominant in judicial scores; Indeed, that is why the tribunes; whose officials so famously checked the roman senate through veto power and threats of prosecution for foolish actions; by law had to come from the lower classes; to ensure they could not be corrupted by the society their check was bound to balance. This principle is sorely missed by our federalism and state governments. Yet again, were it explained and the truth take to the current a flowing, population rates must go down; and thus we must ask ourselves again; what is the benefit the production of reproduction.
That is the ultimate explanation for why Judge Anne Thompson seemed to feign an inability to understand the natural concept of the localities being ruled in free assemblies. While European constitutions forbid the abridgement of free assemblies; which is flagrantly done in Europe too; European constitutions lack the positioning of State and People powers not given to the federal government must go to. One discourse within the federalists papers cites the increased benefit of laws found by a great lawgiver like Lycurgus; whose legend backed the law. Whereas laws, without a character behind them, failed in their galvanization of legal success. Free assemblies are frequently cited from the annals of Rome.
We return to question population rate; with the metaphor from Livy of ramparts; wherein our population is a rampart relied on against the universe; so the interplay changes between light and night. Obviously there is a law violated, obviously the federal government is outdated, obviously no one cares, the strict hand of god has a hold on everyone; Yet the law violated offers hope; even to a small planet in a huge universe; but all the time, perhaps, hope is just offered; the real point is the necessity of human beings to provide the basis for a representation of culture.
The light part is composed of some hard gold like block, so it seems this day; souls have grown into comfortably alongside human beings; thus making things easy. But there also may be human minds spread out over earth as a part of the superstructure to the structure of life after death.
The people strike me as more concerned about God, than the federal constitution. With the lack of care from the people; in lieu of the real point; this is more like a battle I can’t win; than a debate.
The light must merge in an awareness of the universe; to such distinguished form; or so great is the human mind, the afterlife lives in its shadow, and blends unsensing into the immaterial or material or towards other pinholes of light, thus providing for many soul. This sort of existence may be sad, but necessary and capable of communication grounded into further understanding of the fineness of life; Into the impressionistic afterlife so much exist grounded away too to the fine, in which a form is searched for that is actual, relative, and relevant. The conception of the universe is searched for; the implication the universe is here as well arises.
Insofar as Christs must be worshipped within Christian context; the lies of western civilization compel the excuse for the human being; as we wonder whether western civilization will ever crystallize and grow Christian consciousness, or has the sole point long been done? Can a culture, over years produce a reckoning; is it just to keep us tuned in as weak in battle?
There have been two reaches, in world history, the thinking goes, a Reich meaning a nation which lasted a thousand years; the first is the Jewish people who existed consistently over a thousand years; it can be defined as not having the same place all the time; but a religious movement consistent with self-government; in fact the wonderful thing about Judaism, was the priests ran government. They made lots of laws concerning religion. Like Rome their conservative order was subtly blended throughout religion.
And like ancient Rome, which was the other Reich, having started in 800BC and going on strong at 90AD. I suppose Egypt and Persia and China may be considered Reich; but when Hitler presumed to the third Reich, he was talking within the contexts of western civilization. The first two reichs both share a strong written word; as does America with its media; the written word of the old testament, arrogates the taking of Israel, a small portion of land from other older religions; Rome is filled with annals which record the history of each year; as well as historians. Thus Long governments are associated with the written word. This shines light upon the press in America as reverberating where the issues of today enemata.
“You must enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” This forgets the primacy of historians. Moreover there is a failure to assert the dynamism of Rome for 600 years, was that its executive branch had terms for only a year. The four year term really is stagnating; yet Madison never mentions the alternative of 1 yr executive terms. Nor is a program for determining a slate of candidates to choose from, an issue; one of the vexing and conservative qualities to national politics is that there are no good candidates to choose; that really understand the people better off for discussing the economy; that really understand our educational system as falsely over regulated; Who comes up with the candidates to choose; why are the people we may respect in more humble domains never considered. That was an issue in ancient Rome. The choosing of who the people can choose from, an issue. The people not only wanted the right to choose among candidates; which is natural enough I suppose; but the right to choose at least some of the candidates they are to choose from. The absence of the latter also points to the flaws of our federal design.
