Posted on 06/02/2007 9:43:40 AM PDT by Natural Law
The history of the American political system has been one of a perpetual conflict between Federalism and the Anti-Federalists. We owe the First 10 Amendments to the constitution and much of our personal freedom to the Anti-Federalists who, led by Thomas Jefferson, refused ratify the Constitution without them. The essence of the conflict is whether we the people are best served by a centralized, distant, all powerful government or by a more local, responsive, and hands off government; whether we individually or collectively are best equipped to govern and serve ourselves. Compromise is required because each system can perform certain essential functions better than the other. Hence, the American political struggle.
The conflict has been far from bloodless. The American Civil War was perhaps the most violent of collisions between the two factions. Although couched in the rhetoric of slavery and states rights, it was a clash between those who held the concept of “these” United States and those who believed in “the” United States. With the defeat of the Confederacy, the Anti-Federalist movement, and its related teachings and principles, nearly disappeared from the political dialog. A series of crises and calamities, such as the Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War pushed the Anti-Federalism even further from the dialog.
Anti-Federalism never completely disappeared. It has had many pseudonyms over the years. The most common current name is “Grass Roots”, I prefer Freeper. Freepers are the epitome of the Anti-Federalists. Working independently, and in our own interests, we can and have collectively made a difference. We are the embodiment of the John Wayne, rugged individualist, who went beyond the reaches of any government to create a new nation where none existed. The American character and culture has a very elastic property. When pushed too far in any direction it snaps back in the opposite direction with an amazing velocity and force. History is littered with despots, foreign and domestic, who either failed to recognize or appreciate this or miscalculated the breaking point.
We are witnessing another such miscalculation, or rather series of cumulative miscalculations, as we speak. The out of touch RINOs and George II have triggered a growing backlash of resentment and action among the conservative Grass Roots base and the American public. The first miscalculation was that we would sit on our hands and continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, that didn’t happen. The next was that we would tolerate a kinder, gentler war on terror in which lawyers, rather than soldiers would determine the rules of engagement. A war, every bit like Vietnam, with no definition or strategy for victory. A war in which the our troops are expendable while the politicos jockey for political gain. A war in which adjacent nations can openly oppose and kill our troops with impunity in the interests of regional stability. The straw that broke the camel’s back is immigration amnesty. We will not stand by and permit our national identity and culture to be diluted, our economic futures diminished, our security and safety compromised, and our persons and beliefs insulted on this one. Unlike previous grievances we will not be content with being thrown a temporary tax cut bone, a media blitz and PR campaign, a stern lecture by the president, or a diversionary event. The Anti-Federalists are back.
Right on.
too many instances of hair splitting. Responding to each of the fine points only takes us away from the intent of the message.
The essence of the Federalist conflict is whether we the people are best served by a centralized government, empowered to enforce the Constitution as Amended; - or by local governments that claim the majority can rule by 'community values'.
- Naturally we are best served by the original system proposed, [see Art. VI] wherein the Law of the Land applies to, and is supported by ALL public officials, at ALL levels of government.
The 14th Amendment reiterated Article VI, - that State/local [or fed] governments ~cannot~ ignore our bill of rights.
The ex-confederates bitterly opposed this, and instituted majority rule [jim crow] government, with its concept that prohibitions on liberty are acceptable by using 'community standards'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My comments above are far from "hair splitting fine points". They refute portions of the main thrust of your essay.
You refuse to reply? -- Why?
Odd:
"It was clear..." allows anyone, anytime, to imply anything into any document. Particularly since there is no actual reference or 'word' in that document.
Also, it has always been my understanding that the 3/5 clause was inserted by the non-slave states to insure that the relative populations could not be padded by adding in slaves.
You refuse to reply? -- Why?
Go push your presumed intellectual superiority with your grandchildren,
Good grief. - Nothing I've written pushes an "intellectual superiority". Although it sure is telling that you say so.
I'm not buying it and am not going to get into a tit-for-tat discussion of minutia when there are bigger issues.
The main point of your essay claims that Federalism is being thrust upon us by the fed gov. That's not entirely true. State and local governments are equally to blame. ALL of them are ignoring our Constitution.
The facts of my argument are in the avalanche of federalism we are all experiencing.
No one here is denying that federalism is the "big" issue: - but your argument remains flawed about who is causing it, and why.
Please debate who is right with someone else. I prefer to focus on what is right.
OK, you’re right on everything. You always were and always will be. Feel better now? Let’s get on with the problems at hand.
Maybe they need to be reminded. Particularly when Hillary start talking up her vision of what amounts to the "New New Deal".
In the draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the British King for forcing the colonies to retain slavery, northern interests had a hand in striking that clause.
Thomas Jefferson did not attend the convention.
We would’ve avoided considerable problems if the wisdom of Adams and Hamilton had prevailed.
Hamilton advocated a monarchy, a President-for-Life, as well as an inferior economic system.
Why Johnny Billy can't read.
The options were either to count them wholly, which in doing so would mean huge swaths of populations would be unrepresented, as they were slave, or to not count them at all. They might as well have not been counted at all, and deprived slave states of unfair advantages in political representation in Congress (which allowed them the upper hand for decades), which should’ve only counted those that were free. Either way, it was still wrong.
That's hysterical. It's like a "the debbil made me do it !" excuse. It's no wonder Jefferson was the first President of today's Democrat party.
"Hamilton advocated a monarchy, a President-for-Life, as well as an inferior economic system."
My point on Adams and Hamilton was strictly on the issue of slavery, but I never read any definitive claims on what you cite. I seem to remember it was Jefferson that wanted an inferior economic system based largely (if not entirely) on agriculture, and he was highly anti-urban.
Facts are facts, Jefferson's draft of the DoI castigated the King for overruling the colonies regarding the abolition of slavery.
I’m not contesting it if you say that is what happened, I’m just saying it’s shocking hypocrisy and passing of the proverbial buck (or in the 1780s, the pound). Once the colonies were free and out from under the thumb of the King, they could “do the right thing”, but they didn’t. The fact that Jefferson owned slaves also demonstrated his rank hypocrisy. So many of those “I’m personally opposed, but...” politicians. No different than today’s Democrats and RINOs.
Actually Jefferson introduced legislation in 1774 that would have prohibited slavery in the West (it failed by a single vote). But tell me how much of your own inheritance/personal wealth you would give away. I guess I just tire of those lunatics hell bent on castigating Southerners at every chance, but gloss over northern men.
Ben Franklin owned slaves for decades, made money off their advertisement for sale in his paper. I listed several famous yankees earlier today that made fortunes off the trade, yet few condemn them.
thanks for the ping, billbears
The most recent Federalism movement is the one that people today should focus on:
21st century federalism
Another movement calling itself "Federalism" appeared in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Often associated with the Conservative movement, its adherents argue that the national government has usurped power from the states, and that the power should be devolved back to the states, in a process called devolution.
This philosophy is sometimes called "states' rights", although its proponents usually eschew the latter term because of its associations with Jim Crow and segregation.
Unlike the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century which focused on civil rights, the modern federalist movement is concerned far more with expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, as in the areas of medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich), partial birth abortion, gun possession (United States v. Lopez), federal police powers (United States v. Morrison, which struck down portions of the Violence Against Women Act), or agriculture (Wickard v. Filburn).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_%28United_States%29
Fred Thompson adheres to this recent federalist movement and he is right to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.