Replies

I think the term Federalist and Antifederalist can be confusing.

Here is my understanding but I may be wrong.
Federal-ISM - is our designed system in the Constitution whereby one method to restrain power of the (national) U.S. government is to balance the power is between the U.S. government and the States. That balancing of powers and doling out only certain powers to the U.S. federal government with others reserved to the states and individuals is one method of keeping the Federal (or National) government under control.

I think during the time of the Constitutional debates, the Federalists were the ones who wanted to pass the new constitution, and the AntiFederalists were wary of this new Constitution and wanted something closer to the old Articles of Confederation and felt it would lead to tyranny eventually. They weren’t against the states having power, they actually felt they wouldn’t have enough. So the term “antifederalist” as used during the constitutional times is almost backwards from what it should mean intuitively. (Anti federalists were actually for “federal-ism” but didn’t think the Constitution provided enough strength to the states to balance the new government)

It’s also confusing because the term “federal” is now linked to our U.S. Government at the national level, and has become almost a dirty word to conservatives because of the tyranny going on as they trample over state and individual rights, but Federal-ISM as a concept is a good thing as it just means two different parts of government keeping each other balanced and each in its own sphere with its own limited responsibilities and authority!

Don’t know if this is off topic, but the whole concept of federalism (keeping power balanced between US and States) is something people need to be re-educated on. I think most Americans nowadays see a direct line between themselves and the U.S. government, and the states are just this puny little thing off to the side that hands out drivers licenses and repairs roads. We need to get back to the founders vision! If Mark Levin’s book stirs up talk and debate and gets people thinking about this - that is a good thing.

I still get confused sometimes, and hope I’ve gotten this right in this post! Please correct me if I’ve actually gotten it backwards.

You are correct. Recall our first quasi government was under the Articles of Confederation. Confederation meaning an alliance of independent countries. The United States were 100% federal. It was soon realized that the lack of central taxing and commerce powers was prolonging the war and causing economic hardship. James Madison and others supported enhancement of taxing and commerce powers and were simply referred to as strong “federal” men.

The tag of federalist became synonymous with those supporting a stronger general government.

The framers drafted a government that was still federal, yet not as federal as under the confederation.

After some reading and research on the 17th Amendment earlier this year, I realized it was inaccurate and misleading to call our government “federal.” It hasn't’t been federal for a hundred years. If any historic term applies, it has become consolidated. Both federalists and anti-federalists agreed that would happen if the states were booted from the federal government.

Without state participation, without the means to secure our 9th & 10th amendment rights, our slide into despotism was so much as predicted by the framers.

I think most Americans nowadays see a direct line between themselves and the U.S. government, and the states are just this puny little thing off to the side that hands out drivers licenses and repairs roads. That is so true. Low information voters don’t know what we’ve lost because they never knew what we had.