Wisdom on "unity" from our founding fathers

Read Federalist # 10, by James Madison. In addition, read Federalist # 51 by Alexander Hamilton or James Madison. These two writings, in defense of the Constitution, clearly outline that factions will form in a free society and it outlines the dangers of factions. Notably, from federalist 10 is this quote: "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." Does this sound familiar? Of course, in my opinion, both of these result in the loss of freedom because the only way to "give" every citizen the same opinions, etc. is to coerce them, better known as indoctrination. So, it is important for us to take a quote from the same source a little later: "The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS." This means that we should only control the effects of faction, not try to remove it. So, freedom can be preserved by preserving freedom, not by trying to control what people believe (political correctness anyone?). At any rate, what this shows is that the founding fathers intentionally designed the government to NOT be unified. The idea of unity in our system of government would be anathema to the founders. They saw unity as a method of damaging freedom, at least based on the writings in Federalist 10. So, how about 51? The opening statement in Federalist 51 tells us all we really need to know from this one. I quote: "TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places." This clearly shows that the founders wanted there to be separated power in the government. No branch was to be too powerful. For instance, we've recently had a lot of trouble getting judges appointed because the Democrats don't like the fact that those judges don't agree with them. They want unity on the court. That'd be great, it would also endanger our freedoms. If a President appoints a judge, then the Congress has the responsibility to make sure that person can do the job, not put them through the ringer and smear them to the populace in order to prevent someone who may not "think" like you do from getting on the bench. This is also why we have a President that can wage war and a Congress that can declare it. Who do I blame for the wars? The Congress. They voted to give the President power to wage war without giving him a declaration of war. No President should be allowed to wage a war overseas (meaning if we aren't being directly invaded) without a declaration of war from the Congress, in my opinion. Federalist 51 goes on to support my argument, in my opinion, above with this quote: "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them." Finally, Federalist 51 goes on a similar track as Federalist 10 with this argument: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." Again, the writer is clearly demonstrating their belief that it is dangerous to have all authority in the hands of one group because that endangers the freedoms (rights) of the minority. Another reason not to allow partisan politics to determine the outcome of judicial nominations. So, for all of you out there who are so excited that the Democrats have won control of "almost" everything. Your reality check is our own founding fathers. The Republicans had a great opportunity when they controlled the House, Senate and the White House and instead they decided to act like spend, spend, spend Democrats and squandered that opportunity. Since I see the Democrats spending even more, not less and since their ideas are far more dangerous to freedom than Republicans ideas are (I can prove this if anyone really wants to challenge me on it), the danger is even greater now that they have full control. Our government is supposed to answer to the people and the people have elected this bunch of fools into office (I'm referring to all of them, both Republicans and Democrats so don't be offended unless you are one of the fools of course), so we get what we desire, so to speak, except that 60 percent of the electorate has controlled the outcome of elections in this country for far too long. Where are the other 40 percent. This country will only work and survive if these people get off their butts and make their voices heard! Unity is not the answer, it is an illusion that is actually dangerous. Division actually prevents the government from interfering with our liberty, so a government that does nothing is actually a good one, while a government that does "anything" just to do something is actually a very bad one. I am no fan of unity in the political arena.