Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a treasonous weasel among treasonous weasels!

Yes…, former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is a treasonous weasel, and so are all of the rest of his partners in crime from Obama’s DOJ and Obama’s FBI.

All of these vermin in this “swampy” nest of rats should be in jail in my opinion, and they still may end up there.

Catherine Herridge, Chief Intelligence Correspondent for Fox News, reported that, “Former FBI acting Director McCabe says the DOJ discussed removing President Trump under the 25th Amendment.”

Wait…, say what?!

“THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DISCUSSED REMOVING NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM OFFICE!”

And no one in the “biased, liberal, fake news media” feels this is worth reporting at all.

If you regularly watch NBC, ABC, MSNBC or CNN you would not be aware of any of this because they all have chosen to ignore it.  Propaganda by omission.

Now take a minute to think about the reporting that would have resulted if the same type of efforts had been directed at former President Obama after he was duly elected.

That is what we call the “biased, liberal, fake news media.”

Michael Goodwin, of the New York Post, added, “McCabe, you see, has reminded us once again that there really is a powerful deep state, and that there has not been a full accounting of rampant FBI misconduct during the presidential campaign of 2016.”

“There is also still too much we don’t know about the role top aides to then-President Barack Obama and higher-ups in the Justice Department played in spying on the Trump campaign and leaks of classified information for partisan purposes.”

“In short, what is arguably the greatest scandal in the history of America remains mostly hidden from the public.  That shroud of secrecy piles one scandal on top of another.”

This was undoubtedly an unprecedented plot to swing an election and later to remove the duly-elected president.

Andy “poor little angel” McCabe is talking because he’s peddling a book and, just like “Leakin’ and Lyin’” James Comey before him.

McCabe then used an interview with CBS’ “Sixty Minutes” to offer up more details of a discussion within the FBI and the DOJ to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

According to Michael Goodwin, “McCabe said that the effort took shape immediately after Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and that numerous people were involved, including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  Rosenstein, through an aide, denied the account.”

So now we one lying “swamp rat” calling another lying “swamp rat” a liar.

Beautiful.

All of these treasonous rats try to convince us that they were acting in the best interests of our country.  Ya…, that’s what all traitors say.  In actuality, they were acting in their own best interests.

Goodwin continues by saying, “Meanwhile, we do know that Comey and his dirty crew used the unverified Christopher Steele dossier, which was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to get a secret court warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.  And FBI text messages, along with congressional testimony, confirm that the same agents probing Trump were simultaneously involved in the Clinton e-mail investigation and decided to go easy on her because they thought she would be their next boss.  Recall that Peter Strzok, the top agent in both cases, called the Trump probe an “insurance policy” in the event he won.”

Please tell me…, how are any of these slimy, treasonous, conspirators not in jail, still walking around, and selling books on top of it all?

Alan Dershowitz is an accredited and well-respected American lawyer and academic.  He is a scholar of United States Constitutional law and criminal law, and a noted civil libertarian. Most of his career has been at Harvard Law School where, in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history.  He retired from Harvard in 2013, and subsequently became a regular CNN and Fox News contributor and political and legal analyst.

Dershowitz, giving his take on McCabe’s descriptions of Justice Department meetings where he said officials discussed ousting the president, said, “If [McCabe’s comments are] true, it is clearly an attempt at a coup d’état,” Dershowitz said.

“Evoking the 25th Amendment,” Dershowitz added, “would be a fundamental misuse of its original purpose.  It was originally about Woodrow Wilson having a stroke.  It’s about a president being shot and not being able to perform his office.”

So what exactly is in the 25th Amendment that is being referred to?

Let’s take a look.

Sections 3 and 4 from the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

3: Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution in February of 1967.

Dershowitz added that, “Any justice official who discussed the 25th Amendment in the context of ousting the president has committed a grievous offense against the Constitution,” and that “using the 25th Amendment to circumvent the impeachment process or an election, is a despicable act of unconstitutional power grabbing.”

Mr. Dershowitz is definitely not mincing words here.

Getting back to the “Sixty Minutes” interview, “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel,” Scott Pelley, the ’60 Minutes’ host said. “And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.” He [McCabe] said people involved were ‘counting noses’ and considering who might agree to the idea [of trying to remove The President].

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that was something that troubled me greatly,” McCabe said in one excerpt.

Excuse me Mr. McCabe, but that is just an out and out lie.

You were entirely aware that the “Russian collusion” angle had been completely fabricated, and that was not what “troubled you greatly.”

What “troubled you greatly,” Mr. McCabe, was that President Trump and his administration might actually shine some light on all of the unethical, illegal, and treasonous activities that you and your “swampy” friends had performed and had become accustomed to getting away with.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

andrew-mccabe-to-the-usa-this-traitor-better-29810123

President Trump has officially declared the US-Mexico border security crisis a national emergency. Is it?

“We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border…, one way or the other.  We have to do it,” President Trump said in the Rose Garden.

Speaker Pelosi has directly contradicted President Trump by claiming, “There is no crisis on our southern border,” and that, “President Trump has manufactured this crisis.”

Ok…, well…, let’s look at the facts.  Let’s look at the numbers.

According to “Investor’s Business Daily:”

“[Regarding] illegal immigration: Democrats and the mainstream press accuse President Donald Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border. The numbers tell another story.”

“NPR’s ‘fact check,’ like countless others, dismissed [President] Trump’s claim as false because ‘illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”

“What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.”

“Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.”

“Trump’s critics certainly don’t bother to mention that those figures only count illegals the border patrol caught.  It does not count the ones who eluded border patrol agents and got into the country.”

 

The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country.  Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as many as 50% of illegal crossers.

Is that not a crisis at the border?

Wait…, there’s more.

“Pelosi and company also don’t bother to mention the fact that there are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals, depending on which study you use, in the country today already.”

I would venture to say there are probably even more that 22 million in the country.

Let’s put those numbers in perspective.

“At the high end, it means that the illegal population in the U.S. is larger than the entire population of countries like Syria, Chile, the Netherlands and Ecuador. Even if the number is just 12 million, that’s still more than the entire population of Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Ireland and New Zealand.

Isn’t having millions and millions in the country illegally, with thousands joining them every day, not a crisis at the border?

But wait…, there’s more.

“Critics also complain that Trump overstated the risk of illegal immigrants committing crimes. They all point to a report from the Cato Institute, a pro-immigration libertarian think tank. Cato did a statistical analysis of census data and concluded that incarceration rates for Hispanic illegals were slightly lower than those of the native-born.”

Oh goody!

“But the Center for Immigration Studies looked at federal crime statistics [as well].  It found that noncitizens accounted for more than 20% of federal convictions, even though they make up just 8.4% of the population.”

The state of Texas alone “Has been monitoring crimes committed by illegals.  It reports that from 2011 to 2018, it booked 186,000 illegal aliens.  Police charged them with a total of 292,000 crimes.  Those included 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults, and almost 3,000 weapons charges.”

Maybe we should talk to the victims of those 539 murders, 32,000 assaults, 3,426 sexual assaults (in Texas alone), and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

And all of this does not even take into account the smuggling of illegal drugs.  According to the “VeryWellmind” website, “The estimated cost of drug abuse in the United States, including illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, is more than $820 billion a year and growing. Substance abuse in the U.S. costs society in increased healthcare costs, crime, and lost productivity.”

According to The National Institute on Drug abuse, “More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017.”

Unquestionably, the overwhelming majority of dangerous illegal drugs pours through our southern border.

In 2018 alone, border agents seized 5,000 pounds of heroin, 60,000 pounds of cocaine, 80,000 pounds of meth, and 1,600 pounds of fentanyl.  And that’s what they caught.  How much made it over the border?

Maybe we should talk to the families of the “more than 70,200 Americans [who] died from drug overdoses in 2017,” all of those people who have had their lives ruined by illegal drugs, and all of their families, and see if they think there is a crisis at our southern border.

Then we have the whole issue of human trafficers, who smuggle women and children into our country for sex and as slaves.

So, after looking at the numbers, is there a national crisis at our southern border?

I believe the only answer we can responsibly give is “yes.”

Others, of course, put their politics before the safety of the American people.

“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “The President’s actions clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

They vowed Congress would “defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.”

“The President’s declaration of a national emergency would be an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers. Congress has the exclusive power of the purse, and the Constitution specifically prohibits the President from spending money that has not been appropriated. … This is a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a statement.

First of all, Mr. Nadler, all of the money that President Trump is talking about using has been “appropriated.”

And on a related note…, when former President Obama sent over $150 BILLION (in cash by the way) to Iran as part of the failed Iran Nuclear Deal, where exactly was that money “appropriated?”  Just sayin’.

So…, what gives President Trump “the right” to declare a national emergency anyway?

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) authorizes the president to declare a “national emergency.”  This legislation was signed into law by President Gerald Ford on September 14, 1976

A declaration under NEA triggers emergency authorities contained in other federal statutes. Past NEA declarations have addressed, among other things, the imposition of export controls and limitations on transactions and property from specified nations.  A national emergency was declared in 2001 after the September 11th terrorist attacks and has been renewed every year since then.

