What would the Founding Fathers say about Miers?
Reader MM brought this gem to our attention.
Writing about the appointing power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton explained:
"[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Advertisement
Now that is a top notch quotation. Someone should get an award.
October 5, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the mean time, I think Roberts is no shrinking violet as he demonstrated today in the "assisted suicide" case. He sure did seem to have an opinion from the get-go. Funny how he said that answering a single question about his thoughts on legal matters 2 weeks ago would have done serious damage to anyone bringing a case to court. Does he really think people are dumb enough to believe he hasn't already decided the major issues in his mind? No, but then again, he obviously didn't care what people thought, and look where he is today.
And you know what? Bush doesn't care either.
Jan K
October 5, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Cats, the whole paper is excellent. I haven't thought of the Federalist Papers in years, but Alexander predicts exactly what's going on right now. Nothing's changed, I guess.
Dear reader, go and print the whole thing.
October 5, 2005 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might have been a proto-Republican, but brilliant rhetoric is brilliant rhetoric:
"[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
It's so enjoyable to read you don't notice it's a 50+ word long sentence. "Obsequious instrument of pleasure" sounds like a euphemism for a prostitute. What a find!
October 5, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.
In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration. It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature.
The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other.
He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
October 5, 2005 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/10/founding-fathers-oppose-miers. html
October 5, 2005 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this quote was bouncing around on Monday - I don't know who found it first but it was even quoted over at redstate.org.
Here's an example
http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/004161.asp
October 5, 2005 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless - great to have words brought to public attention.
October 5, 2005 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks to David Sirota and others for posting that quotation!
October 5, 2005 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ask you, Senators, will you be persuaded by the words of Alexander Hamilton, or will you "trust the president's judgement"?
October 5, 2005 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they will trust Bush.
October 5, 2005 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
the Federalist papers and the relevant quotes must be flying around the internet. I read early Wed aft. at Washington Note
It was alluded to yesterday on The Diane Rehm Show as well -- I think by Randy Barnett of Boston University (and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty)
October 5, 2005 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you--you have put the emphasis where I think it properly belongs. Hamilton's words should be taken as a rebuke of the Senate as much as of Bush himself:
For the system to work, the Senate has to send the strong message that they would be willing to reject extremist or otherwise inappropriate candidates. They obviously haven't managed to do that. Gee, I can't imagine why.
Granted, Bush has a rather high shame threshold, but the Senate is plainly not as serious about its confirmation duties as it ought to be. Did you see David Brooks's column about the Roberts hearing? I'm not normally much of a David Brooks fan at all, but that column was dead on. (Column here for anyone interested, but it requires a subscription.)
October 5, 2005 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Unfortunately, the word "shame" does not appear in the Administration's vocabulary.
Noel
October 5, 2005 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what would be the best use of Federlist #76? Should we use it in an attempt to block Miers and allow the president to get off the hook with the far right. He could then have a "re-do" and maybe nominate someone who will be the next Scalia or Thomas. Or should we sit back, let the Senate confirm her (with our senators bringing up Federalist #76), and use it as a issue for the midterms? What is the best strategy? A good case could be made for either. The thing that worries me is if we use Hamilton's writings as the basis to block her it might give Bush a chance to pull the GOP caucus back together with a more "suitable" nominee...
October 5, 2005 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they will trust Bush.
<sarcasm>Why wouldn't they trust Bush? Has George Washington Bush every lied to us, misled us, deceived us, or shown poor judgement?</sarcasm>
Will any senator, pundit, or "reporter" be bold enough to ask that question - either rhetorically or seriously?
October 5, 2005 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 5, 2005 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, and there we have it.
Should Harriet actually ascend to the Court of Courts, she shall forever be:
"The Obsequious Instrument."
Good to have that locked down this early.
October 5, 2005 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't really see it all that useful as an "attack" on Miers. It's not her fault that Bush is so woefully inadequate (well, perhaps to some degree it is, but we don't know that yet). The attack should focus on Bush.
I think that we should use Hamilton's wisdom to point out how much W lacks wisdom (and integrity, and foresight, and patriotism). Turn it into one more wedge issue between Bush's crowd and the Scalia types and libertarian Republicans, to further goad them into peeling off in '08 to support a very-right-wing candidate from a minor party "on principle."
After all, there are a few principled conservatives out there that are already grinding their teeth about the size of the deficit, Bush's New Gulf Deal, and proposals to overturn Posse Comitas in order to give the military a more direct role in future disasters. This is just more fuel for the fire.
October 5, 2005 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
thepeoplechoose
October 6, 2005 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's important what the founding fathers would say about Miers nomination. As a counter to this line of reason, what do you have to say about the fact that Hamilton enriched himself and his allies by creating a money system that causes our current debt structure. Hamilton was no saint. He too acted in his own best interests, I doubt he would say anything negative about the Miers nomination.
October 6, 2005 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink