Stones Cry Out

This is rich. Prior to the Great Compromise, Hamilton was arguing against Jefferson for a stronger federal government than was eventually constituted. Now comes Doug, recasting those arguments as being for a stronger President than even Hamilton was proposing, much less what was actually constituted.

Doug, please— for the sake of all your readers, could you please give up on the politics and go back to the religion? Thanks.

p.s. for extra credit, you should read the Anti-Federalist Papers and see the other side of the argument Hamilton was engaging.

Read again, mon. I specifically said that this doesn't apply to the President alone, but the whole federal government "in its totality". (Italics in original. You read it, right?) That's what Hamilton was referring to; the "Foederal Government". Checks and balances (one of which I noted, if you read the post) still apply.

I am recasting nothing. Hamilton's words, including those before and after what I quoted, are pretty clear. The food for thought that I'm tossing out is whether or not we find this a useful reading of the Constitution in 2006.

Doug Payton writes: I am recasting nothing.

Oh, yes— you are.

You specifically wrote, "They still hold the purse strings, and if they want to cut funding to the NSA to keep something from happening they don't agree with, it's their prerogative. That, among other things, is a check on Executive Branch power, but according to Hamilton, it's not necessarily a constitutional issue."

p1. The Congress made it a criminal offense to do what President Bush has admitted doing. It isn't just the purse strings, Doug.

p2. Hamilton most certainly did not believe that the Constitution should empower the President to disregard, at his sole discretion, the laws passed by Congress and signed by previous holders of his office. Nothing in Federalist #23 argues for that.

Doug concludes: The food for thought that I'm tossing out is whether or not we find this a useful reading of the Constitution in 2006.

Are you on drugs? And if so, can you hook me up with your dealer?

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that Americans are about to throw out the Federalist position for the Anti-federalist position on the necessity of supporting a standing army. That is what Federalist #23 is all about. That is what the Anti-federalists were opposing.

Are you seriously suggesting that, in 2006, we should revisit whether the Constitution should be read as empowering the Federal government to form, direct and support a standing military?

Again, the constitutional issue is still outstanding, notwithstanding calls for impeachment. ConLaw folks on both sides of the aisle have come down on both sides of the question. Do laws passed by Congress trump the Constitution? Hamilton seems to be saying that not even the Constitution itself should prevent the federal government from providing for the common defense. If Congress passes a constitutional law making this illegal, that, too, is a check they provide. If the law passes constitutional muster, then you make my point for me. No dictatorship here.

You keep recasting this in regards solely to the President, but I'm talking about what Hamilton is talking about; the entire federal government. If Congressional leaders were indeed briefed and knew what was going on, it's wider than that now. Yes, I know there are questions and concerns about how much Congress was told, but again, the point is they knew, at the very least, quite a bit about what was going on and had 4 years to provide some check if they felt the need. No dictatorship here.

Federalist #23 seems to be talking about the common defense in general. Signal intelligence of this sort may not have been specifically what Hamilton was talking about--it not being invented at the time--but when he says that "the circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite" and that "the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained", I'd say he's leaving the question as to what means they would be wide open.

I've cross-posted this at Redstate.org, and another fella there pointed out yet another Hamilton-penned Federalist. This one goes into further explanation of the President's role (as opposed to what I quoted above, explaining the role of the federal government in general). Go there for the context, but in #69, entitled "The Real Character of the Executive", Hamilton says,

Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the excercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

As I said right from the start, this is all food for thought. I even noted that I had reservations about this in the climate of today's capitol. I'm not trying to excuse anything, or suggest anything, or accuse anyone of anything. All I'm saying is, while folks are screaming about treason and unconstitutionality and impeachment, it might be good to look and see what the guys who wrote the Constituion were thinking and what they were trying to do. I'd say it's instructive. Even if we choose not to take that instruction, we should at least seriously consider it and not immediately dismiss it because it doesn't fit our ideology.

Outside its part of the world Al-Queda is nothing but a criminal organization. It has and can destroy property and lives in this country. But it in no way is a threat to the "Union", the nation, or any political subdivision such as city county or state. Hamilton was talking about threats on a scale much different than those posed by terrorist thugs. The very existence of Al-Queada makes us stronger as a nation, as a union. Secret spying on americans, makes us weaker in our relationship to the government. The executive branch is not protecting our way of government, it is destroying it.

A nonpartisan congressional report now states that Bush's case for spying on U.S. citizens has a dubious legal basis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/07/politics/07nsa.html?ex=1136869200&en=96b6a7f93f5ffbb8&ei=5070

But if the following report is credible, then it is irrelevant what the constitution says, what congressional laws have been passed or what the original framers thought:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Outside its part of the world Al-Queda is nothing but a criminal organization. It has and can destroy property and lives in this country.

Wow. I know I'm going to sleep better knowing that.

But it in no way is a threat to the "Union", the nation, or any political subdivision such as city county or state.

Would you characterize it more as a "nuissance"?

The capitol hill blue article is fiction. Dem, I thought you had more credibility than that.

Bruce, I didn't refer to the Capitol Blue article as "slam dunk" evidence. And I admit that it would be more believable if someone else had independently verified the quotes attributed to Bush. But at the same time, if you have REAL evidence that the crux of the report is "fiction", as you say, then put it forward instead of making accusations that you don't support.

The main point is that Bush's willingness to brush aside the rule of law when it suits him has been a disturbing theme of his presidency. As has his willingness to lie about it. If you don't believe that, here are some statements WE NOW KNOW ARE FALSE and that BUSH KNEW WERE FALSE when he said them:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order... Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

and

"You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example."

and

"A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order... In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order... What the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States..."

Bush has also repeatedly misstated to the public that the need to seek such warrants means "the judicial branch has a strong oversight role":

"Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051220/ts_afp/usattacksintelligence

So I think your outrage is misplaced. George Bush is a liar and he doesn't care about the rule of law when it gets in the way of what he wants to do. If people in this country are willing to allow our liberties to be taken away, then what do we mean when we say we are fighting to promote American-style freedom in Iraq and around the world?

After you are done fact-checking me on the article I referenced in my last comment, you might want to read the one below, too. To summarize, it states that Bush has altered congressional bills that he signs with a statement that allows him to ignore the laws when he sees fit. In the case of McCain's bill to prevent torture of detainees, Bush's little-known added provision essentially negates the bill. He has done this sort of thing over 500 times.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13568438.htm