"What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them ... the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in a last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can by the elections of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers."

-- James Madison, Federalist No. 44, 1788

 
 
American Minute with Bill Federer

"Tippecanoe and Tyler too" was the campaign slogan of 9th President William Henry Harrison, born FEBRUARY 9, 1773.

He was the first President to die in office, serving the shortest term of only 30 days.

The son of Benjamin Harrison, a signer the Declaration of Independence, he was also the grandfather of Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd President.

William Henry Harrison was an aide-de-camp to General "Mad Anthony" Wayne, who defeated the British and Indian forces at the Battle of Fallen Timbers.

Harrison became Secretary of the Northwest Territory - 260,000 square miles from which was formed Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

He was the area's first delegate to Congress and in 1801 became Governor of the Indiana Territory, where he disrupted Chief Tecumseh's confederation at the Battle of Tippecanoe.

In his Inaugural Address, March 4, 1841, William Henry Harrison stated:

"The great danger to our institutions does...appear to me to be...the accumulation in one of the departments of that which was assigned to others.

Limited as are the powers which have been granted, still enough have been granted to constitute a despotism if concentrated in one of the departments....particularly...the Executive branch.

...The tendency of power to increase itself, particularly when exercised by a single individual...would terminate in virtual monarchy..."

Harrison continued:

"Republics can commit no greater error than to...continue any feature in their systems of government which may...increase the love of power in the bosoms of those to whom necessity obliges them to commit the management of their affairs...

When this corrupting passion once takes possession of the human mind, like the love of gold it becomes insatiable. It is the never-dying worm in his bosom, grows with his growth and strengthens with the declining years of its victim...

It is the part of wisdom for a republic to limit the service of that officer at least to whom she has intrusted the management of her foreign relations, the execution of her laws, and the command of her armies and navies to a period so short as to prevent his forgetting that HE IS THE ACCOUNTABLE AGENT, not the principle; the SERVANT, not the master..."

Harrison warned of growing Federal Government:

"The great dread...seems to have been that the reserved powers of the States would be absorbed by those of the Federal Government and a consolidated power established, leaving to the States the shadow only of that independent action for which they had so zealously contended...

There is still an undercurrent at work by which, if not seasonably checked, the worst apprehensions of our anti-federal patriots will be realized, and not only will the State authorities be overshadowed by the great increase of power in the Executive department of the General Government, but the character of that Government, if not its designation, be essentially and RADICALLY CHANGED.

This state of things has been in part effected by...the never-failing tendency of political power to increase itself....

Harrison warned of the President controlling the Treasury:

"It is not by the extent of its patronage alone that the Executive department has become dangerous, but by the use which it appears may be made of the appointing power to bring under its control the whole revenues of the country....

There was wanting no other addition to the powers of our Chief Magistrate to stamp monarchical character on our Government but the control of the public finances...

The first Roman Emperor, in his attempt to seize the sacred treasure, silenced the opposition...by a significant allusion to his sword...

It was certainly a great error in the framers of the Constitution not to have made the officer at the head of the Treasury Department entirely independent of the Executive....

A decent and manly examination of the acts of the Government should be not only tolerated, but encouraged..."

Harrison warned of "class warfare":

"As long as the love of power is a dominant passion of the human bosom, and as long as the understanding of men can be warped and their affections changed by OPERATIONS UPON THEIR PASSIONS AND PREJUDICES, so long will the liberties of a people depend on their constant attention to its preservation.

The DANGER to all well-established free governments arises from the UNWILLINGNESS OF THE PEOPLE to believe in its existence or from the influence of DESIGNING MEN...

This is the OLD TRICK of those who would USURP THE GOVERNMENT OF THEIR COUNTRY. In the NAME OF DEMOCRACY they speak, WARNING the people against the influence of WEALTH and the danger of aristocracy.

History, ancient and modern, is full of such examples.

Caesar became the master of the Roman people and the senate under the pretense of supporting the democratic claims of the former against the aristocracy of the latter;

Cromwell, in the character of the protector of the liberties of the people, became the dictator of England, and

Bolivar possessed himself of unlimited power with the title of his country's liberator...

The tendencies of all such governments in their decline is to monarchy...

The antagonist principle to liberty there is the spirit of faction-a spirit which assumes the character and in times of great excitement imposes itself upon the people as the genuine spirit of freedom, and, like the false Christs whose coming was foretold by the Savior, seeks to, and were it possible would, impose upon the true and most faithful disciples of liberty.

It is in periods like this that it behooves the people to be most watchful of those to whom they have intrusted power..."

Harrison compared "spirit of liberty" with a Saul Alinsky OWS "spirit of party" faction:

"There is at times much difficulty in distinguishing the false from the true spirit, a calm investigation will detect the counterfeit...

The true spirit of liberty...is mild and tolerant and scrupulous...

whilst the spirit of party, assuming to be that of liberty, is harsh, vindictive, and intolerant, and totally reckless as to the character of the allies which it brings to the aid of its cause...

The reign of an intolerant spirit of party amongst a free people seldom fails to result in a DANGEROUS ACCESSION TO THE EXECUTIVE POWER introduced and established amidst unusual professions of devotion to democracy."

Harrison concluded his Inaugural Address with his solution:

"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion,

and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness.

And to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom...let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time."

 
 
_"I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the judicial. But I beg to know upon what principle it can be contended that any one department draws from the Constitution greater powers than another in marking out the limits of the powers of the several departments."

-- James Madison, 1789

 
 
_The Witherspoon Institute - Public Discourse

Joel Alicea

Those who oppose judicial supremacy follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln himself.

Newt Gingrich’s statements about the judiciary during the December 15, 2011, GOP debate and on Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation the following weekend ignited a firestorm over his view of American constitutionalism that has been smoldering in the media for several months now. His challenge to judicial supremacy—the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution—has been much condemned, particularly because Gingrich’s argument also criticizes the declaration of judicial supremacy in the Court’s 1958 desegregation decision, Cooper v. Aaron. Ian Millhiser of Think Progress was quick to accuse the former Speaker of siding with the white supremacists of the 1950s when Gingrich first released his position paper on the judiciary in October.

Although the media’s breathless denunciations suggest otherwise, Gingrich is not the first public figure to challenge the Cooper Court’s assertion of its supremacy over constitutional interpretation. Attorney General Edwin Meese did the same in a 1986 lecture at Tulane University. Meese’s address elicited a similarly angry response from the press, especially from columnist Anthony Lewis, who made Cooper the centerpiece of his appraisal of Meese’s speech. As was the case in 1986, the debate over Cooper in the past few months has been confused, epitomized by the New York Times’ recent suggestion that Gingrich’s critique of Cooper has “disturbing racial undertones.” The Times and others misunderstand the history and law of that famous case. Those who argue that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution’s meaning need not deny the fact that Cooper was rightly decided; they can and do celebrate the courage of that opinion.

Cooper v. Aaron came to the Supreme Court under extraordinary circumstances, the drama of which is matched by...

Read this important article at thepublicdiscourse.com ...