cb

The Federalist Patriot

"If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on
which different forms of government are established, we may
define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on,
a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly
from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons
holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period,
or during good behavior." --James Madison, Federalist No. 39
_______________________________________

cri·te·ri·on (kr-tîr-n)
n. pl. cri·te·ri·a (-tîr-) or cri·te·ri·ons
A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based. See
Synonyms at "standard".
--
CB
"[R]efusing or not refusing to execute a law to stamp it with its final
character...makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the
Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper."
--James Madison


-----
The Federalist Patriot is a service of Publius Press, publisher
of The Federalist, the most widely read conservative e-journal on
the Internet. If you would like to have this highly acclaimed
publication of news, policy and opinion, delivered FREE by e-mail
to your inbox, link to:
http://www.federalist.com/subscribe/founders.asp

All of The Federalist Patriot quotes have been thoroughly researched
and authenticated. For complete citations, visit Heritage Foundation's
Founders' Almanac website. Link to:
http://cf.heritage.org/almanac/quotations.cfm
and enter a key word by author.

The Federalist Patriot is a publication of Publius Press, Inc.
Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Publius Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

carol lee smith

<<"advise and consent">>

Try "advice and consent." http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/advice.htm

and try providing adequate citation, if you want to make an impression
that you know what you are doing, other than just copying and pasting from
a source which has been discredited for providing you with bogus
information.

The Federalist No. 39
Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
Independent Journal
Wednesday, January 16, 1788
[James Madison]
To the People of the State of New York: ...

....examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the
Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people
of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the
other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not
as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct
and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the
assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme
authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act,
therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a
federal act.

That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are
understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many
independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from
this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision
of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of
the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States
that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent
than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that
of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as
forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the
United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority
in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be
determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by
considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will
of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules
have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is
considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be
bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new
Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national
constitution.

The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of
government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its
powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in
the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the
legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not
federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the
States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented
on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the
existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The
executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate
election of the President is to be made by the States in their political
characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which
considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal
members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made
by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national
representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the
form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies
politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed
character, presenting at least as many federal as national features. ...

The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid
down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a
federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is
federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of
the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the
operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of
them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the
authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal
nor wholly national.

PUBLIUS
-----end of excerpts------------------

carol lee smith

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, CB quoted, again without adequate citation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.... Madison's subsequent changes of position are striking. His
remarks in the Philadelphia Convention, in the Virginia ratifying
convention, and in The Federalist, cited above, all unequivocally favor
the existence of judicial review. And in Congress arguing in support of
the constitutional amendments providing a bill of rights, he observed:
``If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals
of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians
of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every
assumption of power in the Legislature or Executive; they will be
naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly
stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights,'' 1
Annals of Congress 457 (1789); 5 Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt ed.


provision is made for the case of a disagreement in expounding them; and
as the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results
to them by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with
the final character. This makes the Judiciary Department paramount in
fact to the legislature, which was never intended and can never be
proper.'' Id., 294. At the height of the dispute over the Alien and
Sedition Acts, Madison authored a resolution ultimately passed by the
Virginia legislature which, though milder, and more restrained than one
authored by Jefferson and passed by the Kentucky legislature, asserted
the power of the States, though not of one State or of the state
legislatures alone, to ``interpose'' themselves to halt the application
of an unconstitutional law. 3 I. Brant, James Madison--Father of the
Constitution, 1787-1800 (New York: 1950), 460-464. 467-471; Report on
the Resolutions of 1798, 6 Writings of James Madison, op. cit., 341-406.
Embarrassed by the claim of the nullificationists in later years that
his resolution supported their position, Madison distinguished his and
their positions and again asserted his belief in judicial review. 6 I.
Brant, op. cit., 481-485, 488-489. ...

http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg0701.shtml

What has that to do with TODAY'S government?
--------------------------------------------------------- "Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore":
<CB@prayforme.com> wrote:


No one wants a foul mouthed nigger working for him, no matter
what skin he wears.
I've owned and sold two landscape businesses for more money
that you'll earn in 20 years. I have employed hundreds if
not thousands of people. I know a nigger after just a
short time hearing him talk, work and complain.

otis

What is not relevant?

(Besides YOU I mean)

There is NOTHING the "federalist society" says that is relevant NOTHING

carol lee smith

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, CB quoted, again without adequate citation:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.... Madison's subsequent changes of position are striking. His
remarks in the Philadelphia Convention, in the Virginia ratifying
convention, and in The Federalist, cited above, all unequivocally favor
the existence of judicial review. And in Congress arguing in support of
the constitutional amendments providing a bill of rights, he observed:
``If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals
of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians
of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every
assumption of power in the Legislature or Executive; they will be
naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly
stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights,'' 1
Annals of Congress 457 (1789); 5 Writings of James Madison, G. Hunt ed.


provision is made for the case of a disagreement in expounding them; and
as the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results
to them by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with
the final character. This makes the Judiciary Department paramount in
fact to the legislature, which was never intended and can never be
proper.'' Id., 294. At the height of the dispute over the Alien and
Sedition Acts, Madison authored a resolution ultimately passed by the
Virginia legislature which, though milder, and more restrained than one
authored by Jefferson and passed by the Kentucky legislature, asserted
the power of the States, though not of one State or of the state
legislatures alone, to ``interpose'' themselves to halt the application
of an unconstitutional law. 3 I. Brant, James Madison--Father of the
Constitution, 1787-1800 (New York: 1950), 460-464. 467-471; Report on
the Resolutions of 1798, 6 Writings of James Madison, op. cit., 341-406.
Embarrassed by the claim of the nullificationists in later years that
his resolution supported their position, Madison distinguished his and
their positions and again asserted his belief in judicial review. 6 I.
Brant, op. cit., 481-485, 488-489. ...

http://www.eco.freedom.org/ac92/ac92pg0701.shtml

What has that to do with TODAY'S government?
--------------------------------------------------------- "Unfrozen Caveman Politician Gore":
<CB@prayforme.com> wrote:


No one wants a foul mouthed nigger working for him, no matter
what skin he wears.
I've owned and sold two landscape businesses for more money
that you'll earn in 20 years. I have employed hundreds if
not thousands of people. I know a nigger after just a
short time hearing him talk, work and complain.

otis

What is not relevant?

(Besides YOU I mean)

There is NOTHING the "federalist society" says that is relevant NOTHING