58 national emergencies have been declared since the National Emergency Act of 1976 was signed into law.

31 have been annually renewed and are currently still in effect.

Here’s a list of the presidents who declared national emergencies.

President Jimmy Carter:

Nov. 14, 1979 (still in effect): A national emergency in response to the Iran hostage crisis, which froze Iran’s assets in the United States.

President Ronald Reagan:

April 17, 1980: Further Prohibitions on Transactions with Iran, never terminated or continued;

Oct. 14, 1983: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1983.

March 30, 1984: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked in 1985.

May 1, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving Nicaragua, revoked in 1990.

Sept. 9, 1985: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Other Transactions Involving South Africa (in response to apartheid), revoked 1991.

Jan. 17, 1986: Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya, revoked 2004.

April 8, 1988: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Panama, revoked 1990.

President George H.W. Bush:

August 2, 1990: Blocking Iraqi Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Iraq, revoked 2004.

Sept. 30, 1990: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1993.

Nov. 16, 1990: Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation, revoked 1994.

Oct. 4, 1991: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Haiti, revoked 1994.

May 30, 1992: Blocking “Yugoslav Government” Property and Property of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro, revoked 2003.

President Bill Clinton:

Sept. 26, 1993: Prohibiting Certain Transactions Involving UNITA (a political party in Angola), revoked 2003.

Sept. 30, 1993: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

June 30, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 1994.

Aug. 19, 1994: Continuation of Export Control Regulations, revoked 2001.

Sept. 29, 1994: Measures to Restrict the Participation by United States Persons in Weapons Proliferation Activities, revoked 1994.

Oct. 25, 1994: Blocking Property and Additional Measures with Respect to the Bosnian Serb- Controlled Areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, revoked 2003.

Nov. 14, 1994 (still in effect): Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, continued in November 2018.

Jan. 23, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Transactions with Terrorists Who Threaten to Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process, continued in January 2018.

March 15, 1995 (still in effect): Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, continued in March 2018 and expanded in August 2018.

Oct. 21, 1995 (still in effect): Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers, continued in October 2018.

March 1, 1996 (still in effect): Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels with Respect to Cuba, modified by President Obama in 2016 and again by President Trump in February 2018.

May 22, 1997: Prohibiting New Investment in Burma, terminated in October 2016.

Nov. 3, 1997 (still in effect): Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan, continued in October 2018.

June 9, 1998: Blocking Property of the Governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Serbia, and the Republic of Montenegro, and Prohibiting New Investment in the Republic of Serbia in Response to the Situation in Kosovo, revoked in 2003.

July 4, 1999: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with the Taliban, revoked in 2002.

June 21, 2000: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, expired 2012.

Jan. 18, 2001: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2004.

President George W. Bush:

June 26, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans, continued in June 2018.

Aug. 17, 2001 (still in effect): Continuation of Export Control Regulations, continued August 2018.

Sept. 14, 2001 (still in effect): Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks, continued in September 2018.

Sept. 23, 2001 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism, continued in September 2017.

March 6, 2003 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe, continued in March 2018.

May 22, 2003 (still in effect): Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq has an Interest, continued in May 2018.

May 11, 2004 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria, continued in May 2018.

July 22, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Importation of Certain Goods from Liberia, revoked in November 2015.

Feb. 7, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Côte d’Ivoire, terminated in September 2016.

June 16, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus, continued in June 2018.

Oct. 27, 2006 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, continued in October 2018;

Aug. 1, 2007 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions, continued in July 2018.

June 26, 2008 (still in effect): Continuing Certain Restrictions with Respect to North Korea and North Korean Nationals, continued in October 2018.

President Barack Obama:

Oct. 23, 2009: Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, was never terminated or continued.

April 12, 2010 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia, continued in 2018.

Feb. 25, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, continued in February 2018.

July 24, 2011 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations, continued in July 2018.

May 16, 2012 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen, continued in May 2012.

June 25, 2012: Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted from Nuclear Weapons, revoked in 2015.

March 6, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, continued in March 2018.

April 3, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to South Sudan, continued in March 2018.

May 12, 2014 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic, continued in May 2018.

March 8, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela, continued in March 2018.

April 1, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, continued in March 2018.

Nov. 22, 2015 (still in effect): Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi, continued in November 2018.

President Donald Trump:

Dec. 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption.

Sept. 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election.

Nov. 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua.