We now turn to commerce. A natural economy would naturally regulate itself to a wise and sustainable society. It would seem knowledge of that regulation and its particulars; that essential focus on production; would grow from within the state, rather than Washington. Thus states are more prone to economic wisdom than the federal government. And no clearer sight of how the authority of the federal government, which is vast enough to not be encompassed in one authoritarian figure to be negotiated with; more of a community of government with no one to appeal to because the federal government is bigger than each official, even each department and agency; and thus the interstate commerce regulation clause of the federal government may be viewed as an authority designed to stop the bad, rather than enforce the good; not really made consistent with creative economics at all.
“The most laborious task will be 53 the proper inauguration of the government and the primeval formation of a federal code. Improvements on the first draught will every year become easier and fewer.” This does not seem to be the pattern. Creating a federal bank was the second draught of federal government; and that confuses market influences, and fails to see the federal government play the same game in the same society as we do; to a point of a lack of competition.
“The affairs of the union will become more and more objects of curiosity and conversation among citizens at large….The increased intercourse among of those different states will contribute not a little to diffuse a mutual knowledge” Yet this has not happened’ the federal government is so uncreative as to repulse people from state knowledge, whereas a media focus on how states successfully and differently handle issues barely seems to exist. In other words, the high property taxes of NJ should turn to PA to see how theirs are substantively lower; (even if the answer is less expensive real estate; likewise, how some states can not have a state income tax, and others do; needs to be examined.
Meanwhile if government is destined to be involved in insurance, why not start with simpler car insurance; instead of many hundreds of dollars of year; why not twenty dollars a month to a state or national pool who dole out payment to those in car accidents who really need it; otherwise keep the offending party responsible within reasonable deductibles for error ridden behavior.
The focus on federal government has not brought out wise debate. Did God know those words would not manifest themselves?
Look at our domination of the Olympics. Did our founders intend for a large republic to compete with smaller European states? Do we not win because of our larger pool of talent? Is the fairness of that, and relativity considered relevant to Olympics, or would that expose a path to greater truth.
Let us look at the great compromise as calculating the slave as worth 3/5 of what the governance of citizen weighs to in the representation eyes of federal legislatures from those electorates. Is it a wise or healthy ethos for production to be based on slavery. Aren’t workers interesting enough for labor to be done normally; aren’t those transcendent values? What value is denigrating the fabric that sustainability requires labor, and labor is good. Or whose absence felt in today’s business culture and nonproductive times? Is not slavery also a mine tossed in to hurt us; neither as in our real interest as a false subtly dominate press; nor regulative educational system; as is corrupted Christianity with its cross? These mines very much seem to a rivulet from the bar of heaven upon the natural flow of humanism.
A law allowing voting, may not allow the ideal slate of candidates to choose from. Representatives and judges may be chosen fairly, but who assures they can not be bribed?
In 55 there is the fine issue of the ratio of representatives to people in the state legislature: the lower the ratio the better; without being ridiculous.
From my personal experience, my congressman has never responded with the energy my observations meant to convey to him. Likewise Judges, have not signified the vigor and energy invested in them- due to a class affiliation with the other parties of my suits more flowing with the status quo than I. These problems along signify the glory of our construction needs to be alloyed with the realistic temperaments aware metaphysically.
Where Madison is confident the state legislatures can stand up to and remedy foolish federal legislation,…having so “many motives to watch, and which possess so many means of counteracting federal legislation, would…fail…to defeat. A conspiracy against their common constituents” Madison fails to calculate that the incorporating of towns with local officials, in violation of the first and tenth amendment; would amputate state governments from their legality; or that States have never been strong enough to effectively or regularly temper federal legislation, except in strongest republican terms, never as a single or defined group of states; this theater hasn’t come much into play. Yet if you understand the glorifying of our federal structure; what I cite is not imagined; just the way the egos of federal officials fail to see the valuable check of state legislatures.
The problem is not the rich but the fraud; And the fraud involves everyone, so great is the control of heaven upon individual wills that western civilization controlled by less material environments to frame a show for me and the people to their degree of exertion from which we try to climb towards truth and reckoning. Maybe this is not meant to be more than a chimera, maybe there is meant to be a capstone.
