Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alas Babylon!

Off topic but I’ll say it anyway. I looked it up too. From day one our country has pitted the Federalists against the anti-Federalists. The Federalist Papers present a compelling argument as to how our country will (or rather should) have worked, but it hasn’t.

It did until Lincoln and a Civil War that required more Federal controls and then FDR moving us forever to a socialistic left. From that point on we’ve had progressive movements from both parties and little in the way of limiting the federal government.


67 posted on 05/04/2014 7:20:31 AM PDT by Morgan in Denver (Democrats: The party of unintended consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: Morgan in Denver
Conversely you could also argue that the Anti-Federalists’ (AF) argument was closer to reality in the long run. I have read AF’s extensively, and I think had I lived then I would have supported them.

The Union should have been one of 13 sovereign states, without giving so much power to the behemoth the federal government has no become.

In reality, though, much of what it HAS become is plainly unconstitutional, yet the highest court in the land will not declare it that, as they are as political as the other two branches, and in the long their highest calling is their own existence, rather than that document I took an oath to.

130 posted on 05/04/2014 8:46:08 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson