Resultado da Busca
4 de jan. de 2002 · “The Federalist No. 66, [8 March 1788],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0216. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton , vol. 4, January 1787 – May 1788 , ed. Harold C. Syrett.
Federalist No. 66 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the sixty-sixth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on March 8, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. The title is "Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered".
- Alexander Hamilton
- English
- United States
- Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered
27 de jan. de 2016 · A second objection to the Senate, as a court of impeachments, is that it contributes to an undue accumulation of power in that body, tending to give to the government a countenance too aristocratic. The Senate, it is observed, is to have concurrent authority with the executive in the formation of treaties and in the appointment to offices: if ...
15 de abr. de 2024 · Table of Contents. Federalist No. 61 | Federalist No. 62 | Federalist No. 63 | Federalist No. 64 | Federalist No. 65 | Federalist No. 66 | Federalist No. 67 | Federalist No. 68 | Federalist No. 69 | Federalist No. 70.
The Federalist Papers Full Text - FEDERALIST No. 66. Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered. - Owl Eyes. FEDERALIST No. 66.
Federalist Number (No.) 66 (1788) is an essay by British-American politician Alexander Hamilton arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. The full title of the essay is "Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered."
28 de jul. de 2010 · In Federalist #66 Alexander Hamilton attempts to respond to objections about the new United States Senate acting as the Court in the event of impeachments of judges or executive branch officials. The first complaint raised by critics of this set up was that “the provision in question confounds legislative and judiciary authorities ...
