PART ONE OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS BY KENNETH SCOT STREMSKY The Federalist Papers were written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. The version I am using is edited by Isaac Kramnick. Isaac Kramnick's introduction to The Federalist Papers is a very interesting read. The book is published by Penguin Classics. The following except I think is on page 85. The page is not numbered. "PREFACE TO THE 1788 EDITION It is supposed that a collection of the papers which have made their appearance in the Gazettes of this City, under the Title of the FEDERALIST, may not be without effect in assisting the public judgement on the momentous question of the Constitution for the United States, now under the consideration of the people of America. A desire to throw full light upon so interesting a subject has led, in a great meaure unavoidably, to a more copious discussion than was at first intended. And the undertaking not being yet completed, it is judged adviseable to divide the collection into two volumes, of which the ensuing Numbers constitute the first. The Second Volume will follow as speedily as the Editor can get it ready for publication. The particular circumstances under which these papers have been written have rendered it impracticable to avoid violations of method and repetitions of ideas which cannot but displease a critical reader. The latter defect has even been intentionally indulged, in order the better to impress particular arguments which were most material to the general scope of the reasoning. Respect for public opinion, not anxiety for the literary character of the performance, dictates this remark. The great wish, that it may promote the cause of truth, and lead to a right judgement of the true interests of the community. New York, March 17, 1788" The following excerpt comes from Federalist Number I and is on pages 87, 88, 89, and 90. "INTRODUCTION AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks of its own importance: comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighen the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits and of views, passions, and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth. Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinquished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a dimunition of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government. It is not, however my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least if not respectable - the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgement, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so thoroughly persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are aot to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and by the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jeolousy is the usual concomitant of violent love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is too apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgement, their interests can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demogogues and ending tyrants. In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time have collected from the general scope of them that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth. I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:-The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity-The insuffiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union-The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object-The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government-Its analogy to your own State constitution-andlastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property. In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention. It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one which, it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole. This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitutte the subject of my next address." MY COMMENTS I discuss the issues in as great detail as I do and I will continue to discuss the issues in great detail because "The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity" which is on page 89. On abortion, I have been very precise in my opinions. I will try to be very precise on many other topics as well. The first Presidential primary is not to 2004 and I will probably be a lot more precise than I am now. Secession by states from the Union is guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. I think it would be a very, very bad idea for states to secede from the Union. President George Washington discusses many of the benefits of the Union in his Farewell Address. The Federalist Papers discusses many of the benefits of Union and I hope that people will read The Federalist Papers before they vote in 2004. Our economic prospects, national security, and liberties could be significantly jeopardized if secession takes place. I do not think there is anything wrong with negative attacks that are truthful. I think there is something significantly wrong when someone deliberately lies about the past of opponents and the positions of opponents on the issues. I welcome negative feedback from the press, cartoonists, and the general public. Please mention my website address when you provide negative feedback. I hope the media and others will quote me extensively and say the quotes come from me. Modern American politics is sometimes as nasty as politics were in 1788. Page 88 of The Federalist Papers says "And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and by the bitterness of their invectives." I have tried to keep my harsh comments to a minimum on my website and other places. For obvious reasons, I do not do this when I discuss bioterrorism. I have no problem praising someone one day for something I agree with and going after the person the next day on something else when the person has done something wrong. Right now, I believe President Bush is doing many things that are not constitutional and are harmful to our country. If President Bush decides to fulfill his oath of office, I may decide to praise him more regularly. Article Two of the United States Constitution says "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:- "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Trade Promotion Authority infringes on Article Two, Section Two of the United States Constitution. Detaining citizens of the United States of America who are called enemy combatants without trial infringes on Amendment Six of the United States Constitution. The War on Drugs infringes on Amendments Four, Five, and Eight. The President of the United States of America does not have the ability to create military tribunals according to Article One, Section Eight which gives that power to Congress. Article One, Section Eight also says Congress and not the President of the United States of America has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. Article One, Section Eight also says Congress and not the President of the United States of America has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." President Bush should not suspend "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" because only Congress has this power. Article One, Section Nine which deals with Congress says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The following excerpt is from Federalist II and is on pages 90 and 91. "WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which in its consequences must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it will be evident. Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration, therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, than that they should divide themselves into seprate confederacies and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government. It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were very much opposed to it formerly are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without full convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy." MY COMMENTS I hope that states will decide not to secede from the union because I believe this would be bad for them and for the states that stay part of the United States of America. Secession might lead to the ruin of the states that leave the union as well as the states that stay part of the United States of America. The amendments I propose on my website will decrease the probability that states will want to secede from the Union. States may secede from the United States of America because of the Declaration of Independence. Because the Thirteen Colonies had a right to secede from the British Empire, individual states may secede from the United States of America peacefully. The United States of America should not use force to keep states part of the United States of America. States that have seceded from the union may not use force cause other states to secede from the United States of America. If states that have seceded from the United States of America use force to try to get other states to secede from the United States of America, the United States of America has the right to make War on the states that have seceded. The adoption of the following amendment to the United States Constitution might significantly the possibility that states will want to secede from the United States of America. An amendment should be passed that says when at least 70 percent of the state legislatures of the United States of America vote for the repeal of treaties, laws, and regulations, they should be repealed. When at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to overturn a repeal, the repeal shall be overturned. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says that when at least 80 percent of the state legislatures of the United States of America vote for the removal of the President of the United States of America, the President of the United States of America shall be removed from office two weeks later. The decision shall be overturned when at least 70 percent of the United States Senate votes to repeal the decision. The United States Senate should have to vote on overturning the decision within two weeks after the state legislatures of the United States of America have voted for the removal of the President of the United States of America. Giving state legislatures the power to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations will shift the balance of power between the State Legislatures and the Federal Government more to the State Legislatures. Unfunded federal mandates may be passed less often by Congress and/or executive branch departments. Trade agreements the state legislatures do not like may often be repealed. People who have a problem with this amendment should remember that United States Senators used to be picked by State Legislatures and not by the voters. I am glad that Senators are picked by voters. Amendment Seventeen passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 and ratified on April 8, 1913 allows voters to elect United States Senators. Giving State Legislatures the power to remove a President of the United States of America from office may encourage future Presidents of the United States of America to behave better in office than some of our past Presidents of the United States of America have behaved. Allowing State Legislatures to repeal treaties, laws, and regulations may decrease the probability that the Federal Government will infringe on the civil liberties of our citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The Federal Government has infringed on the Bill of Rights while it has waged the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Four, Amendment Five, and Amendment Eight of the United States Constitution while waging the War on Drugs. The Federal Government has infringed on Amendment Six of the United States Constitution during the War on Terrorism. Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law which infringes on political speech guaranteed by Amendment One of the United States Constitution. REFERENDUMS An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that says that when at least sixty percent of the voters who are at least 18 years of age vote for a referendum, the referendum shall become law. When at least 70 percent of the United States House of Representatives wants this law that was created by referendum vetoed, this law shall be vetoed. ELECTORAL COLLEGE A constitutional amendment should be passed that improves the Electoral College by having the winner of a state receiving two Electoral votes and the winner of a Congressional district receiving one Electroral vote. Electors would have to support the candidates they are pledged. If a tie takes place, the United States House of Representatives chooses the President of the United States of America. Presidential candidates might care more about the small states than they do now. Presidential candidates would probably care less about the small states if the President of the United States of America is chosen by popular vote instead of the Electoral College. PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES The following suggestions dealing with Presidential primaries might encourage more people to run for President of the United States of America. All states should have primaries. New Hampshire should have the first primary. The primaries of the five states with the smallest populations should take place three weeks after the primary in New Hampshire. The primaries of the next five smallest states should take place three weeks later. The primaries of five states should take place every three weeks until the primaries in thirty-six states have taken place. A month after the primaries of thirty-six states have taken place, the primaries of the fourteen most populous states should take place on the same day. SOME OTHER AMENDMENTS An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives citizens of the United States of America who live in a Congressional district the ability to remove from office their Representative to the United States House of Representatives. A Representative to the United States House of Representatives should be removed from office when at least sixty percent of the voters in the district vote for the removal of the Representative. An election for another Representative for the Congressional district should take place within two months of the removal. The Representative who was removed from office should not be allowed to participate in this election. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives citizens of the United States of America living in a state the power to remove their Senator from the United States Senate. A Senator should be removed from the United States Senate when at least sixty percent of the voters living in the state vote for the removal of the United States Senator. An election for another United States Senator should take place within two months. The Senator who was removed from office should not be allowed to participate in this election. An amendment to the United States Constitution should be passed that gives citizens of the United States of America the power to remove the President of the United States of America from office. The President of the United States of America should be removed from office when at least eighty percent of the voters of the United States of America vote for the removal of the President of the United States of America. The Vice-President of the United States of America should become President of the United States of America if the President of the United States of America is removed from office. If the President of the United States of America and the Vice-President of the United States of America are removed from office, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives should become President of the United States of America. The following excerpt is from Federalist Number III and is on page 94 and 95. "IT IS not a new observation that the people of any country (if, like the Americans, intelligent and well informed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests. That consideration naturally tends to create great respect for the high opinion which the people of America have so long and uniformly entertained of the importance of their continuing firmly united under one federal government, vested with sufficient powers for all general and national purposes. The more attentively I consider and investigate the reasons which appear to have given birth to this opinion, the more I become convinced that they are cogent and conclusive. Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively. At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquility, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad. The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether real or pretended, which provoke or invite them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many just causes of war are likely to be given by a united America as by disunited America; for if it should turn out that united America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations. The just causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violations of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us. She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to. It is of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the laws of nations towards all these powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national government than it could be either by thirteen separate States or by three or four distinct confederacies. For this opinion various reasons may be assigned. When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or sebates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government - especially as it will have the widest choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States. Hence, it will result that the administration, the political counsels, and the judicial decisions of the national government will be more wise, systematical, and judicious than those of individual States, and consequently more satisfactory with respect to other nations, as well as more safe with respect to us." The following excerpt is from Federalist III and is one page 96. "So far, therefore, as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and of the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect the former most favors the safety of the people. As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter." MY COMMENTS Most Americans are not now well informed about the Bill of Rights and the rest of the United States of America because they do not think have a responsibility to read them and understand them. They do not vote and then they whine about the problems they created by not voting. Most Americans do not fulfill their obligations as citizens. They are often easily duped by distortion politics. They have been taught in our schools how to rote memorize information and not how to think for themselves. Most Americans do not care when little known candidates are excluded from debates and obtain little coverage from the media. Most Americans do not care when the media is unwilling to ask candidates decent questions dealing with the candidates positions on the issues. Most Americans do not care when the media attacks that families of candidates. The best looking candidate is often elected over the best candidate who is not as good looking and knows more about the issues. A significant percentage of voters care more about a candidates haircut, suit, and smile more than a candidate's positions on the Bill of Rights and the usage of our military. The best people often do not want to serve because they are unwilling to have their families attacked by the media and other opponents. The following excerpt is from Federalist IV and is on pages 97 and 98. "MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by just causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accomodated by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies. But the safety of the people against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war. It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, that absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as a thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often leads him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are most prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which will deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances." The following excerpt is from Federalist IV and is on pages 98 and 99. "From these and such like considerations, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it is easy to see that jealousies and uneasiness may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we are not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure. The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country. As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever. One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, in a manner, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three of four distinct independent bodies." The following excerpt is from Federalist Number IV and is on pages 99 and 100. "Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments-what armies could they raise and pay-what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquility and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished. Although such conduct would not be wise, it would nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again. But admit that they might be willing to help the invaded State or confederacy. How, and when, and in what proportion shall aids of men and money be afforded? Who shall command the allied armies, and from which of them shall he receive his orders? Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in cases of dispute what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments and conduce far more to the safety of the people. But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act towards us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient) or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt, but to their outrage; and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves." MY COMMENTS In the future, I hope the media will ask candidates for United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, and President of the United States of America to discuss their positions on the United States military and when they think it is appropriate for our country to go to war with other countries. The United States Constitution in Article One, Section Eight says Congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Our founders did not want the President of the United States of America to make War whenever the President of the United States of America felt like it. Our founders realized it would be very dangerous for the President of the United States of America to make War whenever the President of the United States of America felt like it. Requiring a Congressional Declaration of War decreases the probability that a President of the United States of America will make War when it is not necessary to boost popularity ratings of the President of the United States of America, boost the electoral returns of the members of the party the President of the United States of America belongs to, and deflect attention from scandals the President of the United States of America is involved. If Congress wants the United States of America to send more than 