Oh TayTay, and Constitutional Scholars

[sandnsea]

I've never quite grasped how Republicans and Federalists "go together". They seem opposite to me. Small government, states rights, seems to be the opposite of a strong Federal.

Until I heard Kerry speaking and maybe this is it. ???

The Federalists meant a strong Federal in the Executive.

The anti-Federalists meant the people prevail in Congress, the Houses of the People.

Is that it? And regardless of what Republicans say, they do not support government in the hands of the people, so at the DC level, they are Federalists by default.

So to speak.

Is this sort of it?

[TayTay]

1. The Federalist name is misleading

They are not for a strong Federal government. They believe the government should provide for the 'common defense' and then pretty much get out of the way and let the States decide the rest. Remember, they have problems with the Interstate Commerce clause, as interpreted by the Original Constructionists. They don't believe in the right of the government to regulate much. They don't want labor unions to have the right to organize. They don't believe that business should be regulated much. (Cuz that worked out sssoooooo well with Enron :sarcasm: .)

They like the power to declare war to rest with the Federal Government. That really is about it.

[sandnsea]

2. Traditional Federalists?

I'm talking about the original Federalists who supported a centralized power as opposed to those who wanted more power with the states and people.

[TayTay]

3. ARe you talking about Alito and the Federalist Society

or the historical discussions in the Federalist Papers?

[sandnsea]

4. Mostly historical, I think

Maybe I'm making a Federalist Society, historic Federalist connection that isn't actually there.

[sandnsea]

6. A little more

Putting myself into the 1700's. There was no government at all, so the people didn't look to any DC location as the "federal government". They had governments in each state. The Federalists saw that this was a bit scattered to conduct commerce and offered a bit too much power to individuals. The Federalist idea was born, with a centralized Executive in DC. The Presidency.

Now I don't know exacty whose idea the House and Senate was, but it was to represent the People. They came in from the hinterlands for a few months and then went back home again. Not a permanent, constant "Federal".

So I'm thinking the Federalists supported a strong permanent Presidency, while the Jeffersonians basically, supported strong Houses of the People.

Federalists would support a centralized Presidency, Expansive Executive, because they only care about commerce laws and a defense to protect commerce. Commerce laws for the rich, that is. Caring for state and local business would be an irritant, so they just tossed all of that annoying education and road building to "states rights".

Jeffersonian types cared about an economy for the people, and took seriously the responsiblity to create a government for all the people. The idea of states not being trampled on was more an idea of the People not being trampled on and part of that was emphasis on the Houses of the People, Congress.

This is the only way I can make heads or tails of Federalists and what we end up getting as a form of government from them. The Bushies have a tightly controlled Executive, and have handed off People business to the States, in other words, abandoned the People because they never gave a shit about them in the first place. Government is to control commerce for the elite, not to worry about the people.

Does that make any sense into how we got where we got with these Federalist Society asshats?

[ginnyinWI]

7. I know enough to know that I don't know!

I watched "American Experience" about John Adams this week, and what I thought was true about who was who got turned upside down. What I got from it is that Adams was for civil rights for the people and Jefferson was for strong governmental power. But I had thought it was the reverse.

So I checked David McCullough's biography of John Adams out of the library so I can get all of this stuff straight!

[sandnsea]

8. It is confusing

I've read some of what they all had to say and it has all left me a bit confused. Although most everything I've read about Jefferson is that he championed for the people, including government programs for people. He implemented pay for the navy, maybe health care too; public education, that sort of thing. That's what I meant about a government rising up from the people, in the House and Senate. Whereas Federalists, like Adams I think, called the right to be "on your own" a civil right, right to be totally independent, like a libertarian sort of. So that's what I'm thinking these Federalist Society people are today, throwbacks to the old landed colonials who were more interested in the economics of taxation than the concept of self-governance through ALL the people.

But I don't know either.

[Dr Ron]

5. State's rights

Right. They support States right such as the right of the State of Florida to regulate their elections. They'd never dream of using the US Supreme Court to overrule a state decision on an election.

They must also support the right of a state to regulate issues such as medical marijuana. They would never use tools such as revocation of federal DEA licenses or the Supreme Court to overrule a state's decision on this either.

:sarcasm:

If you want to understand the modern Republican, your odds are better if you take what they say and assume the opposite.