There is quite a belief federal officials will be leaders who take this country to a better place, through virtue. Without the check of a lower class or state legislature judiciary upon the federal government, I do not think this virtue will shine through. In 56 he assumes officials will have more substantive resumes and the elective system promote natural affection, that frequent elections and similarity of interests between he and his constituents will guarantee the leadership to the greater path. The nobility and glory will suffice. Such is mist of this fire and water. “Duty, gratitude, interest and ambition itself are the cords by which they (federal representatives) will be bound to fidelity and sympathy with the great mass of the people.”
There is a class element I would like to address, insofar, as, in 57, Madison starts, to justify the wisest as being the upper class; in that federal representatives will be elected to federal office by, “not the rich, more than poor, not the learned more than the ignorant….;” And yet the slate of candidates is rarely from the common man of common experience, as Madison justifies the elevation of individuals to a stratosphere from which federal office may be sought as consistent with the nature of earth. The limitation of terms to two years, enforcing the responsibility of the people.
Yet as I have said, because it seems a great deal of public policy enemata from within the press; or at least within the status quo the press reinforces; the most prime being the human being as human; elections are very easily controlled consistent with incumbency: Nor is some method of arranging candidates of the slate for the people to decide from contrived. And subsequently you have few candidates who take on the logic of discussing the economy in local free assemblies, or loosening the regulation of school. That would be too outside what is asserted by the press as concerns of the people.
And the ills of nonplussment towards stated iniquities do not reflect a conspiracy of the rich; but a fraudulent imposition by heaven within the universe.
Yet, our federal constitution is hallmarked, in the context of its debate, by insinuating aspersions upon the upper class as the chief benefactors of the transition from monarchal to republican rule; same story in ancient Rome: after 5 kings, the rich went republican.
Who benefits from a conservative republic? The rich? No, they really don’t exist, are an illusion. Ergo the metaphysic benefits; and benefits through this warp of the upper class. Wise as the upper class is meant to be; it does not seem to be able to pierce the entrapment of the status quo through the press. A natural slate of candidates is rarely processed and refined; through the true solicitation and canvass of the people; pertinent issues aren’t barely addressed. Such is the context of lies within western civilization from the metaphysic. There is no tie between the voter and elected; in context of our barren civilization. The natural roots of survival and protection long extirpated in its way; so how are they to surface and suffice with polity; other deep more primal urges are denied; while the light and air of polity may embrace the condition; the history of politics has shown ridiculously little concourse to human reason; save the example of Jesus Christ; and the Preaching’s of John the Baptist; Hindu understandings of the universe; Greek mythology, Christian terms; religious sophistication in most paths. Polity is continually denied its natural assertions and states. Anything humane that does happen may be outside the realm-domain of history and media reporting; insofar as said entities misrepresent fundamentally, the state of the human race.
We still ask ourselves, what is the federal official? In that it breaks from the monarchal tradition; at least that monarchal tradition had an authority you could appeal to. A face behind the law: A person in charge compelled to listen and decide. Once you lose that absolute authoritarianism, defined as authority being in a person; for the many of republican government through federal officials from all the states, a diluted form of authority. You may come across a situation where no one is really in charge; yet there is significant authority over your life; even as it compels the domain of the most important issues, without considering those absent issues.
From this angle; republicanism looks more and more like communism; or a form of government where a party or class is in charge, and such entity difficult to logically galvanize; this latter dialectic from the monarchy easier to use to reinforce status quo; though less prone to far, insofar as a body of officials is less manipulated to war than one sovereign individual. These dynamics a compromise of the amalgamation of the elite that must be countered against a prime reason for kingdoms: when the sovereign is merely one man; his rule more easily construed a show for the people to work around. And in some way; that is what must galvanize the people of a republic around the show of the media. Society in my day is potential many parts TV channels, and 1 part social opportunity with friends, and another part co-workers; such ratio emblematic of the rarity of that which breaks from the representation of earth through TV and writing; this western civilization context makes the use of writing morally ambiguous indeed.
The federal official is therefore though revered as a force of good, a pawn of the press; combined with the press to suck in the locus of importance, and block its discussion through the obstructions of its true form.
