Citizen Writers Fighting Censorship by Helping Americans Understand Issues Affecting the Republic.
John Parillo 
Let us dive a bit deeper into Aristotle’s view of politics and how it differed from his teacher Plato. Previously we saw how Aristotle disagreed with his teacher Plato that only a philosopher king could properly rule. Aristotle believed that humans were inherently flawed and that reality required just laws to be supreme in order to …
Aristotle believed that the guiding principle of a constitution should be “justice”. He would have defined that word as meaning the common good and the “happiness” of the community at large.
One of Plato’s students was Aristotle. After spending time as the tutor to Alexander the Great (before he was “the Great”) Aristotle formed his own school called the Lyceum.
We generally think of Athens as the birthplace of modern democracy. It was in fact, far more directly democratic than the United States is today.
As I was responsible yesterday for your overconsumption of wine, perhaps I can offer amends today. Remember that in the discussion of the nature of a chair, Plato hypothesized that the form of a chair existed separately from the existence of any particular chair or of the craftsman who make them. That form did not depend on space or …
In Plato’s “Republic” he sets about to explore what is the good life. In that analysis he discusses the very nature of goodness.
Not every question is asked in order to get an answer. In the scene I described in my last article, the Roman ruler asks this question not in order to better understand the Truth, but rather to mock the very idea of Truth. Think of it along the lines of your significant other asking, “What …
George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
In Federalist 85, the last of the Federalist Papers, Hamilton brings his closing argument for the adoption of the draft Constitution.
Federalist 84 is an interesting read because it includes Hamilton defending the fact that there is no Bill of Rights in the draft constitution.
Hamilton continues reviewing the Judiciary and goes into greater depth on the issue of the relative jurisdictions of the Federal and State courts.
Hamilton continues his discourse on the nature of the Judiciary in Federalist 81. This paper addresses the very current issue of an activist Judiciary.
Our modern beliefs suppose that the third branch of government has unlimited authority to make pronouncements. But that is not the case nor was it the intent of the Founding Fathers.
After Hamilton’s introduction to the Judiciary in Federalist 78, he digs a bit deeper into the subject here.
The nomination by the President, and the advice and consent role of the Senate, are designed to ensure that only the most qualified people even receive a nomination, let alone be confirmed as Justices.
Today we wrap up the process of appointments and the state of tension created by the Constitution between the Senate and the President.
The Framers decided the best way to choose Ambassadors, Justices and Ministers was for a single person to nominate and a larger group to approve.
Federalist 75 deals with the President and his power to make treaties with other nations, subject to approval of two thirds of the Senate.
With the exception of impeachment, the Power to Pardon is absolute. Nixon’s resignation is what enabled Ford to pardon him.
Hamilton continues his series on the nature of the Presidency by discussing both the Presidential salary and the veto power assigned to that office.