Replies

He never suggested having a King merely an executive not limited by time. I guess you think federal judges are "KINGS" too. LoL. H. was the most brilliant man of his generation perhaps in the entire world. If you know little of his lifestory you will likely swallow the lies concocted by the Jeffersonians.

You can NOT be that naive. This form of government H was suggesting still exists in Great Britain. If you like it so much, move over there. A House of Lords that will soon have to face some form of limited election. A Prime Minister that apparently never goes away and a House of Commons that in the end all they do is talk to hear themselves speak. You would honestly want a President with as much power as the Tyrant had to just stay in office until he wanted to go or was forced to resign? Even with popular election of Presidents, impeachment has only been used twice and both times neither were convicted. You think with the sacredness most citizens of these United States hold the office of the Presidency in that impeachment would ever be used for a lifetime President or Senators for that matter? With the power held in the Senate? You don't want to live in a Republic, you want a monarchy!!

Hamilton's concern was that the governor be balanced with power divided. He at one time believed a permanent executive would be necessary to counteract the impermanent legislature. But he also realized that this would be difficult to gain acceptance by the masses so he cheerfully accepted what the Constitution specified and did more than any man to have it adopted. He feared an overly democratic political system (and has been proven correct) and this is why he thought the executive should represent permanent national interests not short term interest group issues. That is the role of a King such as England has. Not an autocrat not a dictator but a representative of a nation.

Initially the Senate did play the role of the House of Lords with Senators unelected. It was set up deliberately that way.

You keep misunderstanding my attempts to explain what Hamilton wanted or believed as expressions of my desires or beliefs. They are two different things.

I can't understand what you mean by your comments about the Prime Minister. They are changed frequently when they have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and often more frequently than four years.

No one proposed installation of a tyrant as executive. And I don't believe the American people consider the presidency "sacred" quite the contrary. They consider it as the most profane of offices to be bought and sold. Half of those eligible don't even vote. And half of those put the Abomination in office twice.

Power being held in a Senate does not contradict being a republican government nor make a monarchy. Impeachment of Nixon would definitely have happened had he not jumped the gun. Any president the media decides to impeach will be impeached today. Refusal to impeach the Abomination was a blessing in disguise since it would have led to the election of Gore as an incumbent.