So when Madison speaks of candidates, 57, “somewhat distinguished by those qualities, which entitle them to ( that which makes them preferred by voters) and promise a sincere and scrupulous regard to the nature of their engagements” This belief in the upper class fails to consider and more endorses the form of the rich as flawed, rather than self-benefiting. The portrayal of the upper class as flawed is also consistent with the known prism of communism; it is just directed through the representation of the elite as pawns to deflect and help subsume the call to wrangle out western civilization and learn the truth. Of course truth can be of necessity under the invasive universe subjective.
Madison too generously overstates the optimism of the wonderful feeling representing one’s citizen’s to make things great. This idealism which has so completely not panned out in developing the cultures endeared to the people; be it the uprooting of agriculture by business, domination of time by TV, slur of truth by anti-religious sentiment, or conduct in free assemblies; little encouragement of noncorporate business even, let along the absence of the people and limelight of media. This is consistent with descriptions of the roman people, who while afforded more latitude in tribes and assemblies of the people and office of tribunes, than the people today; seem wholly absent from an effective stopping of Ancient Rome’s imperialist and warlike culture; culminating in an equal ineffectiveness combating wanton emperors domestically. Thus the people never developed the culture to contrast at least in history, the expansion of the roman empire. So to think the representative system in America, will do more than offer a good law or two, is promoting a form to benefit the rich, then comprising a form, along with media, effectively restricting the people and culture; the nature of federalism does not seem designed to solve problems except combine for a national defense, making international diplomacy even farther from the natural logic of the people; and to keep states from warring.
Thus a federal official, while automatically in the upper class, is a pawn of metaphysic as opposed to a ruling class, and federal officials like clumsy pawns, by nature of this political system, obstructing the flow of wisdom, though capable of resolving disputes; so Madison’s shameless idealization of elected representatives; whose kernel of hope has not provide the popcorn the people seek, is a characterization as sleazy a class the plays into the moral fiber of the metaphysic. Now occasionally there are politicians who rise above the caste. But we have all experienced otherwise with more frequency, inclusive of state and local. Bearing little brunt of the blame, is the innocent looking newsperson. The relation between creation of news and conduct of will seems to blur and confer a dominance upon the news. If you forget the context of media upon official, you cast an unfair light upon them. That they have yet to take on the media–shows the control over them, again.
Incumbency reigns, to further denigrate Madison’s rosy hues, because the alteration of local decision making from free assemblies to local officials through state constitution, has altered the axis of the democratic party. Less media has to translate into more interaction by the people, is it not so, but things are so skewered that an incumbent can maintain a claim upon support in search of the logic that voters are eternally dissatisfied and want to change representatives as often as possible; thus possibly distilling a dynamism and fitting urgency as well as new perspective.
While I have always seen the democratic party as lacking the filters and equilibrium to encompass large arrays of candidates for the people to choose for, and republicans as being somewhat inherently incumbent; the lack of spiritual guideposts, and logic of free assembly; federal government seems a plateau so not designed to do more than solve conflicts that rise to its service; as opposed to providing a means for different areas to better and improve their areas. If this is known, ascendancy to such is more consistent with status quo and a maintenance of the way things area, consistent with all the forms of economy that can make places worse; since the means to improve local society; while legally out there, and purview to state government; that vision has been lost by the aggrandizement of federal plains; conjoined to in many cases an amputated state government found critically inaccessible; though by no means, not completely. In many respects state government is fine and the healthiest of current government organs.
There is a condescending false maudlin to Madison’s criticisms of opponents to the federal plan. And there is a complete neglect of the short term necessity long term evolution of the federal constitution. The objections are such that federal ideals exist only on paper, not in experience, or even crystalline in ideas. These implications are towards a business culture; whose culture declines experiential knowledge. This acknowledges the limited routes to benefit and less to reform.
Once the ratio of representatives to people is discussed, in the moderation of having many, but not thousands; Britain is cited whereas the corruption favoring the upper class politically is more legalized. While public liberty is not undermined by republican government and its class; reform and wisdom is. The federal constitution’s conception locked us into an auto drive, whose veneration produces an ego that doesn’t look beyond itself when it fails we could try 50 solutions to health care, instead of one homogeneous one hard to agree on. The futility of federal government, puissance of state, is seen here.
Thus it occurs to me that; in light of the absence of law and wisdom; to frame the argument not in terms of the pieces of the puzzle so hollowed and missing but perhaps of a puzzle around me, close to me; then you, the people, may be privy to a closeness enabling the means for truth and resolution. By analyzing how truth and western civilization are a part of me, and that cascade upon you, we may manifest the fairness necessary to understand the forms of heaven or stop the institution of illusion to examine the integration between human mind and otherworld.
An analysis of the nature of federal official, as upon a plateau, capable of stopping conflict; but not sowing solution; renders the impression of our difference from communist Russia; with federalism there may be the wealthy that are already wealthy; whereas in communism, the wealth changes hands; thus prophetic interpretations are read into the notes of the federalist papers.
If one considers changing western civilization, even for a small area outside the media’s ken; understand heaven has the means to do what it does. These means are a space in which the means may operate themselves. Western Civilization could encompass the vastness and variety as to be significant within the afterlife; and some form of itself, perhaps offering significant benefit to parties benefiting from material analysis; whose benefit would have to accrue to be applied to my salvation.
The way Madison dreams up the senate, in 58, includes the interesting vision, or the house being more of the people, and the senate the power of the state; this, of course, makes sense. This kind of nuts and bolts analysis I have no issue with. I can only test it against history; for he goes on to say; the house being more of the people, will need the help of the more popular senators in the senate, to prevail in the house; yet rarely if ever do you see senators reaching over to the house to help their friends prevail. What has caused then this state of paralysis separating the vision from actuality; the fear that putting more senators on stage will lead to a truthful earth. And we can not underscore enough how much the press does not admit any responsibility to underscore the truth; or its liability, should metaphysically our press not to be found free at all.
He then goes on to predict the western states will be a power, having disproportionate senatorial representation, which is true, but goes on to imply these western senators be more inclined to help the people through representatives. The western senators do seem to exude a natural and distinct leadership, but they do not seem to have taken the country anywhere.
When Madison states about the worry about larger more important states prevailing at the expense of others through a dominance of the union; as a credible scenario of moral ambiguity, I believe; I have not seen any instance of that happening; the lack of state rivalry and state inculcation and transmission of wisdom and refinement upon each other reveal a very conservative metaphysical state with limits upon public concourse. TV, free assembly, is never examined.
Look at a case I had in 04 in federal civil asking the question does the tenth amendment preclude local officials; as does the first amendment. Relevant as it was to the politics of the people; defended from as it was on the taxpayer time, the public never found out through the press; vital public information.
Madison cites the British system again, this time as meritorious because the lower house controls the funding. Yet these purse strings have yet to be pulled efficiently by congress; particularly in stopping war with their intended check. Why was that? Because the representatives felt so intimidated by a media that could cast them as unpatriotic. How did Hitler assume power? Through a media focus on him. Who can not say the cult of the evil did not radiate through the media in Bush 2? Power and knowledge, while existing on paper, may not be known and used.
In the context of centralized Republican power, the republican party is unable to make inroads to increase the happiness of the American people; and the yang of this is the democrat stems from such a local autocracy, they have great difficulty sailing.
Can there be a constitution with a much less decreased federal government—say as simply a defense league; though a prosperous economy may have too good relations to require much defense? And by creating a federal government seemingly poised to ponder the greatest things of concern to all Americans, and being unable to by the nature of federal representation fit like judicial authority to magistrate conflict; but not take on TV, the spiritual or metaphysical; Indeed our constitution may shield us from those very issues; and even when aspiring, congress aspires to resolve problems, not initiate solutions.
The state is charged with the care of its state; and should be better than the federal government in reaching important issues.
We must also see this is the book chosen by history. The annals of ancient Rome, and the writing of the old testament; aided those reichs to surpass the more native societies around them; likewise America with the Indians. Thus to begin anything in this land, you need the Indians.
Madison I 58 rails against mob of the super large legislature, and saying congresses of too many members fall prey to evil, smooth, orators. I tend to disbelieve that. If there were more senators, they might condescend to influence the house more, and more conspicuously.
There is a tendency by all council and society not to consciously address spiritual issues; as being outside the realm of what councils vote on; though professionally vital knowledge.
