B
Bon_Croix
Guest
According to the IRS, the Federalist Society’s largest donor’s name isn’t revealed in public tax docs. Does anyone know who it is?
- Status
V
Victoria33
Guest
For What It’s Worth:
I’m just posting, you asked a question. I’m not endorsing this or anything.
BTW, I looked into this Federalist Society before. I think they have a number of chapters in the US and have events sometimes. I thought, they were a relatively innocuous organization.
More reading, Charity Navigator: Charity Navigator - Rating for The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
I’m just posting, you asked a question. I’m not endorsing this or anything.
BTW, I looked into this Federalist Society before. I think they have a number of chapters in the US and have events sometimes. I thought, they were a relatively innocuous organization.
More reading, Charity Navigator: Charity Navigator - Rating for The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Last edited:
From The Hill article:
We want Trump to appoint originalist constitutional conservatives, and avoid at all cost nominees who hold the view that the constitution is a “living document”. It is a legal document and as Scalia said, it says what it says and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
Umm, no. We didn’t elect Trump for that purpose, anymore than Obama practiced this absurdity.
We want Trump to appoint originalist constitutional conservatives, and avoid at all cost nominees who hold the view that the constitution is a “living document”. It is a legal document and as Scalia said, it says what it says and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good to know. Thanks.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Does this mean you want to disallow Amendments?
Are amendments part of the originalist view?JonNC:
Does this mean you want to disallow Amendments?
Yes. What is says, it says. What it doesn’t say it doesn’t say.
Use the amendment process for national healthcare.
Last edited:
V
Victoria33
Guest
“Originalist”, close to “Constructionist” in definition, which means those who wrote the Constitution, the meaning in its day and I agree, it should be the meaning today.
Originalist
Constructionist
Constitutionalist
All similar if not the same.
Originalist
Constructionist
Constitutionalist
All similar if not the same.
N
niceatheist
Guest
So that applies to the Framer’s understanding of impeachment?
T
Theo520
Guest
Why would you say this?
Being an originalist means enforcing the laws as written, not making them up. It’s not just about the constitution, they rule on laws as well.
B
Bon_Croix
Guest
I don’t think any reasonable person can validly claim that the president must be impeached. If he were a blatant felon, then that would be impeachable.
Democrats are being petty and their actions, so far, aren’t justified. Everything they have done is political and partisan.
Democrats are being petty and their actions, so far, aren’t justified. Everything they have done is political and partisan.
D
dvdjs
Guest
You might like ti read the Federalist papers on the matter of impeachment to discover what our founder’s thought on the matter. You will find that the abuse of power that Trump has carried out was just the sort fo thing that they had on their minds.
N
niceatheist
Guest
That’s not my question. My question is that if the originalist doctrine is to hold true, does Federalist #65 apply?
T
Theo520
Guest
You’ll need to expand on that, for me at least.
I don’t see any present controversy from referencing #65, after reading the below summary.
The Federalist Papers Essay 65 Summary and Analysis
The Federalist Papers study guide contains a biography of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full ...
www.gradesaver.com
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
T
Theo520
Guest
If you are going to make obscure references, you are responsible for explaining your point. I tried to do it for you but you deflected.
I suspect your interpretation of #65 is faulty and the web summary is accurate. Thus you had no point to make.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Obscure references? The Federalist Papers were written by the Framers and are pretty much the “go to” for understanding their thinking. They collectively represent one of the most unique windows on the construction of a constitution from the ground up.
Read Federalist 65. Actually read it. Hamilton explains exactly why impeachment was designed in the Constitution, and why alternative methods for removal of high-ranking Federal officials were discarded. It also explains the Framers’ understanding of what impeachment was in the 18th century.
If the Federalist Papers are obscure references, then the US education system really is a bust.
Read Federalist 65. Actually read it. Hamilton explains exactly why impeachment was designed in the Constitution, and why alternative methods for removal of high-ranking Federal officials were discarded. It also explains the Framers’ understanding of what impeachment was in the 18th century.
If the Federalist Papers are obscure references, then the US education system really is a bust.
T
Theo520
Guest
- It’s unreasonable to expect the average CAF poster to have studied all the Federalist Papers.
- I took the effort to read a summary and it disagreed that you had any point to make referencing #65
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Federalist #65 is about 2000 words. this link was given.
Easily managed, no?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Well first of all, to understand impeachment in the Constitutional context is to understand that the Framers understood impeachment in English Common Law terms. Impeachment, particularly in the era before Ministers of the Crown became, by convention, selected almost solely from among members of the largest Parliamentary bloc, was a means by which Parliament could hold ministers and other agents of the Crown accountable. Impeachment, in Common Law, was by and large viewed in terms of abuses of office (i.e. some agent of the Crown using their position to enrich themselves). The entire concept of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes from this era, and the Constitution was written before the modern Westminster constitutional order was fully established. In modern Westminster systems, it has largely been replaced by the concept of confidence; in which Parliament expresses its approval or disapproval for the Government by bequeathing or revoking confidence (although the Crown still retains the right to dismiss Ministers).
“What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?”
“What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?”
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
So now we have the historical context of impeachment, which was still very relevant to English constitutional law in the late 18th century.
Now we get to the particulars. In Federalist #65, Hamilton first explains what impeachment is:
“A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."
The intent of the paper is to demonstrate in broad terms what purpose impeachment serves, and more specifically why the Senate was chosen as the body to conduct the trial. Impeachment was actually up for debate at the time, with some thinking that there ought to be a specific set of offences, but Hamilton makes it very clear that the removal of a public figure in the Executive (though of course, impeachment extends to the Judiciary as well), is a fundamentally political question.
Now we get to the particulars. In Federalist #65, Hamilton first explains what impeachment is:
“A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."
The intent of the paper is to demonstrate in broad terms what purpose impeachment serves, and more specifically why the Senate was chosen as the body to conduct the trial. Impeachment was actually up for debate at the time, with some thinking that there ought to be a specific set of offences, but Hamilton makes it very clear that the removal of a public figure in the Executive (though of course, impeachment extends to the Judiciary as well), is a fundamentally political question.
Last edited:
- Status