Posted on 05/20/2009 1:36:09 PM PDT by sapguy.us
It is our position that the entirety of The Constitution as originally passed by the 13 Colonies, and its amendments over time, forms a binding contract with the several states and the people of this nation, and that violations thereof are thus not just a matter of individual liberty but of contract law with the several states, who have both a right and obligation to enforce their rights and those of their citizens utilizing all available state and local government resources, without exception.
(Excerpt) Read more at anti-federalist.org ...
Bad name.
How about simple truth in advertising: The Conservative Party. Then, it makes it hard to forget where we come from.
Few know the correct definition of a Republic any more, so being Republican means less now.
How is this political party any different from The Constitution Party?
They don’t seem to want to return the Louisiana Purchase or any of the other territory we “bought”. I wonder what their Constitutional rationale for that is.
Because the Federalist arguments have not held up against the Anti-Feds—Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc. Time has proven them sadly correct.
Another loser turd party..
Related but not exactly..
WTF? Federalism is GOOD.
Thanks; Thanks.
“How is this political party any different from The Constitution Party?”
It creates another little pond, in which to be a big fish.
Almost guaranteed to be little pond, judged by brilliant name selection.
Another problem with creating several “pro-conservative political parties” is that it successfully divides the total conservative votes among many conservative candidates from many political parties and indirectly helps leftist candidates from the Democratic Party win such contests over and over again!
I read their platform, and they’re not pro-life.
“Federalism is GOOD.”
Really? What’s the difference between “federalism” and “statism?”
Hank
“Another loser turd party..”
How’s your party doing?
Hank
I think you have your terms and definitions confused. Here's a refresher
Federalism is GOOD. NOT!!!
We need to support this party in every way. This could be the start of something big. We need to change the name to the AFP or maybe the Grass Roots Anti-Federalist Reform Party. The Goals are good. How about the Anti-Socialist Party?
"Federalism" pertains to a confederation of sovereign States, which is what the founders of the united States intended.
"Statism" pertains to the supremism of a single sovereign state, which is what the founders fought against (England) to win independence for the several States.
“’Federalism’ pertains to a confederation of sovereign States, which is what the founders of the united States intended.
‘Statism’ pertains to the supremism of a single sovereign state, which is what the founders fought against (England) to win independence for the several States.”
I’m sorry you failed the test. Perhaps there will be a makeup. It was the anti-Federalists, like Jefferson and Madison who opposed centralized power in a federal government, that is a powerful “state” which is what statism is. The federalists, like Hamilton and John Adams, and even George Washington, wanted a powerful central government like the European model.
Anti-federalism is anti-statism.
Unfortunately, the Statists (Federalists) won most of the battles.
Hank
As I have often pointed out, while Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, after its ratification he became a Hamiltonian Federalist who believed in Federal supremacy and implied powers. His final public act was to argue against Jefferson's and Madison's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which claimed those states at the right and power to not recognize the federally-passed Alien and Sedition Acts.
Maybe . . . just maybe . . . they don't have the Rushdoonyites' antipathy to Israel?
"Statism" pertains to the supremism of a single sovereign state, which is what the founders fought against (England) to win independence for the several States.
In the Federalist Papers Madison points out that the system created by the Constitution is neither purely national nor purely federal but a mixture of the two.
The Constitution's ratification by the thirteen states from 1787 to 1790 was not done by the state legislatures but by specially called state conventions. Thus, the Constitution was not, strictly speaking, ratified by the states themselves.
It is true that this situation was de facto ended by a Supreme Court decision in 1973, but the idea that each and every bad Supreme Court decision requires a specific Constitutional Amendment to undo it is spurious. How many amendments would we wind up with?
The best thing is to take the federal government out of the business of granting or even enumerating "rights" at all. In other words, the Bill of Rights was a mistake. Originally intended as a series of restraints on the powers of the federal government alone, it was bound eventually to morph into a granting of "rights" by the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment takes a lot of heat for this, and it certainly hurried the process along, but it was inevitable that the Bill of Rights would eventually be interpreted as a series of "rights" granted by the federal government, implying it could abrogate them and create others at will.
The Bill of Rights turned the US Constitution from the straightforward plan for the federal government into a work of political philosophy. Bad move. Very bad.
“The Constitution’s ratification by the thirteen states from 1787 to 1790 was not done by the state legislatures but by specially called state conventions. Thus, the Constitution was not, strictly speaking, ratified by the states themselves.”
Exactly, and so much for “we the people” when a select elite take it on themselves to speak for them. The number of people opposed to the Constitution may have been more than half the population at the time, but had it shoved down their throats. Things have not changed much.
Fortunately for those living then, the government was very “small” for the first hundred years, which was the real source of freedom—but of course that is all over now.
Hank
“The Bill of Rights turned the US Constitution from the straightforward plan for the federal government into a work of political philosophy. Bad move. Very bad.”
Which is exactly why Madison, and oddly, Hamilton, and others opposed them—at least one of the reasons—and of course they were right.
Hank
I am pleased we agree on this (unfortunately, the Anti-Federalist Party does not).
Though I am an avowed Hamiltonian, I must admit that Hamilton's proffered reason for rejecting the BoR, that it was unnecessary because the Constitution itself did not explicitly authorize the violation of anyone's rights, was disingenuous. He was, after all, the great advocate of implied powers.
