Federalist Papers "Pwn" Cheney-Obama despotic Presidency?

Cheney pioneered the doctrine that the President's power in so-called "war time" extends to the detention of individuals without trial. Obama is continuing to spew this nonsense.

Here is what Hamilton, the most pro-state and pro-militarism of our founding fathers, had to say about that idea:

"The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate. The power of making treaties is, plainly, neither the one nor the other. It relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones; and still less to an exertion of the common strength. Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith. They are not rules prescribed by the sovereign to the subject, but agreements between sovereign and sovereign. The power in question seems therefore to form a distinct department, and to belong, properly, neither to the legislative nor to the executive. The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign negotiations, point out the Executive as the most fit agent in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them." (Federalist 75)

The President's power in foreign affairs has nothing to do with being commander in chief. At no point do Hamilton or Madison claim that the President's *primary* power falls under the title of commander in chief. Congress and not the President holds the war declaration power. It is in his treaty making power that the President does have power in foreign affairs. Hamilton states this over and over again. Yet, here he limits the power of the President to dealing with other sovereigns, not with power over individuals. Even here the power to make law is limited to Congress.

The idea that the Executive Branch can make a legal doctrine is an idea that even Hamilton would have considered despotic, and he was the most pro-power of the founders. Even he would have drawn back from the Cheney-Obama imperial Presidency. The President's power over foreign affairs applies in an a priori sense to nations and not to individuals! (I say "a priori" because the President proposes and the Senate disposes, unlike in law making where Congress proposes and the President disposes) Only by going back to the law of England, which some Executive Branch lawyers like John Yoo seem to desire, could such a doctrine as Cheney's be justified. Here you can find the power of the King to undo the Magna Carta if he feels like. However, we fought a revolution to get away from that idea!

Interesting, but the Federalist Papers are of inestimable benefit to any researcher in to deep politics. Note something that Madison said in Federalist 43:

"Is it true that force and right are necessarily on the same side in republican governments? May not the minor party possess such a superiority of pecuniary resources, of military talents and experience, or of secret succors from foreign powers, as will render it superior also in an appeal to the sword? May not a more compact and advantageous position turn the scale on the same side, against a superior number so situated as to be less capable of a prompt and collected exertion of its strength? Nothing can be more chimerical than to imagine that in a trial of actual force, victory may be calculated by the rules which prevail in a census of the inhabitants, or which determine the event of an election! May it not happen, in fine, that the minority of citizens may become a majority of persons, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, or of those whom the constitution of the State has not admitted to the rights of suffrage? I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in some of the States, who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk below the level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves.

In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends. Happy would it be if such a remedy for its infirmities could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind!"

Those who go gaga over Masonic conspiracies and world government plans would see Madison essentially proposing something like a world government. It is hard to argue that the words here might possibly suggest that idea.

The war on terror will be an endless one ensuring that the congress has limited capability.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


A man after my own heart. I've owned a copy of the Federalist Papers for over 35 years, and it is indeed an invaluable resource when it comes to determining the reasoning of the Founders.

Writing as Publius in Federalist Paper #47 James Madison proclaimed, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

How come so many people talk about UFO's, secret societies, Bilderbergers, and various conspiracies but a central issue is never discussed----how the Executive Branch gained so much power beyond what the Constitution intended?

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
How come so many people talk about UFO's, secret societies, Bilderbergers, and various conspiracies but a central issue is never discussed----how the Executive Branch gained so much power beyond what the Constitution intended?

Because it requires no critical thought (okay it requires some form of critical thought, just not concrete critical thought) to speculate upon the unknown. Sometimes such topics are just fun to engage in; think of it as stretching your legs -- imaginatively.

Political issues are hard to get a good deep discussion because so many believed that once a representative has been selected or a president is elected, that their political duty is over with until next election day (never mind the fact that if one believes their duty is just on election day than they are woefully behind politically.)

There are so many factors that played into and are still in play in the the transfer of "separate but equal powers" to a dominantly strong branch of Government that such research and thought requires much more than a two paragraph comment about a strange object they saw in the sky.

Those interested should be reading the Declaration of Independence, The United States of America Constitution, your particular State's Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Madison's convention notes, Adam's personal notes, etc and etc.

They should also understand why such moves as the 17th Amendment wholly damaged the precarious balance between Federal and States and moved us from a Representative Republic to a Representative Democracy and castrated the State's say in Federal matters.

How capitulating to the desire for more Federal money, States have slowly handed the Executive Branch more and more power and justification for requiring more power; seat-belt laws, alcohol purchasing laws, helmet laws, etc, etc -- just so they can get Federal highway money.

They should study how grossly the Federal Government has interpreted the "commerce clause" and what "interstate commerce" is; to obtain near unlimited power. How the Government is cocooning itself for the past 100 years to ensure its survival at any cost by selling to the People that power derives from the State and not inherent in the People.

How during the Civil War (absent the slave issues) the United States quashed the notion that the People have the inherent political power to establish their own Government and turned its back upon a document written just nearly a century before that declared it such of the People to do so.

The common denominator here: The People. The will to govern thyself, to only institute Government for basic services that serve all, is nearly lost.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I would appreciate if we leave the "thee's" and "thy's" to the lovely King James Bible of which I am a fan even though I am not a Christian. To invoke Biblical language in to a political discussion seems to border on blasphemy.

Other than that I respect your opinions even though I do not fully comprehend them.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


Thy is not solely attributed to the Bible, but as you request it shall not occur anymore. If an archaic pronoun is blasphemous I suppose I am in a heap of trouble.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I'm making a point more about the unholy union of religion with conservative politics than anything else.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
Other than that I respect your opinions even though I do not fully comprehend them.

The let us discuss and debate if you do not understand! I am more than pleased to open a discussion on it. You have taken the first step by applying the understanding and knowledge of the Federalist Papers to the actions of the president. Take it further and obtain knowledge.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


What I mean is that I am not sure as to what animates you philosophically. Can you give me a grand narrative encapsulation as to what you believe?