And I wonder what is meant when the constitution mandates the necessary minimum of meeting as I day a year in December. Does this not subtly imply, that if Congress had only a day a year to meet, then only the most important issues would entertain the floor?
Look how Sen. Buress from Illinois was mishandled upon his appointment by a corrupt governor by the Senate. Instead of conforming to Senate rules and seating him and then voting him out by taint of scandal in bipartisan hurrah against corruption; the senate refused to seat him, and then he argued successfully that he had to be seated and that was it. That is dysfunctional behavior.
On the regulation of elections, 59, I must point out, in ancient Rome, there was a whole federal office of election regulators, called Pontiffs. The catholic name for pope comes from the holy virtue of trying to see elections comply with actual spiritual parties: likewise from the word fasces, which signify the sacred rods signifying sacred power; we have the word “fascist”. The notion of confederacies within the union, is not such a bad idea.
Hamilton wrote 59, after near 20 by Madison. Madison tends to state the other side, and be more sympathetically aware of the truth of the situation.
Federal office is furnished by an upper class, united at least by college; the humbler professions of the less ambitious rarely sought. Conversely we note that history has not been full of mass movements of the people, nor war protest overturn docility, all signifying an uncared for culture. However the absence of war, parallel to the destruction of our countryside, and inhibition of smaller culture; is this all consistent with a republican system. Madison argues against state legislatures choosing our senators to more ably represent state policy and possibly more likely to dredge up state rivalries and conflicts of interest. Otherwise the chief justification of federalism being stopping war between the states, our founders are blurry to miscast states as potential enemy rivals.
History has also shown the federal government to lean to the side of business over production. Currently there is very much a schism between those in the service industry, and those that went into finance. Recent decades verify the trend to corporation, over the derivation of culture from smaller businesses, being a wise benefit of capitalism. Yet there is no natural and pure basis to imagine this schism or conflict between productive and business classes. Indeed, there is very much of an urge among the disparate to get along. It is more the hiding of the economy in the Kingdom of God. Why hasn’t agriculture been more encouraged and consistent with the values of time and quality? Can the federal government encourage agriculture nearly as well as closer governments that know where the farms are, and what types of people be about? Agriculture, the distribution of food, seems fundamentally on par with the kingdom of god, as is most of the backdrop to the show. And thus agriculture and production as illuminating truth, is ignored by the press, and subsequent, our discussion and education.
There are overtones of condescension, threat and bribes; when Hamilton, in 60 speaks of, “The importance of commerce , in the view of revenue along, must effectively guard it from the enmity of a body which would be continually importuned in its favor by the urgent calls of public necessity. Yet the welfare state does exist, to provide for most essential basics; even while Hamilton avoids the spiritual dimension. The community of federal government is difficult to penetrate; much the way community can imply no one person being in charge, and thus effecting change through the Buddhist wax of mind may happen through effective communication. The communist assertion the rich are evil prevalent enough within a republic by nature of federalist weight that ignores an inclusion of lower classes particularly, is all a part of the show. Are we Christian enough to find and worship the divine? The incorporation of the upper class in this quest is natural. The senate does not necessarily do bad things; it doesn’t do good things–I think that weight describes republican and federal government. It is conservative and slow in its movements. Communism keeps advancing the control of the federal government, whereas republicanism is slow moving enough to not see what more there is to control—there is no higher level, or rarefied air than the strict representation of the people. Whereas communism, not beholden to elections, to attain that stratosphere, or associated degree of accessibility. Britain’s monarchy and noble establishment constantly loses out to the lower forms of government, proving established power does not win.
Madison falsely depicts those inefficient tribunes of the lower class designed as a check upon the upper class as prevailing in every contest with the roman senate. He mistakenly asserts senators were senators for life. This is not true. It seems senators chose the hundred among themselves routinely allowing new senators, and resigning older ones; utilizing the office of censor, the mandatory requirement being relation to one of the original senators. If anything, the tribunes evinced and reflected Athenian like mob dysfunctional rule; the traditional aspersion of the democrat through history; recording the people as unable to get along.
