Replies

I read this article, and I can't believe it. What if this had happened in the 1940's instead of today.

Republicans, supposedly the party of big business, would have been the ones cheering about something like this, right? Supposedly, the D's were the ones thinking about the little people - poor property owners being forced out of their homes by Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. There would have been insinuations of influence on the Supreme Court - millionaires buying the right to wreck homes to build factories.

Today? It's the liberals fault.

After all the backstabbing by supposed conservatives in the last two weeks, I've come to a conclusion:

There is no such thing as liberal or conservative in this country anymore.

The battle today is different. There are those that believes that the US should lead the world, and there are those that simply don't want the US to lead the world. I think it may be as simple as that.

The two pillars of our strength here in the US has been the right to own property, and the ability to enforce contracts. The rest of the structure was a limited central government, with a Constitution that specified that states retained all powers save only a limited few.

It worked precisely because central government had been a failure since Rome.

From now on, I think I'm going to stop refering to people in terms of consevative and liberal. Now there are only federalists and strict constructionists. Federalists are split into two factions - Socialists and globalists.

Socialist are what they've always been - compassionate about people through the application of somebody elses money. Globalists are socialists with a foreign policy outlook that sees the US's role as leader and proselytizer for liberty as outmoded and even arrogant.

After applying that filter to the Senate, the House, the Press, and the President, EVERYTHING starts making sense again. It is especially apparent in the Senate. Oddly, the house has become a calmer voice of reason than the Senate, even after passing a flag-burning bill.

The Supremes are about 6-3 federalist. The senate is about 56-44 federalist and getting worse by the day. The House is slightly more constructionist than federalist. The Press? Overwhelmingly globalist.

Levin's book has blown the whistle on all of this, and it seems like the Supreme Court has been in overdrive to gut what remains of the Constitution before people start dying off. Problem here is that most of the problem with the current court is still pretty healthy.

As for Red and Blue states, it appears that some decisions have been made on the coasts that the rest of the country hasn't heard about. The Blue States have the gold and want to make the rules. The Red States understand this and realize that if the Blue States had their way there simply wouldn't be states to worry about in the first place.

This is why federalists want the electoral college dismantled immediately. It's the only thing that gives a state like Wyoming any kind of influence in DC.

Federalist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The term federalist can refer to different ideologies, depending on the locale. It usually has a link, close or not, to the concept of a federation.

* In Europe a federalist is sometimes a proponent of:
o Greater regional autonomy within a country (especially in states such as Switzerland and Belgium).
o Greater integration, centralisation or supranationalism within the European Union.

* In Quebec, a federalist, in regards to the future of the Quebec people and the National Question, defends the concept of Quebec remaining within Canada, while either keeping the status quo or pursuing greater autonomy and national recognition for Quebec within the Canadian federation. This ideology is opposed to Quebec sovereigntism, proponent of Quebec independence, most often (but not for all followers) along with an economic union with Canada similar to the European Union.

* In the United States the term federalist usually applies to a member of one of three groups:
o Historically:
+ Statesmen and public figures supporting ratification of the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. The Federalist Papers are documents associated with their movement.
+ Statesmen and public figures supporting the administrations of Presidents George Washington (1789–1797) and John Adams (1797–1801). Especially in the later years they are also called the Federalist Party.
o In contemporary usage, advocates of the principle of allowing greater regional autonomy within the United States — usually by allowing individual states to set their own agendas and determine the handling of issues, rather than trying to impose a 'national' solution. Usually federalism is proposed as a solution to issues that may have strong support in some parts of the country and strong opposition in other parts, for example: restrictions on abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, medicinal use of cannabis, gun rights and restrictions on property rights.
+ The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies is an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and fellow travellers dedicated to debate of these principles.