It's Convention time...and time for another edition of the Federalist Papers

So, with the beginning of the Republican and Democratic, or as I like to say democRATic conventions...just to annoy whinny liberals, it is probably time to revisit those never read, and certainly never understood Federalist Papers.

Picking back up with #15, it's interesting to note what Alexander Hamilton is trying to point out in this particular tome-the weakness of the Articles of Confederation is making a laughingstock of the new American nation:
"We may indeed with propriety be said to have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an independent nation which we do not experience. Are there engagements to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we owe debts to foreigners and to our own citizens contracted in a time of imminent peril for the preservation of our political existence? These remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign power which, by express stipulations, ought long since to have been surrendered? These are still retained, to the prejudice of our interests, not less than of our rights. Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government."

Hmmm, sounds kinda like what may happen when Obummer and the democRATS let sequestration happen...just to say to their base---"See, see we tried to fix it, but those meany-poopoo head Republicans wouldn't raise taxes on those evil, evil rich people."  Of course forget the fact that no homeless man ever gave me a job...just rich people...or that politicians would not even EXIST if it wasn't for rich people to tax.  Of course in Obama's economy RICH is becoming synonymous with employeed.

What is more fascinating...and more topical for our the Anti-Federalist #15..the continued discussion on the pitfalls of the proposed judicial branch.

Written by Robert Yates, this paper is so prophetic, it's kinda scary:

"But the judges under this constitution will controul the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress; they are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment......that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven."
"The power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature. I have shewed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution, and that, not only according to the natural and ob[vious] meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature....If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature." 
YUP, read that passage again, and again...and one more time to see exactly how sharp this guy was.  Now I understand the role of the judicial branch laid out in Marbury vs. Madison...blah, blah...but our current judicial system, with lifetime appointments has become out of control and allows exactly the kind of "legislating from the bench" and "judge shopping" that drives me nuts. 

Now, this is, of course, caused by weak-knead and gutless legislators who can't make hard decisions, but the fact that some judge can, at the stroke of a pen decide the rule of law for 350 million people, with little or no recourse seems not only absurd, but insane.  Why can't judges be appointed for 10 years, and then either have to be reappointed or move on?  States do it all the may not be perfect, but having some liberal hanger on like John Paul Stevens or Ruth Ginsberg seems a little nuts.  Of course, that would mean no more Scalia or Thomas, but maybe that's not so bad either, it would show that elections have consequences and maybe offer hope for overturning ridiculous rulings like Roe v. Wade, or  the Kelo Case, or even Lawrence Vs Texas.

For those morons who want to preach judicial infallibility or "removing politics from the bench", I would remind them of not only those cases, but Dred Scott, Plessy vs. Ferguson or others....

Judges are no smarter or better informed than anyone else and bring their prejudices and biases to the bench...just ask Sonya Sotomayor.

Remember the Obamacare case?  People (especially conservatives) spewed venom at the Chief Justice, but he kinda had it right when he said (and I  will paraphrase here) that is it not the role of judges to save the people from their own stupidity in electing the most lefty, socialist Congress and President EVER.  For anyone who would listen Obama and his posse did exactly what they said they would...achieve the ultimate progressive liberal dream of passing government funded and run health care ala European socialism. 

More Federalist goodness to's gonna be a long September......