Jay writes for the first time in 64 upon the right of making treaties; as their foreign policy expert it seems, he advocates the qualities of the upper class as necessary to guard this country with treaties. The quality of diplomacy manifesting the choice of the people, in recent decades has not been incorporated beyond war is evil necessity or war is unnecessary framing the diplomatic debate; beyond Israel, beyond the highlighting of France; we have yet to see a shrewd diplomatic quality engaging national interest. Even Obama, seen as having natural if unproven diplomatic talent, only attracted a faith in his quality, and did not demonstrate an diplomatic genius or talent.
How would a defense league deal with the issue that New York or the bigger cities require more defense than inland rural areas?
In Jay’s conclusion upon Treaties, I notice two points; that we do not really rely on treaties for foreign policy solutions; even though a proposed treaty the public knows, for terms regarding the departure of Iraq, is probably a more viable discussion than a withdrawal date. A proposed treaty detailing what our demands are in Afghanistan prosecutes a war abler than a war without known goals. The terms for ending the Taliban must be known. The interests of tribal people seen. A course for former Taliban members start to be taken.
Ergo the negotiation of terms of peace seems missing from the dialogue, insofar as cruel cultures indicate a control by other culture interests, and the symmetry of presidents with oil interests, and defense interests, and wars establishing dominion over oil, as well as a country not challenging itself with the right questions, these may preclude the resolution of war. While jay says two thirds of the senate will never go along with similar interests positioned for war, that is exactly what happened. Senators get scared to be called unpatriotic; they are falsely motivated by elections to a degree they do not vote wisely but impassionedly, like the very mob mentality representation by a few is designed to quell. Except it is not so much a treaty, the president may generate, as the approval for war in absence of diplomacy and treaty goals.
As I have said, the elements of government should not have been counted on to police itself, when the scope of the separation of powers does not extend to checks and balances from other classes, and the upper class is expected to police itself. There is a great belief in the lower house taking on the interests of the people, yet even if the house controls money, federal currency is such a homogenization of vast lands, the form of government is too vague and removed to effect great change and understanding. Executive privilege has been asserted to keep the senate from manifesting its check upon the executive.
Regarding pontiffs of elections; say there is a colony of the afterlife in the shoulder of Christian consciousness; that merely affirms the bone of Christ; like a vote; whereby that vote, extension of Christian consciousness, alongside a heart that masks appearance; is a primal assumption by the colony upon with which we procreate, that can recreate itself so as to make the vote ridiculous. There can be no voting in The Kingdom of God. Voting a basic primal assertion, completely unfounded, can be the basis of a creation contingent upon policies discussed in the media.
Voting, projected as the meaning, of society, can subsume society erroneously, and be one force repeating itself, rather than the choice of sentiment, party and wisdom, pontifical things had to ascertain.
Republican government takes away from the superficiality of monarchy, through republican investment in more officiated government; that enforces a colony upon the shoulder of Christian consciousness posited in parcel to western civilization. Thus the political form of the republic is consistent with the colony voting upon Christ. One contrary interpretation of reality is able to impose it throughout the world, perhaps cohabitating an existence within the merger of physical and mental worlds. We must change our republican form of government in order to change our form of Christ consciousness; but how do we get rid of voting? Does the wax impression of Buddhist community compress to an authoritarianism that encompasses everyone?
Rome, to me, has the same psyche as America, dominated by a military, powerless to overcome its regulation, full of good will, less developed spiritually, overcome metaphysically consistent with large imperialism.
The insurance of voting fairness, in context of political parties and wise sentiments; political battle, and campaign effectiveness; is ludicrous compared to the colony of Christ misrepresenting itself towards a western conception different from Christ consciousness, though attached to it. Were there not the reinforcement of the illusion primarily in voting, but another situation, antagonism may come out now. The assertion of republicanism, the assertion of one thing able to rerepresent itself, the federal government as distant as the representation of society in concentric harmony. This republican assertion within concentric society; Ending the federal government like ending the apex of society, replacing it by the authority of wisdom, radiating outwards, involving everyone in a contradiction of the metaphysical western way, whereas within itself the bind of marriage is not in play and people probably kept less traditionally.
Can local federal like free assembly and vote for republic officials,>>>does the latter ensure the former—- no who would be voted for—voting first thing to stop. Republic comes off, or decided by outer control of another Christ