That's why we have the ninth amendment.
it was bound eventually to morph into a granting of "rights" by the federal government.
That's why we have the ninth amendment.
How's that working out? [/sarc]
The Bill of Rights was a HUGE mistake.
I disagree. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no question that the federal government would be even more tyrannical than it is now.
“The federalists did want a powerful central government compared to the anti-federalists, but not like the European model, which is not federalist, but nationalist.”
The arch federalist was Hamilton, and a government modeled on the European model is exactly what he wanted, especially the British one.
During the Constitutional Convention he proposed to have an elected President and elected Senators who would serve for life contingent upon “good behavior.” He was considered by many a Monarchist. If you think that is “nationalism” fine, but that was the position of the federalists. (Like everything else, there were very different degrees of this, but it was all statism).
Hank
I find it quite difficult to see how you could say such a thing. It is in the name of the Bill of Rights that almost all Federal tyranny has been advanced.
Every time a high school principal edits out a dirty word from a student newspaper the federal government intervenes in the name of the Bill of Rights. Every time a local library blocks porn the federal courts are on their case invoking the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has been the greatest rationale for the expansion of federal power in American history.
No Bill of Rights, no federal courts sticking their noses into every single local situation in the name of protecting "rights."
The Bill of Rights has been an unmitigated disaster. Its origins are tainted (it was proposed by slaveowners so the Federal Government wouldn't interfere in their peculiar institution) and it has (quite naturally and inevitably) morphed from a series of limits on federal power into a gigantic authorization of federal power. When the federal courts rule that parents passing on their religious beliefs to their children is a violation of the First Amendment and start taking kids away from parents or monitoring family religious education it will be in the name of the Bill of Rights.
No, it's in the name of the Commerce Clause that almost all federal tyranny has been advanced.
Madison WROTE the Bill of Rights.
Assuming you mean the GOP, it is currently tied with the Democrats as the largest political party in popular support.
Whatever tyranny has been excused by the Commerce Clause is invisible and unobtrusive when compared to the federal power justified by appeal to the Bill of Rights.
But look Joe . . . you and I do not and will not agree on this. We could go on arguing all night long and it isn't going to change either one of us.
The Constitution was originally a very prosaic document laying out the form and organs of the new government (three branches, two legislative houses, two Senators per state, a census every ten years, etc.). The Bill of Rights transformed it into a document of political philosophy that is all things to all people, invoked by everyone from radical leftists to "identity" cultists who think the Thirteen Colonies were the Restored Tribes of Israel and the Founding Fathers Divinely-inspired Hebrew prophets.
Major League Baseball has a constitution too, and you never hear about it, because it works very well. We would have all been better off if our own Constitution were equally esoteric and obscure. Instead the Bill of Rights gave us "Constitutional Law" (which, btw, isn't).
Be well.
It’s not the Bill of Rights which is a problem, but rather the corruption of the Bill of Rights away from its original intent. Your view is too radical. You would throw out the baby along with the bath water.
It was inevitable that the Bill of Rights would become corrupted exactly as they have been, though it might have taken longer under different circumstances.
The enumeration of rights in the federal charter was a bad idea from the very start.
Good night.
“The Constitution’s ratification by the thirteen states from 1787 to 1790 was not done by the state legislatures but by specially called state conventions. Thus, the Constitution was not, strictly speaking, ratified by the states themselves.”
Exactly, and so much for “we the people” when a select elite take it on themselves to speak for them. The number of people opposed to the Constitution may have been more than half the population at the time, but had it shoved down their throats. Things have not changed much.
Lol! You have a point! And don't forget that the Constitutional Convention exceeded its authority by even coming up with a Constitution to begin with (its legitimate purpose was merely to tweak the Articles of Confederation) and that the members kept what they were doing tightly under wraps, so much so that they took oaths not to reveal it to outsiders.
No government, no constitution, can “grant rights.” All they can do is first recognize and then protect them.
Our Founders asserted that this is the reason for the existence of government.
Our rights come from God. That’s why no man can rightfully alienate them.
The Founders of this country called these truths “self-evident.” We’re in a day in which most cannot even see what is right in front of their noses.
These principles are the very essence of America, the foundations of republican self-government and liberty.
“Madison WROTE the Bill of Rights.”
That’s right, but only because it was the only way to get the anti-Federalists to ratify the Constitution. Originally he was opposed to them. His arguments were they were not needed, because the Constitution already limited the power of the Federal Government, if enumerated it implied other rights could be abridged, and a bill of rights did not work anyway, because in those states that had them they were regularly abused.
You must already know that though.
Hank
I do know that, but if Madison was like certain modern Presidents he could have promised them the amendments, and after they ratified, he could have stiffed them!
“I do know that, but if Madison was like certain modern Presidents he could have promised them the amendments, and after they ratified, he could have stiffed them!”
They were all politicians, but as you observed, they had one difference from all modern politicians—they were honorable men of principle. Madison could not have “stiffed them” without violating the principles he believed and lived by. If only there were such men today.
Hank
What are you, some sort of religious fanatic?
“You’re correct; I was wrong.”
I have no pleasure in being “right” but a lot of pleasure if you have found something of value in what I offered. Thank you for your kind response. It’s so rare.
Hank
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.