Day: February 28, 2008

A Federalist Government?

Federalist Papers

The authors of THE FEDERALIST had varying and sometimes clashing ideas about government, but they agreed strongly on certain fundamental ideas: republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, and free government.

–Republicanism. A republican government is one “in which the scheme of representation takes place” (No. 10). It is based on the consent of the governed because power is delegated to a small number of citizens who are elected by the rest.

–Federalism. In a federal republic, power is divided vertically between a general (federal) government and several state governments. Two levels of government, each supreme in its own sphere, can exercise powers separately and directly on the people. State governments can neither ignore nor contradict federal statutes that conform to the supreme law, the Constitution. This conception of federalism departed from traditional forms, known today as confederations, in which states retained full sovereignty over their internal affairs.

–Separation of Powers. “Publius” proclaims (No. 47): “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” So the Constitution separates powers of government among three branches according to function. But this horizontal separation of powers is not complete. Each branch has various constitutional means to participate in the affairs of the others to check and balance powers in government and prevent one branch of the government from dominating the others.

–Free Government. Republicanism, federalism, and separation of powers are characteristics of free government. According to THE FEDERALIST, free government is popular government limited by law to protect the security, liberty, and property of individuals. A free government is powerful enough to provide protection against external and internal threats and limited enough to prevent tyranny in any form. In particular, free government is designed to guard against the most insidious danger of government by the people–the tyranny of the many over the few. Of course, it was mainly the “propertied few” that “Publius” had in mind, but this principle applies equally to constitutional protection of religious, ethnic, racial or other minorities against oppression by the majority.

There were those that did not agree totally on the Federalist system, they were called the Anti-federalist, but they were quickly marginalized by the biggies within the movement.

Why do I mention this?  Just read the post and tell me if there is anything wrong with the concept as it is practiced today.

Chelsea: Continuation Of The Clinton Birthright?

Recently in the New Yorker magazine, a fluff piece on Chelsea Clinton written by Lloyd grove, and it was a warm and fuzzy piece on the daughter of Hil and Bill. It covered how she had become a good campaigner for her mother, that she was well informed on the issues and the positions of her mother. Not a bad piece and it was a bit informative. That is if you really wanted to know how Chelsea was doing in the campaign.

The author was interviewed on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. Why? I mean this piece had nothing to do with the attacks from the weekend or the upcoming debate. So why was this a story on MSNBC?

Recently MSNBC’s David Schuster made an off hand remark about Chelsea. I will not repeat it, but he was reprimanded and given a 2 week furlough from the air as punishment. MSNBC seems to have bought into the rhetoric of that Obama is getting a free ride in the media. IMO, this interview of the article was a pay off to the Clinton campaign for Schuster’s slip of the tongue. Think I am delusional?

Well, let us look at it. Joe Scarborough has blasted unmercifully Michelle Obama for her statement that she was finally proud the her country. He goes off on a diatribe about her being unpatriotic and similar such nonsense. What amazes me is that none of the “anchors” when they bring up this statement ever quote it properly. They seem to always leave out the adverb, “really” from her statement. Anyway my point is that Michelle Obama has been lambasted by MSNBC and no one gets whacked on the pee-pee. Why?

Appears that MSNBC is working for the Clinton campaign. That should not be surprising to anyone that knows politics. Clinton is a product of the democratic leadership Council; GE owns MSNBC and is a staunch contributor to the DLC. Does it begin to make sense now?

Watch Chelsea, she will be running for office in the next 5 years or so. She appears to be in the grooming process of a candidacy. Will the Clinton birthright continue? Time will tell. I shall be vindicated!