Based on everything I’ve laid out here, President Trump’s declaring a national emergency IS NOT “plainly a power grab.”

This President HAS NOT “gone outside the bounds of the law.”

The President’s actions DO NOT “clearly violate the Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution.”

The President’s declaration of a national emergency IS NOT “an abuse of his constitutional oath and an affront to the separation of powers.”

And, this IS NOT “a gross abuse of power that cannot be tolerated.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump national emergency

Go for it Mr. President!

With all due respect Mr. President, please all allow me to offer you my advice related to the current partial government shutdown.

If ending the government shutdown truly depends on either side compromising on building the wall, this shutdown could last for a very long time, which really isn’t a good thing in the end.

After discussing my intentions privately with the republican Senate and House leadership, I would tell Nancy Peloser and Upchuck Schumer that I was ready to reopen and fund the government, without any money for the wall at this point, and that if they sent legislation up to my office, I would sign it.

After my signing it, I’m sure Peloser and Upchuck would quickly proceed to hold a victory press conference to rub your nose in it.

But wait…, I’m coming to the good part!

The moment they began their victory speech, I would declare a state of emergency on our southern border and immediately begin construction of the wall.  Thus upstaging their announcement, while robbing them of gloating over their victory, and ending the shutdown at the same time.

You might as well get it over with and declare the emergency, because the democrats are going to challenge you in court no matter what you do, so you might as well get the ball rolling.  The sooner we get the process moving, the sooner it can get to The Supreme Court, at which time they will deem you are within your rights as The President to do what you have done, and we can get on with securing our border.

Every few weeks now we see another “caravan” has formed, with thousands of people, and is preparing to march through Mexico and challenge our southern border.

If having to deal with these invaders on a weekly basis isn’t a national emergency, what is?

And this is on top of the “normal” amount of drug smuggling and human trafficking.

I would not be overly concerned about setting precedent here.  Was Nancy concerned about setting one with the State of the Union address?

And like it has been pointed out before, if these illegal immigrants were turning around and voting for republicans, the wall would be so big you’d be able to see it from space.

The democrats are going to do what they need to do going forward and so should we, and so should you.

Don’t do what a politician would do.  Do what a patriot and a leader would do.

Go for it Mr. President!

BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!  BUILD THAT WALL!

Like you said, “One way or another.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump-build-that-wall-701x393 (1)

 

“The state of our Union is…?”

The state of our Union is…, at a crossroads.

Not only is the state of our Union at a crossroads, The State of the Union address itself is at a crossroads.

Speaker of the House, California democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to throw all congressional tradition and decency to the wayside and disinvite President Trump to give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives.

She weakly, and unsupported by the truth, suggested that, “it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event [and that they had no security concerns as referred to by Mrs. Pelosi].

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

According to Alex Pappas and John Roberts of Fox News, “White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley accused Pelosi of ‘trying to play politics with that venue.’ He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

‘“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,’ Gidley said.”

“A spokesman for Pelosi did not return a request for comment.  Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.”

According to History.House.gov:

“Including President Donald J. Trump’s 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses.

“Since President Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.”

“The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, ‘The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

sotu supremes w zzzzzs 2

Never one to let the Constitution get in her way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly urged the president to delay the speech or submit it in writing amid the government shutdown fight.

Be careful Nancy, you may get what you’re wishing for!

In my opinion, it seems like you are actually doing President Trump a big favor, Nancy.  Not only are you making yourself and your party look petty and foolish, you are providing President Trump with an excuse to give his State of the Union address somewhere other than the stodgy, old, predictable halls of Congress.

Wouldn’t it be awesome to see The President give his address to a crowd of 20-30 thousand supporters in a rally type of atmosphere in say Columbus, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or perhaps in Jacksonville, Florida?

Is that what you want Nancy?

Somehow I don’t think so.

But I sure would!

I can hear the standing room only crowd now, screaming, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!” “USA, USA, USA” “FOUR MORE YEARS!” “LOCK HER UP! and that “oldie but a goodie,”  “CNN SUCKS!”  Maybe we’ll even hear President Trump’s newest slogan, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

It’s a beautiful thing.

Have you heard the old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer,” Nancy?

Letting President Trump out of Washington D.C. would be doing him and all of his supporters a big favor.

It would nice a nice change of pace to watch The State of the Union address without having to see all of those grouchy democrats sitting on their hands, falling asleep, and just generally being disrespectful.

“At the moment, however, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said.  White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol.  The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.”

In the end, whether or not the speech is welcomed on the House floor is up to comrade Pelosi.

