first installment ...
Cronyism
By Randy E. Barnett (Boston University)
During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's derinition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. [Don't recall this, not even one bit. I think the focus was on jism, not the Federalist Papers.] With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play -- this one from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of the 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 ... 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." (Emphasis added by Barnett.)
|
Cronyism
By Randy E. Barnett (Boston University)
During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's derinition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. [Don't recall this, not even one bit. I think the focus was on jism, not the Federalist Papers.] With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play -- this one from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of the 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 ... 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." (Emphasis added by Barnett.)
- mark 10-07-2005 4:13 am