(Info Junkie) wrote:
:|On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 02:32:58 GMT, "bernard spilman" <bspilmanNOSPAM@nc.rr.com>
:|wrote:
:|
:|>
:|>"John Starrett" <jstarret@sdc.org> wrote in message
:|>news:Tc6dnWu7wfFHVNjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@nmt.edu...
:|>> <0> wrote:
:|>>
:|>> > "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer,
:|>that the
:|>> > necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in
:|>general, a
:|>> > silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of
:|>favoritism in
:|>> > the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of
:|>unfit
:|>> > characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal
:|>> > attachment..."
:|>> >
:|>> > - Alexander Hamilton
:|>>
:|>> Good quote.
:|>>
:|>>
:|>> --
:|>> John Starrett
:|>
:|>Isn't Hamilton a darling of the right too?
:|>WS
:|
:|Hamilton is usually considered the "darling of the" left.
:|
:|
:|"...every person must be his own watchman for truth... -Justice Jackson
Ralph Kennedy Oct 6, 8:48 pm
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
From: (Ralph Kennedy) -
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 00:48:17 GMT
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 8:48 pm
Subject: Alexander Hamilton on Bush and Miers
In Federalist Papers No. 76, Alexander Hamilton speaks about
George W. Bush's nomination of his under-qualified close
friend, Harriet Miers:
http://tinyurl.com/bpgec
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of
the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their
concurrence would have a powerful, though, in
general, a silent operation. It would be an
excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in
the President, and would tend greatly to prevent
the appointment of unfit characters from State
prejudice, from family connection, from personal
attachment, or from a view to popularity [...] He
would be both ashamed [1] and afraid to bring
forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative
stations, candidates who had no other merit than
that of coming from the same State to which he
particularly belonged, or of being in some way or
other personally allied to him, or of possessing
the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render
them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
[1] Well okay, I grant you that the concept of being ashamed
doesn't ever apply to George W. Bush.
--Ralph Kennedy
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: us.talk.constitution, alt.politics.bush,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.society.conservatism, talk.politics.misc
From: "<0>" <?@!.dandernet> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:52:53 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 8:52 pm
Subject: Founding Fathers opposed Miers-style crony nominations to SCOTUS
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I
answer, that the
necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in
general, a
silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of
favoritism in
the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit
characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal
attachment..."
- Alexander Hamilton
Harriet Miers is getting slammed from all sides this time. It's
everyone from liberal antiabortion groups worried about her
conservative religious views to conservatives like Mike Savage
(Weiner) who compares her to Emperor Caligula's installation of his
horse to the Roman Senate. (Savage is saying some "far left" style
things lately, like "would you buy a used war from this man?" - signs
of the times...) Today, George Will considered her fluff and not
worthy. Well, for her to go down wouldn't be as embarrassing as for
Rove to get indicted, but still... (And that brings up the
elephant-in-the-room reason why Brush probably picked her: as his own
counsel, she can vote to spring his cruddies Rove, DeLay, Limbaugh,
Frist, even Cheney and/or Bush himself etc. etc. as their cases get to
the SCOTUS.) Consider what may be the unkindest cut of all: the
opinion of a
major Founding Fathers. Although conservatives put out the fiction
that the
Congress's duty to "advise and consent" means only to oppose outrageous
nominees, that isn't what Alexander Hamilton thought - writing on
behalf of
concurrence of most Founding Fathers in the Federalist Papers. See
below, from David Sirota's mailing:
http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=BECB9...71-22D25\
D19E8795109
Founding Fathers Oppose Miers Nomination
As any quick look at Supreme
Court nominee Harriet Miers' record shows, the distinguishing feature
of her career has been her blind loyalty to President Bush. Few have
argued that her selection is anything more than a reward for her
loyalty - it certainly isn't because of her highly controversial
legal career helping defraud investors. And we need look no further
than America's founding fathers to see just how antithetical they
viewed such a nomination. Just look at the Federalist Papers #76, in
which Alexander Hamilton discusses why the founding fathers gave the
U.S. Senate the power to confirm - or reject - the President's
Supreme Court nominees: "To what purpose then require the
co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their
concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent
operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism
in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of
unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from
personal attachment..." (emphasis added) The passage gets even more
specific about political cronies like Miers: "[The President] would
be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most
distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other
merit than that of coming from the same State to which he
particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally
allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and
pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
(emphasis added) Let me translate: the framers thought that the mere
existence of the U.S. Senate's advise and consent powers should deter
a President from nominating someone like Miers in the first place. Of
course, the incredibly arrogant Bush administration has shown us
that's not the case and that their desire to put their cronies in
high places is their foremost priority. Even so, the message is still
clear: the framers wanted the U.S. Senate to reject nominees like
Miers, just like it rejected Democratic nominees like Abe Fortas on
the same grounds of cronyism. They wanted, in short, a truly
independent judiciary - not one that serves at the pleasure and
loyalty of any one President or political party. Sources: Miers pick
seen as pure reward to Bush loyalist:
http://ydr.com/story/main/88045/
Miers' career heading law firm forced to pay damages for defrauding
investors:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-led-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html
Federalist Papers #76 by Alexander Hamilton:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa76.htm
Senate rejects Fortas, in part, because of cronyism:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Filibuster_Derails_Supreme_Co\
urt_Appointment.htm
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/constitutional_law/supreme_court_confirmati\
on/
From Manuel Miranda, who has been carrying water for the President's
judicial nominees for years:
"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the
president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe
Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a
nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the
advisers that the White House gathered around it."
****************************************************************************
Also
http://groups.google.com/group/cakewalk.coffeehouse/msg/c9cb8dd8f53fd1e3?hl=en&
his is a bit long but it's a great insight into how the Bush admin manages
the federal gov't.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20051017&s=hacks101705&c=1
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