The way it stands now, welcome or not, President Trump has a “get out of jail free” card and he should take his “show” on the road!

Winning!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union

 

I’d love to be able to “regulate the content of speech.”  If it wasn’t for that darn Constitution!

The U.S. Representative for California’s 33rd congressional district (in the Los Angeles area), democrat, Ted Lieu, said he would “love to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, but he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

That darn old Constitution!

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing during an interview with CNN host Brianna Keilar.

“… I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech.  The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” Congressman Lieu continued.

I’m glad you feel that way congressman; since that is what allows you and your liberal friends to say the stupid things you do, not to mention you took an oath to uphold and protect The Constitution as an elected representative of the people.

Lieu added that, “Private companies should self-regulate their platforms and the government shouldn’t interfere.”

Stop the presses!  This would be the first thing that a democrat felt the government shouldn’t interfere with!  Although this statement does not seem consistent with his prior statements.

I think what he means is private companies, run by liberals, should be able to self-regulate their own platforms, as long as they are attacking conservatives.

Yes…, I’m sure that’s it.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for tyranny.”

Lieu, of course, then had to tell us what we should have understood him to say, as he insisted that he was actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

Oh I get it!  So it was like “opposite day” or something!

Maybe we should have interpreters standing alongside these liberals, translating what they really mean, like we have people translating their words into sign language for those who are hearing impaired!

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech,” Lieu added.

I really haven’t heard about any government officials wanting to regulate speech other than you, Mr. Lieu, and of course former President Obama regarding Fox News!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Lieu has become somewhat of a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.”

“He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign.  He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ok.  Well, that paints a clearer picture of Congressman Lieu now.

So what we have here is your typically confused and inept, liberal politician.

A year and a half ago, Lieu tweeted at President Trump, saying: “President” @realDonaldTrump: You truly are an evil man. Your job is to help Americans. Not intentionally try to destroy their lives. https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

This was in response to President Trump’s tweet about Obamacare which said:

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

There we go again.  When liberals can’t win an argument intellectually, they resort to name calling and labeling.  Who the “evil one” is and who was trying to “destroy lives,” is definitely a matter of opinion.

Congressman Lieu then tweeted:

Mr. “President”: Art II of Constitution requires you to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. Subverting #Obamacare violates your Oath https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

Excuse me Congressman Lieu, but wasn’t it President Obama who chose to ignore our immigration laws, and change the Obamacare law as he saw fit on the run?

I don’t recall you pointing out Article II of The Constitution to President Obama, or did I just miss that?

“Even earlier this year, Lieu started printing asterisks next to Trump’s name in his official press releases, leading to a footnote that reminds readers of his failure to capture the popular vote and of allegations of Russian influence,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News Insider pointed out that, “Lieu also started a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which counts the days, hours and minutes that Trump has allegedly been in conflict with a section of the Constitution that governs the likelihood of interference by foreign business interests.”

“Trump is not making America first, he’s making America second,” Lieu said.

It’s not that hard Mr. Lieu.  Really.

Repeat after me, President is “making America great again” by “putting America first.”

I would really like to see a study about the IQ scores for people in your district, Mr. Lieu.  Something tells me the average score would be somewhere south of barely functional.

Is your district anywhere near Maxine Waters’ district?  I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is “yes.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

freedom of speech

 

It’s not nice to speak ill of the dead, but former Senator John McCain was a vindictive, back stabbing, lying, establishment RINO weasel!   

Well, I think the title just about sums it up!

But how do I really feel?

Please refer to two of my previous blogs on John McCain from May 18, 2018: “Who was John McCain?  Who is John McCain?”  And “John McCain and James Comey are two ‘swampy’ peas in a ‘swampy’ pod!”

Many of the more recent developments surrounding the “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier” continue to support my initial beliefs (Please see again the title of this blog).

Fox News’ Gregg Re reported that, “An associate of the late Arizona Republican, Sen. John McCain, shared with ‘Buzzfeed News’ a copy of the unverified, salacious opposition research dossier alleging that Russians had compromising material on President Trump, according to a bombshell federal court filing Wednesday [12/19/18].”

McCain, of course, has strongly denied that he was the source for “Buzzfeed” after it published the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

I guess technically, McCain didn’t actually personally hand the dossier over to “Buzzfeed,” his “associate,” or “gofer,” or “flunky” did.  This is a typical weasel move, and it’s called plausible deniability, at least until your “associate” or other evidence hold your feet to the fire.

Gregg Re adds that, “In recent days, the dossier’s credibility has increasingly come under question, as the Yahoo News investigative reporter who broke news of its existence said many of its claims were “likely false,” and an adviser to ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen said Cohen never went to Prague to pay off Russian hackers, as alleged in the dossier.”

The “dossier’s credibility” has actually been in question for quite some time by many observers, not just in “recent days.”

Earlier this year, Fox News reported that a top McCain associate, David Kramer, had been briefed on the dossier written by British ex-spy Christopher Steele in late November 2016 in Surrey, England.  Kramer “took the fifth,” invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before House Republicans about his handling of the dossier.

So let’s take an appraisal of the situation at this point.

This is all happening AFTER Donald Trump has been elected president.  Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, the FBI and the DOJ have already used the bogus dossier to get their FISA warrants and spy on the Trump campaign.  The only problem is it didn’t do any good and Donald Trump still won!  Now the FBI and the DOJ are into their fall back plan of trying to discredit the newly elected President Trump while covering their backsides along with the backsides of their other partners in crime, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration.

So they (the FBI and the DOJ) came up with this plan to get their old “swampy” friend McCain, who doesn’t like Donald Trump and who is half a democrat anyway, to think he has discovered all of this juicy info on Donald Trump, which he passes on to the FBI (who have already had the dossier and used it for months already) and then leaks it to the press in an attempt to embarrass newly elected President Trump, thus doing all of the dirty work for the FBI and the DOJ.

You’re so gullible McFly…, I mean McCain!

I’m sure McCain had visions of grandeur, with himself being called a “hero” for exposing these vile deeds (even though they were all made up) by his friends in the “biased, liberal, fake news media,” all of the enemies of Trump, which included most politicians, republican and democrat, while at the same time taking an ounce of flesh from Donald Trump, who McCain hated with a passion.

So, the FBI and the DOJ now use the bogus dossier…, again, as a basis for launching the Special Counsel (the Mueller investigation).

You’ve got to hand it to them in one regard; you just couldn’t make this stuff up if it wasn’t true.

The only problem now is that McCain’s “associate” and “go-between” is singing like a bird.

I wonder if he uses Twitter!

Sorry about that one.  It was just too easy.

Anyway, according to Catherine Herridge, Pamela K. Browne and Cyd Upson of Fox News, “The man who says he acted as a “go-between” last year to inform Sen. John McCain about the controversial “dossier” containing salacious allegations about then-candidate Donald Trump is speaking out, revealing how the ex-British spy who researched the document helped coordinate its release to the FBI, the media and Capitol Hill.

“My mission was essentially to be a go-between and a messenger, to tell the senator and assistants that such a dossier existed,” Sir Andrew Wood told Fox News in an exclusive interview with senior executive producer Pamela K. Browne.

Just after the U.S. presidential election in November of 2016, Arizona Sen. McCain spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.  Wood says he was instructed, by former British spy Christopher Steele, to reach out to the senior Republican, whom Wood called “a good man,” about the unverified document.

“Wood insists that he’s never read the dossier that his good friend and longtime colleague prepared.  It was commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS and funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

Along with the senator, Wood and McCain Institute for International Leadership staffer David J. Kramer attended the Canadian conference.

In January of 2017, McCain officially gave the dossier to the FBI, which already had its own copy from Steele.

The obvious question now is: What is the status of the Mueller investigation then?

Since the investigation was initiated based on the now debunked, “fraudulent and libelous Steele dossier,” should the investigation be terminated since it was obviously started under false pretenses?

I believe the answer is obviously “yes.”

As a matter of fact, I believe the whole situation warrants another Special Counsel to investigate those who actually committed the crimes here: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and various members of his administration, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Rod Rosenstein, and other upper level employees of the FBI and the DOJ.

Stay thirsty my friends!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

mccain dirtbag

 

The FBI missed its deadline to provide documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the “FBI’s whistleblower raid.”  This was the easiest prediction of the year.

Yes, the Justice Department and FBI missed their deadline to provide information about the government’s mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor’s home last month.

If you check out my blog from December 6, 2018 titled “The KGB…, oops I mean the FBI is at it again!” you’ll see that I said,

“The documents in question allegedly show that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, the Russian nuclear company whose subsidiary purchased Uranium One in 2013.”

“No one will ever see or hear of those documents again, unless Mr. Cain was wise enough to have created duplicates and dispersed them to multiple locations.”

“Grassley has given Wray [the FBI Director] and Horowitz [the department of Justice Inspector General] until Dec. 12, 2018 to respond.”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore that deadline?”

“Anybody want to bet they ignore the request entirely?”

