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.
“With the advent of the New Deal (read the case of Wickard v Filburn) the government has adopted socialist policies that actively discourage self reliance for the ‘common good’.”
Does anyone actually remember or know that “The New Deal” began the day after the United States government declared bankruptcy?
I find most here just don't understand the layers of government, and refuse to even think about the need for local and state governments to do their part in enforcing the immigration laws.
The most serious danger of acting as if the president has unlimited power is that one day we could wake up with a dictator and that would seem fine to too many.I guess they have never visited a police state.
The essence of the 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.
whether we individually or collectively are best equipped to govern and serve ourselves.
Collective/majority rule governance is anti-constitutional.
Compromise is required because each system can perform certain essential functions better than the other. Hence, the American political struggle.
No compromise is necessary to make the original system work, as it is meant to be confrontational. - We separated Fed/State/Local powers in order to diminish them. - Admittedly, that is being ignored by our political system.
We have a political problem, not a Constitutional one
. 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.
Faulty reasoning. 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'.
Our Government wasn't designed to 'run' the country. It was designed to do only those things enumerated in Article 3 Section 8 of the Constitution.
However, our news focuses on Washington and deemphasizes state and local governments which could be more responsive if people were better informed.
That's a symptom if you ask me. So much power has been stripped from the States that it almost no longer matters what the individual States do. They've become vassals of the Feds and that's a big problem.
I find most here just don't understand the layers of government,
That's sadly very true. What's also sadly true is that the Feds are doing things they have no business doing.
The most serious danger of acting as if the president has unlimited power is that one day we could wake up with a dictator
Honestly I'm more worried about Congress than I am some dictatorial President, although that could surely happen a lot more easily than most think.
Best,
L
While the word isn't there, it didn't change what I was specifically implying here.
"Change 'refused' to 'were unable to do so' and you'll be more correct. The Southern States would never have signed onto the Constitution if it abolished slavery. Jefferson and the other Founders knew this. So do you."
But that would be a rationalization. They fully well could've done it, they didn't want to. It was simply rank hypocrisy. Freedom for man for me, but not for the dark thee. It reminds me of certain politicians today on abortion, "I'm personally opposed but..." Doesn't matter if you're personally opposed, if you do nothing to dismantle the evil as an elected official, you're perpetuating the evil.
"Without that 3/5ths compromise the United States would never have been founded."
Maybe the colonies unwilling to recognize the basic rights of man AS SPELLED OUT in that Constitution for ALL men, regardless of color, should not have joined. As it was, look at the horrendous cost of that capitulation "compromise." We're still paying for it today.
And there wouldn’t have been a United States today.
Seems pretty untied to me.
Thank you. You are entirely correct.
Likewise we owe most of the progressivist and leftist elements of our culture to the Jeffersonian Republicans. In an effort to defeat their political enemies they established the precedent of appealing to emotionalism and romanticism. Even supporting the French Revolution long after it was clear were that leftist nonsense was leading Europe (to 1918 Moscow and 1935 Nuremberg).
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.
No, the leftist elements completely defeated the Federalist. After Jackson America adopted the French School of democratic politics. Oh sure, from time to time conservative whigish and Federalists intellectualism has attempted to assert itself, but the reality is, only emotionalism can win elections. The Whigs and Lincoln Republicans which followed, to one degree or another, the Federalist ideal in some areas still needed to appeal to the people by adopting populist anti-Federalist language.
The real irony is that irreligious, sanctimonious... gentleman, Mr. Jefferson, is now remembered as the champion of the common-man, who he detested but like most leftists was willing to use. His saveing grace was that he didn't in the end trust the hoi polloi; though his vision of a mammonistic elite eventually governing the country was thankfully unworkable.
Give me rational Hamiltonianism any day.
It is funny that this Congress keeps bitching about Bush and executive power when they seem to pay no attention to staying within the bounds enumerated for them. Never in my lifetime have we had so much process associated with a military action, and the revisionists call it the run up to war. LOL
You are confusing me there because you are putting the cart before the horse. The Constitution had already been ratified (by the sufficient number of states) and the First Congress was in session when what we know now as the first 10 amendments were proposed by that First Congress, under the leadership of Rep. James Madison. (Actually, 12 amendments were approved by Congress, but only 10 were ratified by the requisite 3/4 of the states.) The Anti-Federalists had tried to defeat ratification of the Constitution by the states earlier and failed there, but some of their concerns were addressed later by the Bill of Rights amendments.
Good one!
The problem is with politicians of all parties. Once they are invested in, and identify with the ruling elite they are all in pursuit of the ultimate prize, the presidency. In doing so, like buyers of lottery tickets, they will do nothing to diminish the prize.
I too am anti-Federalist. But I can not accept Natural Law. It makes man into animals. We are made in God’s image.
Then you don't understand the concept of natural law. According to St. Thomas, natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II, Q. xciv). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral. It is therefore an assertion that law and the universal rights of man are derived from God, not government, constitutions, or leaders.
ping
Bump
Then say God allows choice to follow him or not to follow him then. What’s natural is not good because man is a sinner. we are fallen that need to be redeemed.
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.