Current Topics
History's 'Houdini': What the Critics Are Saying
by Golem
02:55 PM
Israel appropriates massive tract of West Bank land
by rporter314
01:25 PM
Round Table For Week Of August 31st-September 6th, 2014
by california rick
12:38 PM
Tesla Motors Dealing as States Play Factory Poker
by rporter314
12:31 PM
5 current Ferguson officers apart from Brown shooter figure in lawsuits
by NW Ponderer
11:25 AM
Why aren't atheists allowed in Congress?
by logtroll
11:12 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Golem
06:55 PM
National Israeli fire on Gaza town raises war crimes claim
by Ardy
06:52 PM
Rams cut Michael Sam, first openly gay player drafted
by Scoutgal
08:55 AM
My Muslim religion has problems that need fixing
by Ardy
08/30/14 08:27 PM
The 10 Biggest Classic Rock Douchebags
by logtroll
08/30/14 07:44 PM
Round Table for the week of August 24-30, 2014
by logtroll
08/30/14 07:37 PM
How Clayton Kershaw compares to the greatest pitchers in history
by Scoutgal
08/30/14 04:07 PM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2014
by Scoutgal
08/30/14 04:02 PM
Gun Tourism Grows in Popularity in Recent Years
by logtroll
08/30/14 01:44 PM
Forum Stats
6003 Members
55 Forums
14300 Topics
247164 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: 11617
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: 11809
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: 4821
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: 11809
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: 36068
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: 36068
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
1 registered (1 invisible), 18 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
xiawei, Marzman, kyleyoung8, Retread, solafeian
6003 Registered Users
A2