Let’s recap exactly what happened here.

Back in November, sixteen FBI agents (Do you that was enough agents?) raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain.  Mr. Cain reportedly gave the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) documents related to the Uranium One controversy, the potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the bureau’s failure to investigate Hillary Clinton.

The documents in question (known as the “Uranium One” documents) allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian nuclear company.

Cain’s lawyer, Michael Socarras, told The Daily Caller the agent who led the raid accused his client of possessing stolen federal property. In response, Cain reportedly claimed he was a protected whistleblower under federal law, and said he was recognized as such by Horowitz.

This wasn’t anything the FBI wasn’t already aware of Mr. Cain.

What is the FBI hoping to accomplish by keeping the American people in the dark?  They’re hoping to cover their asses, the DOJ’s asses, Hillary’s backside, along with former President Obama and all of his stooges.

Questioning whether “we now live in a secret police state,” Cain took his frustration about the situation to Twitter earlier this week.

Note: The answer to his question apparently has to be “yes.”

“So I blow the whistle on the FBI, get raided by the same FBI, and now they want to keep the FBI’s reasons secret?  Do we now live in a secret police state?  Feels a little like 1984,” Cain tweeted.

“As frustrating and violating as this feels to me and my family. I will continue to put my trust in God. Someday this life will pass away. I will stand before my maker with a clean conscience and Jesus as my defender.  Until then I continue to fight the good fight with God’s help,” Cain tweeted.

The FBI consistently has refused Fox News’ request for comment on the whistleblower raid and the Judiciary Committee’s requests.  An FBI spokesperson told Fox News the agency would respond only to inquiries from the entity that requested the documents, in this case, the Judiciary Committee.

Oh, you mean the same FBI that refuses to respond to the Judiciary Committee’s request in the first place?  Sounds legit…, not!

And we also have to ask ourselves why Fox News the only news organization requesting any comments from the FBI and the DOJ about this whole mess?

We all know the answer to that question don’t we?  It’s the old “biased, liberal, fake news media” tactic that says, “If we don’t acknowledge something happened, then it didn’t happen.”  It’s propaganda by omission.

It’s also “the swamp” looking after its own.

In a related topic, my blog from January 2, 2018 addresses the question, “What happens when the investigators need to be investigated?”

 

Thanks to Fox News’ Gregg Re, Samuel Chamberlain and Brooke Singman for contributing to this article.

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

dirty dossier dozen

 

What the heck are these “Federalist Papers” I’ve been hearing about, and why do they seem so important when we talk about “interpreting” The Constitution?

“I think the first duty of society is justice.” – Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 newspaper articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, under the pen name “Publius,” to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The first 77 of these essays were published, in a series, in three different New York newspapers, between October of 1787 and April of 1788.  A two-volume compilation of these 77 essays and eight others was later published as “The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favor of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787,” in March and May of 1788.

The authors of The Federalist Papers intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution.  In “Federalist No. 1,” Alexander Hamilton set that argument in motion:

“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 really 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.”

“Federalist No. 10” is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical standpoint.  In it, James Madison discusses the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of factions.  Madison defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an “incomparable exposition of The Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.”

At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution.  The authorship of the papers breaks down like this:

Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: No. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)

James Madison (29 articles: No. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58 and 62–63)

John Jay (5 articles: No. 2–5 and 64)

Hamilton represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, and in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, until he resigned in 1795.

Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution, became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.

Jay, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, until stepping down in 1795 to accept his election as the governor of New York.

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which in turn submitted it to the states for ratification at the end of September 1787.  On September 27, 1787, an article by an author known only as “Cato” first appeared in the New York press criticizing the proposition.  Soon after, an article by an author known as “Brutus” followed on October 18, 1787, also criticizing the newly proposed constitution.  These and other articles and public letters critical of the new Constitution would become known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”  These articles were the impetus for Alexander Hamilton’s response, as he decided to launch his defense and explanation of the proposed Constitution to the people of the state of New York.  He wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that the series would “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.”

Alexander Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius.” While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman pen names such as “Publius,” “Caesar,” “Brutus” and “Cato.”  In ancient Rome, Publius Valerius helped found the ancient republic of Rome.  He was also known as Publicola, which meant “friend of the people.”

Although written and published relatively quickly, “The Federalist articles” were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of America, politically.  Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the essays at a rapid pace.  At times, three to four new essays appeared in the papers in a single week.  Hamilton also encouraged the reprinting of the essays in newspapers outside of New York State.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton listed six topics to be covered in the subsequent articles:

“The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity” – covered in No. 2 through No. 14

“The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union” –covered in No. 15 through No. 22

“The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object” – covered in No. 23 through No. 36

“The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government” – covered in No. 37 through No. 84

“Its analogy to your own state constitution” – covered in No. 85

“The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to prosperity” – covered in No. 85.

Here is a list of The Federalist Papers in order:

#       Date, Title, Author

1       October 27, 1787, General Introduction, Alexander Hamilton

2       October 31, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

3       November 3, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

4       November 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

5       November 10, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

6       November 14, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

7       November 15, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

8       November 20, 1787, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

9       November 21, 1787, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and  Insurrection, Alexander Hamilton

10     November 22, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, James Madison

11     November 24, 1787 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy, Alexander Hamilton

12     November 27, 1787, The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue, Alexander Hamilton

13     November 28, 1787, Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government, Alexander Hamilton

14     November 30, 1787, Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered, James Madison

15     December 1, 1787, The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

16     December 4, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

17     December 5, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

18     December 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

19     December 8, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

20     December 11, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

21     December 12, 1787, Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

22     December 14, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

23     December 18, 1787, The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union, Alexander Hamilton

24     December 19, 1787, The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

25     December 21, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

26     December 22, 1787, The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

27     December 25, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

28     December 26, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

29     January 9, 1788, Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton

30     December 28, 1787, Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

31     January 1, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

32     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

33     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

34     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

35     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

36     January 8, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

37     January 11, 1788, Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, James Madison

38     January 12, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed, James Madison

39     January 18, 1788, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, James Madison

40     January 18, 1788, The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained, James Madison

41     January 19, 1788, General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution, James Madison

42     January 22, 1788, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

43     January 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

44     January 25, 1788, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States, James Madison

45     January 26, 1788, The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, James Madison

46     January 29, 1788, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison

47     January 30, 1788, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, James Madison

48     February 1, 1788, These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other, James Madison

49     February 2, 1788, Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government, James Madison

50     February 5, 1788, Periodic Appeals to the People Considered, James Madison

51     February 6, 1788, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, James Madison

52     February 8, 1788, The House of Representatives, James Madison

53     February 9, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives, James Madison

54     February 12, 1788, The Apportionment of Members Among the States, James Madison

55     February 13, 1788, The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

56     February 16, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

57     February 19, 1788, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many, James Madison

58     February 20, 1788, Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered, James Madison

59     February 22, 1788, Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

60     February 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

61     February 26, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

62     February 27, 1788, The Senate, James Madison

63     March 1, 1788, The Senate Continued, James Madison

64     March 5, 1788, The Powers of the Senate, John Jay

65     March 7, 1788, The Powers of the Senate Continued, Alexander Hamilton

66     March 8, 1788, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

67     March 11, 1788, The Executive Department, Alexander Hamilton

68     March 12, 1788, The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton

69     March 14, 1788, The Real Character of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

70     March 15, 1788, The Executive Department Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

71     March 18, 1788, The Duration in Office of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

72     March 19, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

73     March 21, 1788, The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power, Alexander Hamilton

74     March 25, 1788, The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

75     March 26, 1788, The Treaty Making Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

76     April 1, 1788, The Appointing Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

77     April 2, 1788, The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

78     May 28, 1788 (book) June 14, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Department, Alexander Hamilton

79     May 28, 1788 (book) June 18, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

80     June 21, 1788, The Powers of the Judiciary, Alexander Hamilton

81     June 25, 1788 and June 28, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority, Alexander Hamilton

82     July 2, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

83     July 5, 1788, July 9, 1788 and July 12, 1788, The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury, Alexander Hamilton

84     July 16, 1788, July 26, 1788 and August 9, 1788, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Alexander Hamilton

85     August 13, 1788 and August 16, 1788, Concluding Remarks, Alexander Hamilton

As you can see, the list of constitutional topics covered in “The Papers” is quite extensive and very encompassing.  “The Papers” can sometimes help us when interpreting The Constitution by providing the original intentions of the framers and by giving us a little extra insight.

By 2000, The Federalist Papers had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.

If you had any questions about The Federalist Papers…, hopefully they’ve now been answered.

Stay thirsty my friends!  It’s always better to be more knowledgeable than not.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison, 4th President of The Unites States

“The loss of liberty to a generous mind is worse than death.” – Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington

“America belongs to ‘We the People.’  It does not belong to The Congress.  It does not belong to special interest groups.  It does not belong to The Courts.   It belongs to ‘We the People.'” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

federalist papers

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