My reaction to some recent headlines about the Electoral College, AOC and the 22nd Amendment, DNC Chair calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” Joe Biden’s behavior with women, and did the NY Times and The Washington Post help elect President Trump!?

There are so many topics I’d like to offer my insight on, but so little time!

Welcome to my first crack at the “MrEricksonRules headline buffet line!”

Pick your favorite(s) or have some of each.  It’s totally up to you.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Senate democrats introduce measure to abolish Electoral College.

“Would election by popular vote be better than the Electoral College?”

“A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.”

“According to NBC News: ‘Leading Democratic senators are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College, adding momentum to a long-shot idea that has been gaining steam among 2020 presidential candidates.’”

“…changing the Constitution is seen as virtually impossible today. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House (about 290 votes) and Senate (67 votes) and requires ratification by 38 states.”

As is usually the case with the democrat party, what we have here is either disingenuous political grandstanding, uninformed ignorance, or a combination of the two.  I’m going to give them some credit and say it’s disingenuous political grandstanding for the most part, since actually amending the Constitution would never happen, mostly due to the requirement of having 38 states go along with it.

So…, in the grand scheme of things, it’s kind of like “The Green New Deal,” a bunch of noise that ain’t never going to happen.

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney disagree over knowledge of 22nd Amendment, Constitution.

“[Liz] Cheney, R-WY, took issue with a comment [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, made during a recent MSNBC town hall event in which the freshman congresswoman talked about Democrats being in control of Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.”

‘“When our party was boldest, the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on, we had, and carried, supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,’ she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.”

‘“They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt did not get reelected,’ Ocasio-Cortez continued.”

“In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, Cheney tweeted: ‘We knew the Democrats let dead people vote. According to AOC, they can run for president too!’”

“The New Yorker then fired off her own response. ‘Hey Rep. Cheney, I see from your dead people comment that you get your news from Facebook memes, but the National Constitution Center + Newsweek are just two of many places where you can clarify your misunderstanding of the history of the 22nd Amendment,’ she wrote.”

“Roosevelt died while in office in 1945 and the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947.  The Amendment reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some of other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

I think we can safely score this:

Representative Liz Cheney………..ONE

Representative Ocasio-Cortez…….ZERO

Kathleen Joyce of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

DNC Chair Tom Perez calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” says they will be “judged harshly” by history

“Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez launched a stunning attack on Republican lawmakers, saying history will “judge” them for supporting President Trump.”

What’s so “stunning” about that?  I hear much worse on a daily basis directed at President Trump, republicans and various conservatives.

‘“The reason why we [Democrats] are winning, and we won at scale in 2018, is because our message is clear. Our message was: we are the ones who actually have your back on the issues that really matter. Healthcare, education. He said he had your back, but actually he had a knife in your back,’ Perez said.”

The truth is the democrats under performed in the 2018 midterms, and by any measure we can say the democrats do not “have our back.”  The democrats, most recently led by Barack Obama, sold America and Americans out.  They gave away our jobs, our wealth, our respect around the world, and our American soul.

“The DNC chair continued that President Trump found success in 2016 by putting ‘fear on the ballot,’ and that Republican lawmakers who have supported his policies over the last three years are ‘cowards’ who have allowed damage to be done to their part.”

That’s a good one Tom!  The democrats are historically the party of fear.  How many times have we heard “the republicans will gut social security,” due to the republicans, millions will die without healthcare, our children will starve and grandma will be left out on the street!?

We didn’t need President Trump to “put fear on the ballot” in 2016, we were all scared already that our country was going down the drain. And rightly so.

‘“I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly. It will judge Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refused to stand up to this president and allowed the party of Lincoln to die. They will be judged harshly because whatever he says goes right now.’”

I feel more correctly, “history” will judge these times as the times of the great liberal lies.  The times of liberal propaganda and the times of the corrupt and biased media who backed them up rather than do their jobs as watchdogs for We the People.

Anna Hopkins of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Pelosi: Biden didn’t know “the world we’re in now.”

“House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most high-profile Democrat to come to the defense of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ‘affectionate demeanor,’ Peter Doocy reports from Washington.”

Ha! “Affectionate demeanor!?”  Is that what we’re calling “Uncle Joe’s” creepy behavior now?

And according to Politico (a news journalism company), “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not think the allegations against Joe Biden of unwelcome contact are disqualifying for a 2020 run, but that the former vice president should be more aware of others’ personal space. ‘I don’t think it’s disqualifying,’ Pelosi said… ‘He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it.’ … Pelosi pushed back against the tone of former vice president’s apologies. ‘It is how it’s received, so to say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,’ the California Democrat said. ‘‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ What’s that? That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication.’”

I’m a little confused.  Is she coming to Joe’s defense or is she scolding him?

National Public Radio (NPR) noted, “On the most obvious level, complaints of this kind renew the criticism of Biden’s past performance on issues affecting women and people of color, the two constituencies likely to matter most in choosing the next Democratic nominee.”

As usual with the democrats, us poor white guys are treated like second class citizens.

“Perceptions of Biden as ‘old school’ or ‘old fashioned’ are not just liabilities to be shed. They are also the basis of his appeal to many older, white, working-class Democrats and independents.”

The democrat party can say what they want about the new breed of democrat-socialists out there; Joe Biden leads in the polls for president, and he hasn’t even officially declared yet!

“Biden’s advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats…”

No kidding.

That basically leaves one guy…, and I can hear ‘em now, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

New York Post: How the New York Times, Washington Post helped get Trump elected.

“If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump, then Clinton would never have been the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.”

headlines 2

True.  And actually, “If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump,” she would be in jail, along with a lot of her friends.

“So, in a different scenario, if the Times and the Washington Post probe Clinton, alert the public to all of her ‘problems’ then the Democrats are forced to pick someone else as their candidate.  In that case, Trump might not have won.”

In reality, Mr. Crudele, anything “might” have happened.  It really annoys me these days when reporters say, “this might happen,” or that “could happen,” or this “may” happen.

Here’s some news for all of you journalism majors: ANYTHING “MIGHT,”  “COULD,” OR “MAY” HAPPEN!  THAT’S NOT NEWS!

John Crudele of The New York Post contribued.

headlines 1

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“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

 

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 ↑