Posted on 06/02/2007 9:43:40 AM PDT by Natural Law
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.