Tuesday, April 28, 2009 2:18 PM
From: "Arnold Nelson" <email@example.com>
To: "Senator John Cornyn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Ramesh Ponnuru National Review Mag" <email@example.com>
Your fine newsletter is at the top of my subscription list, and I look forward to it. I was surprised to see you quoted by Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review's Corner blog referring to "checks-and-balances," but implying that they have to do with political parties.
"Checks-and-balances" appears twice in the 192,000 words of the Federalist papers (9 and 51,) but both times referring to departments - legislative, executive, and judicial. Are the words of the Federalist papers being slowly supplanted by common usage now, 220 years later?
Arnold H Nelson 5056 North Marine Drive Chicago IL 50540 Cornyn on Specter
In his statement, Specter thanked Cornyn and McConnell for their "forbearance."
Here's Cornyn's statement (bolded in the original release):
“Senator Specter’s decision today represents the height of political self-preservation. While this presents a short-term disappointment, voters next year will have a clear choice to cast their ballots for a potentially unbridled Democrat super-majority versus the system of checks-and-balances that Americans deserve.”
04/28 01:21 PM NationalReview.com/TheCorner