The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #84: The Federalist Papers, Part Two

General Introduction
– Midterm grades
– Grubbs is alone again, naturally
– Listener feedback
– On clip shows and soundclips

The Legislative Branch
– Elected by the people and by the representatives
– Casuistry, war, and taxes
– Amendments vs. laws
– Can the Constitution stand alone?

Biennial Elections
– The safety of the thing
– Why short terms help the people
– The benefits of hindsight
– Gerrymandering
– Public manipulation through technology
– Congressional fundraisers
– Sweet potatoes and yams

The Three-Fifths Compromise
– Incompatible goods
– Yeah, Madison knows about it
– Responding to controversy
– What could they have done?

House vs. Senate
– What’s the difference?
– Why the difference?
– Ratifying treaties
– Enlightenment containment
– When did we start electing Senators directly?
– Impeachment

How Are They Doing?
– What happened to bribery?
– The need for, and impossibility of, term limits
– Career politicians
– We get apocalyptic for awhile

4 thoughts on “The Christian Humanist Podcast, Episode #84: The Federalist Papers, Part Two

  1. The Tenure of Office Act of 1867, not to be confused with the one of 1820, is what Andrew Johnson was accused of breaking. I think his removal of Sec. Stanton was a few months later, though the Senate was not in session until January of 1868 to deny confirmation. (Is it still called confirmation when approval to remove someone?) Pres. Johnson was acquitted by a single vote. You were right in saying the language is unclear. If my memory is correct, cabinet members got a one month protection from removal. The act was repealed and later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a different case.
    On the election of Senators: It was the state legislators, not the House of Representatives. Nathan said it was the House, without specifying if it was a state or the federal one doing the appointing of Senators. David later implied that the appointment came from the states in his theory on state machinery, Corruption was a big reason for the 17th amendment. Another was lack of representation. Sometimes a state did not decide on who to send to the Senate and would lack one, and very rarely both, Senators. There were calls for direct election of Senators in the 19th century, including from Andrew Johnson (since I drove on his highway Tuesday, I might as well mention him in both paragraphs). William Jennings Bryan was the main proponent of the change in the 20th century. Fun fact, Maryland ratified the amendment earlier this year.

    1. BradWarfield Check out the big brains on Brad!
      You’re right that I should have specified it was the state house, not the federal house, that elected Senators.  Good fill-ins on the rest of it.  Carry on!

  2. If you have internet access, it’s easy to watch the Obama-Romney debates, live or not, in dozens of places. (I don’t have a TV, either.) But, given that the debates are such a performance, I am very interested in how it comes across in the transcript. I hope you comment on this in the next episode.

    1. Jonas_MN We didn’t chat about that in yesterday’s recording, but I might write something up for CHB for next Thursday or Friday, Jonas.  That’s a good idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *