Current Topics
Round Table for July 27-August 2, 2014
by california rick
Today at 12:46 AM
Zionism and ethnic cleansing.
by Schlack
Yesterday at 04:38 PM
Palestine after Rome and before wwi
by Ardy
Yesterday at 11:40 AM
palestinian responsibility for the Jewish Diaspora?
by Phil Hoskins
Yesterday at 11:37 AM
Libya a failure of foreign policy
by NW Ponderer
Yesterday at 11:35 AM
Help me understand
by Ma_Republican
Yesterday at 11:20 AM
Spiritual But Not Religious
by Spag-hetti
07/28/14 06:08 PM
State sees surge in high-paying white-collar jobs
by NW Ponderer
07/28/14 08:39 AM
Time Travel Question: Kill Hitler or educate voters on the 2000 FL ballot
by california rick
07/27/14 12:39 PM
Round Table Foe Week Of July 20th-July 26th, 2014
by Scoutgal
07/27/14 10:08 AM
Passing out weapons as a foreign policy
by california rick
07/26/14 12:14 PM
Impeachment Circus Rides Again
by california rick
07/26/14 12:12 PM
Big brother is watching
by Joe Keegan
07/26/14 12:16 AM
Illegal immigration rates
by NW Ponderer
07/24/14 07:56 PM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by logtroll
07/24/14 01:28 PM
Forum Stats
6003 Members
55 Forums
14220 Topics
246517 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 01:08 AM
Google Adsense
Topic Options
#266327 - 12/11/13 11:23 AM "Federalism" and States rights.
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11522
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA

Perhaps others have noticed the frequent appearance of "Federalist" as part of the conservative meme.

If you check out The Federalist society, you will see that they are an explicitly conservative org. link

I found this all to be a little confusing, since I had always thought of federalism as a concept that emphasized the role of the federal gov.

But apparently the roots are here
Quote:
In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force":

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such
wiki link

The above quote was found on the Wiki page about States rights.

The phrase "states rights" has a few unpleasant connotations it seems. And so "Federalism" is the alternative word that is now used in place of states' rights.

But if you look at the above link on The federalist Society, it becomes clear that they are not just talking about states rights, but about the broader concept of moving power away from the central gov. to States, and local gov. And ultimately to individual sovereign citizens.

At this moment I am not saying that is good or bad. Just pointing out what lies behind the rhetoric of "federalism"
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#266330 - 12/11/13 12:09 PM Re: "Federalism" and States rights. [Re: Ardy]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11734
It has always been of private amusement to me that the "Federalist Society" is the modern embodiment of the "anti-federalist " viewpoint. This may be the example that most corporate/conservative PACS use to create "reasonable" names to obscure organizations that pursue the opposite agenda (a la, "fair and balanced.") (See, e.g., Americans for Prosperity, Campaign for Working Families, Citizens United Political Victory Fund, Eagle Forum, Move America Forward.)
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#266338 - 12/11/13 02:47 PM Re: "Federalism" and States rights. [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4790
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
the "anti-federalist " viewpoint

I have convinced myself that a huge number of conservatives, who claim vehemently their belief in the Constitution, actually would have voted against ratification of the Constitution.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#266340 - 12/11/13 04:08 PM Re: "Federalism" and States rights. [Re: rporter314]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11734
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I have convinced myself that a huge number of conservatives, who claim vehemently their belief in the Constitution, actually would have voted against ratification of the Constitution....
if they had even the slightest idea what was actually in it.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#266341 - 12/11/13 04:41 PM Re: "Federalism" and States rights. [Re: rporter314]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 35956
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
the "anti-federalist " viewpoint

I have convinced myself that a huge number of conservatives, who claim vehemently their belief in the Constitution, actually would have voted against ratification of the Constitution.

Indeed, mainly because said Constitution was written by some new agey enlightenment deist dudes.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#266342 - 12/11/13 04:45 PM Re: "Federalism" and States rights. [Re: NW Ponderer]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 35956
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: rporter314
I have convinced myself that a huge number of conservatives, who claim vehemently their belief in the Constitution, actually would have voted against ratification of the Constitution....
if they had even the slightest idea what was actually in it.

...just throw around some words like "God" and terms like "Christianity is the only real religion" and "right to bear arms" and 3/5th human vote and liebrul voter fraud ID prevention libel and corporations are people my friend and Creator hates mooselins, and they'd be all good with it. smile
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top

Who's Online
0 registered (), 10 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
xiawei, Marzman, kyleyoung8, Retread, solafeian
6003 Registered Users
A2