1000 land troops into Iraq, Congress should Declare War against Iraq. A Resolution authorizing the usage of force is not acceptable when significant numbers of land troops are involved. Congress should have Declared War against North Korea before significant land troops were sent into Korea. Congress should have Declared War against Vietnam before significant numbers of land troops were sent into Vietnam. The only time the President of the United States of America should be allowed to send more than 1000 land troops into a combat situation is when Congress has Declared War when Congress exists. If Congress ceased to exist for a time because most of the members of Congress had been killed, the President of the United States of America could send more than 1000 land troops into battle without the permission of Congress. The President of the United States of America does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to bomb weapons factories in Iraq. The President of the United States of America does not need a Declaration of War from Congress to assasinate Saddam Hussein and other top people in his government. Only Congress may give the President of the United States of America permission to send significant numbers of land troops into battle when Congress is in existence. A Resolution from the United Nations authorizing the President of the United States of America to send significant numbers of land troops into battle when Congress has not Declared War is meaningless because only Congress may Declare War. I think Congress will probably have to Declare War against Iraq. It is better to wage war on an enemy when it is weak than when it is strong. Sometimes, enemies have to join together to fight joint enemies that are more dangerous. Appeasement helped Hitler murder more than 11 million people. I do not think the President of the United States of America should need a Congressional Declaration of War to use our country's Air Power and Sea Power in a combat situation which means the President of the United States of America should be able to use as many Air Troops and Sea Troops as the President of the United States of America wants to use in a combat situation. I believe it often makes more sense for the President of the United States of America to order the assasination of a foreign leader than to send significant numbers of land troops into battle. I realize the United States of America has assasinated people it should not have. Congress has the power to say that the President of the United States of America may only use assasination when Congress gives permission because Article One, Section Eight says Congress has the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." Civil Liberties are more important in peace time than in War time. If we lose our civil liberties, our enemies will win. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press decrease the probability that we will lose our other civil liberties. The following excerpt comes from pages 293 and 294 of The Portable Machiavelli and the excerpt comes from The Discourses by Niccolo Machiavelli. "I shall not discuss how the Samnites watched while the Roman people conquered the Volsci and the Aequi, and in order not to be too wordy I shall mention only the Carthaginians, who were very powerful and enjoyed a great reputation while the Romans were fighting with the Samnites and the Tuscans, for they already held all of Africa, Sardinia, and Sicily, and had conquered part of Spain. Their power, plus the fact that they were situated far from the borders of the Roman people, never made them think of attacking Rome or of giving of aid to the Samnites and the Tuscans; on the contary, they acted as a prosperous person would act when all goes well, making treaties with the Romans and seeking their friendship. They never reasoned their error until the Romans, having now conquered all the peoples between themselves and the Carthaginians, began to fight with the latter over the rule of Sicily and Spain. The same thing happened to the Gauls that happened to the Carthaginians, as well as to Philip, King of the Macedonians, and to Antiochus: all of them believed that while the Roman people were occupied with another power, the other power would defeat Rome and they would have time to defend themselves against the Romans in either peace or war. Therefore, I believe that the Fortune the Romans enjoyed in this regard would have been possible for those Rulers who acted in the same way as the Romans and possessed the same ability." LEADERS AND THEIR MAKING OF WAR SHOULD BE JUDGED ON THEIR Motives Means End Results Hell is paved with the end results of many good intentions. People should ask themselves if the President of the United States of America has made the motives for War clear. People should ask themselves if members of Congress have made the motives for War clear. Too often members of Congress do not fulfill their constitutional War making responsibilities. Too often members of Congress act like puppets who says how high should we jump when the President of the United States of America tells them to jump. Members of Congress are elected to represent the people who voted for them and not the President of the United States of America. People should ask themselves if the President of the United States of America and members of Congress have discussed the means they are willing to use to defend our country and our citizens. People should ask themselves if the President of the United States of America and members of Congress have discussed the end results they hope to achieve when they send our troops into battle. Our country was very smart when we rebuilt Japan and West Germany. Allowing power vacuums to exist after we have won a war or helped to end a war may be disasterous. Our country screwed up when we abandoned Afghanistan after helping kick the Russians out of Afghanistan. People should put more time into deciding who to vote for President of the United States of America than they do buying an automobile and a new home. The President of the United States of America has the power to launch all our country's nuclear weapons at one time. People should also put more time into voting for Representatives and Senators than they do buying new cars because of the power of Congress to Declare War, tax, and spend. Many Presidents of the United States of America and many members of Congress have infringed on civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. People who usually do not vote are the greatest enemies are Republic has ever had and will ever have. They spit on all the graves of all the soliders that have died fighting for our country. The following excerpt is from Federalist Number V and is on pages 101 and 102. "Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being "joined in affection and free from all apprehension of different interests," envy and jealousy would soon extinquish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them. The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality? Independent of those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the effects of that superior policy and good management which would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed. For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence, and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies for a long succession of years. Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good will and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied." The following excerpt is from Federalist Number V and is on page 102 and 103. "They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confderacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situation in whch some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only to each other. From these considerations it appears that those persons are greatly mistaken who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, and would produce that combination and union of wills, of arms, and of resources, which would be necessary to put and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign enemies. When did the independent states into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy. The proposed confederacies will be distinct nations. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their production sand commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the Southern confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the Northern confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith. Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect. Let candid men judge, then, whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us against the hostilities of foreign nations." MY COMMENTS Know the motives, means, and end results of foreign nations. Know the motives, means, and end results of our government. Be wary of gifts that have significant thorns. Learn to think for yourself. Educate yourself and vote. Protest when you think you should protest. If you do not exercise your freedoms, do not be surprised if you and others lose your freedoms. Be very wary of people who say secession is a great idea. Be wary of people who want our troops to continually fight Wars. Be wary of people who do not want our country to be well prepared for War. Do not trust candidates for President of the United States of America, United States Senate, and United States House of Representatives who are unwilling to discuss their military philosophies. Do not think much of members of the media who are unwilling to ask candidates for President of the United States of America, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives their positions dealing with Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I WROTE THE FOLLOWING AFTER JANUARY 13, 2003. I TURNED 33 YEARS OLD ON JANUARY 13, 2003. The following excerpt is from Federalist Number V1 and is on page 104 and 105. "A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties situated in the same neighborhood would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion-the jeolousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within there spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachment, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage or personal gratification. The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute, at the expense of much blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the Samnians. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the Megarensians, another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice in a supposed theft of the statuary of Phidias, or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity, or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinquished in the Grecian annals by the name of the Peloponnesian war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth." The following excerpt comes from Federalist Number VI and is on page 106. "Is it not (we may ask these projectors in politics) the true interest of all nations to cultivate the same benevolent and philosophic spirit? Has it not, on the contrary, invariably been found momentary passions, and immediate interests, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility, or justice? Have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies? Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter? Are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, and desires of unjust acquisitions that affect nations as well as kings? Are not popular assemblies frequently subject to the impulses of rage, resentment, jealousy, avarice, and of other irregular and violent propensities? Is it not well known that their determinations are often governed by a few individuals in whom they place confidence, and are, of course, liable to be tinctured by the passions and views of those individuals? Has commerce hitherto done any thing more than change the objects of war? Is not the love of wealth as domineering and enterprising a passion as that of power and glory? Have there not been as many wars founded upon commercial motives since that has become the prevailing system of nations, as were before occasioned by the cupidity of territory or dominion? Has not the spirit of commerce, in many instances, administered new incentives to the appetite, both for the one and for the other? Let experience, the least fallible guide of human opinions, be appealed to for an answer to the inquiries." The following excerpt comes from Federalist Number VI and is on page 107. "In the government of Britain the representatives of the people compose one branch of the national legislature. Commerce has been for ages the predominant pursuit of that country. Few nations, nevertheless, have been more frequently engaged in war; and the wars in which that kingdom has been engaged have, in numerous cases instances, proceeded from the people. There have been, if I may so express it, almost as many popular as royal wars. The cries of the nation and the importunities of their representatives have, upon various occasions, dragged their monarchs into war, or continued them in it, contrary to their inclinations, and sometimes contrary to the real interests of the state. In that memorable struggle for superiority between the rival houses of Austria and Bourbon, which so long kept Europe in a flame, it is well known that the antipathies of the English against the French, seconding the ambition, or rather the avarice, of a favoritte leader, protracted the war beyond the limits marked out by sound policy, and for a considerable time in opposition to the views of the court. The wars of these two last-mentioned nations have in great measure grown out of commercial considerations - the desire of supplantling and the fear of being supplanted, either in particular branches of traffic or in the general advantages of trade and navigation, and sometimes even the more culpable desire of sharing in the commerce of other nations without their consent." The following except comes from Federalist Number VI and is on page 108. "Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?" MY COMMENTS The more clearly the reasons for going to War are explained the more likely that the majority of the people in the nation will support the War. Many people have a problem going to War when only commercial related reasons are given. People should think hard before they go to War when only commercial reasons are given for going to War. The better prepared a nation is for War the less likely it will be attacked and the more likely it will win War when it goes to War. The founders of our Republic wanted Congress and not the President of the United States of America to declare War because they thought it was a bad idea to give that much power to one person. The following excerpt is from Federalist Number VIII and is on pages 114 and 115. "This picture is not highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort to repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free." MY COMMENTS People often give up their rights for a little bit more safety. People often do not question the competency and behavior of their leaders when War is taking place. The media often does not question the competency and behavior of the nation's leaders enough when War is taking place. There are often too many lapdogs in the media when War is taking place. I find it very disturbing when a person who has been incompetent and corrupt is made out to be a competent Saint when War is taking place. People show that they do not care what happens to them and our country when they are able to vote and they usually do not vote. I WROTE THE FOLLOWING AFTER FEBRUARY 16, 2003.