Musings of a Patriot

Federalist Nos. 64 – 65

In discussing the powers of the senate related to the making of treaties John Jay outlines a truth that undercuts one of the major arguments against term limits. In Federalist No. 64 he states:

providing for the frequent elections of senators in such a way as to obviate the inconvenience of periodically transferring those great affairs entirely to new men; for by leaving a considerable residue of the old ones in place, uniformity and order, as well as a constant succession of official information will be preserved.

The argument that term limits would place institutional knowledge quarely in the hands of lobbyists is a strong one until we consider that the very form of senate elections was to preserve institutional knowledge across elections. Even if we were to go to the extreme of enforcing a single term limit on every elected member of the federal government each state would always have at least one member of their congressional delegation that had at least two years worth of experience in Washington. Overall, each new election would leave at least 66 out of 536 elected officials returning to Washington to pass on their institutional experience. Considering how poorly 90 – 95% transfer of institutional experience has served this country recently I don’t see that we could be much worse off by having a 13% transfer of institutional experience.

I cannot imagine suggesting such an extreme term limit policy, and I don’t pretend that this answers all the critiques of the idea of term limits, but I will never give any weight to the argument that essential institutional experience would be left to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists in the future.

In Federalist No. 65 Hamilton discusses the responsibility of the Senate to try cases of impeachment. Despite, or possibly because of, the cases and threats of impeachment within my own lifetime which have been driven more by political considerations than by rational thought my respect is fixed for the method of impeachment and trials of impeachment designed by our founders and unaltered over two centuries.

Posted

in

,

by

David

Tags:

, , , ,

Comments

10 responses to “Federalist Nos. 64 – 65”

  1. Mackenzie Avatar
    Mackenzie

    I would say that federalist Paper #64 also is applicable to any agreements with the IMF: Quote below.

    “The second section gives power to the President, “BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, TO MAKE TREATIES, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR.”

    The power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to war, peace, and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode, and with such precautions, as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose, and in the manner most conducive to the public good. The convention appears to have been attentive to both these points: they have directed the President to be chosen by select bodies of electors, to be deputed by the people for that express purpose; and they have committed the appointment of senators to the State legislatures. This mode has, in such cases, vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity, where the activity of party zeal, taking the advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and interested, often places men in office by the votes of a small proportion of the electors.”

    The paragraph above is followed by a further emphasis o the importance of experience in making judgments that affect the whole nation.

    Reading these words makes it seem all the more tragic that in these most trying of times the person at the head of our government has so little experience. The experience he has, was de-emphasized during the election process and for good reason- Obama’s policies as an Illinois Senator of spending and taxing showed no successful results. Obama’s only economic experience is comprised of spending and taxing. And his lack of experience in foreign affairs is underscored by his speech about nuclear disarmament happening concurrently with North Korea launching a missile. Unbelievably Obama suggests that The United States and allies should disarm to “set an example” for other countries like Iran and North Korea- as though Obama actually believes that this should carry enough weight to cause Iran and North Korea to cease an desist developing nuclear weapons, and I suppose he thinks that Pakistan will likewise disarm because of the example that we set.

    This is why we need experienced leaders. Out country cannot afford such naivety.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      Right now I don’t think I trust the Senate any more than I would trust the least experienced of presidents. We seem to be experiencing a real dearth of national character in government.

      Reply
  2. Mackenzie Avatar
    Mackenzie

    I agree- but it is suggested in Federalist Paper #64 that a two thirds vote is required for treaties. I don’t know what it actually says in the constitution- but a two thirds vote would make a far left agreement unlikely. I would hate to see the left give American rights away to the IMF. I think it would be close to a real civil war if they did that- it would so radically change the Americanconstitution and anihilate our sovereignity.

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      Article 2 section 2 is worded exactly as you find it in Federalist 64. Two-thirds of the senators present must concur to ratify a treaty.

      Reply
  3. Blake Avatar
    Blake

    Interesting that it was the House, but today the focus is on the presidents plan or agenda! A president also putting his influence into California STATE courts and law enforcement nominations. A state he is not a resident of. Interesting….

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      I guess that just goes to show how far we have come from being a nation composed of sovereign states to being a nation divided into geographic sub-states.

      Reply
  4. Mackenzie Avatar
    Mackenzie

    Senator Byrd has also criticized the administration for the creation Czars- that answer only to the administration and by-pass congress. Geithner is claiming the administration needs to be granted control over banks and production- The Stimulus Bill uses money that the government prints, based on nothing but their own authority, in an attempt to purchase the rights belonging to states and private institutions – in other words to purchase our constitution, and our constitution does not actually legitimize paper money- let alone paper money backed up by nothing! Control the currency and you control the people and here we are with Russia and China calling for a global currency as our government policies are weakening our own. How long did it take to destroy the Icelandic currency and force Iceland to accept the Euro? One world curency, one world government, which does NOT answer to any constitution- Isn’t there a name for that?

    Reply
    1. David Avatar
      David

      Any government that does not answer to a constitution can only be called “Trouble.”

      Reply
  5. Mackenzie Avatar
    Mackenzie

    But if there are not opposing forces to insist that the constitution is upheld, it doesn’t matter , they get their way. Hence the movement to declare State Sovereigninty- but that is not enoughj. What is happening seems incredulous.I keep hearing people say that they can’t stand to listen to the newsany more- but it is all to real and calls for actions on the part of the citizens- or say good bye to The American constitution and the American way of life.

    Reply
  6. David Avatar
    David

    You’re right. Citizen apathy negates any power of a constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *