Are you a Federalist or Anti-Federalist?

[Noodlegawd]

By your own definition, which you may define in a comment if you feel a need to clarify.

It's pretty useless to have a poll in response to which people are using the wrong definitions.

 

[mrjurrs]

Federalist:
a person who advocates or supports a system of government in which several states bow to a central authority. (Big and powerful government)

anti-Federalist:
one who believes that the Constitution gives the federal government too much power and the states with not enough power. (small and limited government)

Not really.
Federalist- United States of America
Anti federalist- United States of America

We tried the anti federalist version under the Articles of Confederation. It failed. The federalist version is the longest standing democracy in the world.

 

[Individual]

It's pretty useless to have a poll in response to which people are using the wrong definitions.

It provides me with more or less what I am interested in learning.

 

[Doug64]

Are you claiming the founders had created a democratic form of government? Initially, only property owners/tax paying white male citizens had the Right to vote, with all male citizens gaining that Right in 1828, and Black males gaining the Right in 1870, and Women not until the 20th century.

If your definition of “democratic” is that all adult men and women are allowed to vote, then Athens—the city-state that gave us democracy—was not democratic. If there is a way for a substantial portion of the common people to be involved in governing, then yes, your government is democratic (if not necessarily a democracy). To be more detailed, the US is a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic.

 

[The flaming lib]

Are you being overly simplistic for any other reason than your lack of of knowledge?

Love your avatar

 

[Luce]

Federalist.

Confederations never work out. Ever.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So ignore the poll.

Rather, call out the nonsense you are asking.

 

[Eriech]

If you believe in the 10th amendment are you a Federalist or an anti federalist?

 

[Individual]

Rather, call out the nonsense you are asking.

That's one way of telling me what I am looking for by this poll question.
Thank you.

 

[OrphanSlug]

That's one way of telling me what I am looking for by this poll question.
Thank you.

And it would make you still very wrong, predictably.

Now tell us all about your Federalist or Anti-Federalist positions on things.

 

[Individual]

If your definition of “democratic” is that all adult men and women are allowed to vote, then Athens—the city-state that gave us democracy—was not democratic. If there is a way for a substantial portion of the common people to be involved in governing, then yes, your government is democratic (if not necessarily a democracy). To be more detailed, the US is a Federal Constitutional Democratic Republic.

It HAS become such.
A Democracy is best defined as majority rule.
A Republic, as our Nation was founded, applies checks and balances which often limits the power of the majority. Passage of the 17th amendment eliminated State governments from having a voice in our Federal government. And passage of the 16th amendment moved the power of the purse entirely into the hands of the Federal government, albeit much of that power is under control of the Federal Reserve.

 

[Doug64]

If you believe in the 10th amendment are you a Federalist or an anti federalist?

Either. The 10th Amendment just restated what the Federalists had been saying about the Constitution they'd created all through the ratification debates, and I imagine the Anti-Federalists wholeheartedly supported it--at that point, they'd take whatever limits on the federal government they could get.

 

[wist43]

It HAS become such.
A Democracy is best defined as majority rule.
A Republic, as our Nation was founded, applies checks and balances which often limits the power of the majority. Passage of the 17th amendment eliminated State governments from having a voice in our Federal government. And passage of the 16th amendment moved the power of the purse entirely into the hands of the Federal government, albeit much of that power is under control of the Federal Reserve.

The 17th Amendment was one of the most devastating attacks against our country in our nations history.

It was The Money Trust (the Wall Street financial powers led by J.P. Morgan and Paul Warberg, both Rothschild representatives) who gave us the 17th Amendment, as an important step in their goal of destroying our Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was just as bad - and it did not move the power of the purse to the Federal Government; rather, it consolidated that power into private hands. Into the hands of The Money Trust.

Unsurprisingly, it was the Money Trust that was behind the election of Woodrow Wilson, WWI, the easy money polices of the 1920's, and the subsequent crash and Depression.

The names have changed over the years, but the same group of elites are still in full control of our nation and the purse strings.

The people have no power whatsoever.

We now live in a kakistocracy.

 

[Lovebug]

Federalist:
a person who advocates or supports a system of government in which several states bow to a central authority. (Big and powerful government)

anti-Federalist:
one who believes that the Constitution gives the federal government too much power and the states with not enough power. (small and limited government)

Sadly, anti federalists aren't responsible enough to follow through, as we have recently witnessed.

 

[SkyChief]

Sadly, anti federalists aren't responsible enough to follow through, as we have recently witnessed.

The individual's liberty and freedom are inversely proportional to government power - i.e., the more power the Federal government has, the less freedom and liberty for the individual.

The anti-federalists of 1791 beleived that federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen. And as we know, they were right. Nowadays, every bill or measure that Congress passes (and the president signs) further limits our freedom and/or liberty. Some were so atrocious they had to be repealed.

Amendment XVIII (prohibition) took away the citizen's right to consume alcoholic beverages. It was a stupid Amendment and a gross overreach of government power. It was repealed in 1933 (Amendment XXI). The federalists were furious.

"We've been conditioned to think that only politicians can solve our problems. But at some point, maybe we will wake up and recognize that it was politicians who created our problems." - Dr. Ben Carson

 

[Individual]

The 17th Amendment was one of the most devastating attacks against our country in our nations history.

It was The Money Trust (the Wall Street financial powers led by J.P. Morgan and Paul Warberg, both Rothschild representatives) who gave us the 17th Amendment, as an important step in their goal of destroying our Constitution.

The 16th Amendment was just as bad - and it did not move the power of the purse to the Federal Government; rather, it consolidated that power into private hands. Into the hands of The Money Trust.

Unsurprisingly, it was the Money Trust that was behind the election of Woodrow Wilson, WWI, the easy money polices of the 1920's, and the subsequent crash and Depression.

The names have changed over the years, but the same group of elites are still in full control of our nation and the purse strings.

The people have no power whatsoever.

We now live in a kakistocracy.

And this is why you consider yourself to be a Federalist?

 

[wist43]

And this is why you consider yourself to be a Federalist?

Responding to your comment about the 17th Amendment.

In terms of our Federal Republic, the 17th Amendment was a lethal blow to federalism, our Constitution, and ultimately our liberty.

I'm an advocate of federalism for all of the reasons Madison, Hamilton, and Jay outlined in The Federalist Papers.

Once the states ceased to have a direct voice in our Federal Government, it ceased to be a Federal Government and became a central government.

It's taken 110 years to chop America into submission, but we're finally at the end of the road.

The Russia/Ukraine dust up, covid, our currency being debauched, etc, are all a continuation of the ruinous process that was begun 110 years ago.

Our Constitution will be tossed overboard by 2030, and freedom will be dead in the former United States.

 

[Individual]

Responding to your comment about the 17th Amendment.

In terms of our Federal Republic, the 17th Amendment was a lethal blow to federalism, our Constitution, and ultimately our liberty.

I'm an advocate of federalism for all of the reasons Madison, Hamilton, and Jay outlined in The Federalist Papers.

Once the states ceased to have a direct voice in our Federal Government, it ceased to be a Federal Government and became a central government.

It's taken 110 years to chop America into submission, but we're finally at the end of the road.

The Russia/Ukraine dust up, covid, our currency being debauched, etc, are all a continuation of the ruinous process that was begun 110 years ago.

Our Constitution will be tossed overboard by 2030, and freedom will be dead in the former United States.

So you see Anti-Federalists as wanting a more centralized form of government?

 

[wist43]

So you see Anti-Federalists as wanting a more centralized form of government?

No, I share many of their concerns. Just because I consider myself a federalist, doesn't mean I discount the anti-federalist views point by point.

I think our Founders got it right, but for some unfortunate, and seemingly innocuous, word choices here and there that were ultimately twisted and perverted by evil men who were, and are, enemies of the people.

 

[wist43]

The anti-federalists of 1791 beleived that federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen. And as we know, they were right. Nowadays, every bill or measure that Congress passes (and the president signs) further limits our freedom and/or liberty. Some were so atrocious they had to be repealed.

The Federal Government is out of control and removed from the people because arguably the most important check on its power has been removed, i.e. state appointed Senators.

You don't see how the removal of that critical check on power by the 17th Amendment cleared the way for the corruption and expansion of the Federal Government??

The Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people, and was given critical oversight over the courts and other institutions.

Once the Senate was corrupted, it was only a matter if time before the Supreme Court would be corrupted. It ended up taking about 20 years, after which a corrupted SC completely perverted the meaning of the Constitution, and the Federal Government has been expanding exponentially ever since.

 

[Individual]

The Federal Government is out of control and removed from the people because arguably the most important check on its power has been removed, i.e. state appointed Senators.

You don't see how the removal of that critical check on power by the 17th Amendment cleared the way for the corruption and expansion of the Federal Government??

The Senate was designed to represent the states, not the people, and was given critical oversight over the courts and other institutions.

Once the Senate was corrupted, it was only a matter if time before the Supreme Court would be corrupted. It ended up taking about 20 years, after which a corrupted SC completely perverted the meaning of the Constitution, and the Federal Government has been expanding exponentially ever since.

Repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way, IMO, in returning power to the people AND the States and also IMO our Supreme Court should only assure that our governments Federal, State, and local stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, without re-interpretation along party lines.

 

[wist43]

Repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way, IMO, in returning power to the people AND the States and also IMO our Supreme Court should only assure that our governments Federal, State, and local stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, without re-interpretation along party lines.

That's all well and good in a peaceful world of reasonable people - problem with that is the Establishment is neither peaceful nor reasonable.

And neither is the radical left that they control.

There's no way back without bloodshed, and the Establishment holds the reins of power. They control the military, national guard, police... we're seriously outgunned.

Where's Augusto Pinochet when you need him??

 

[wist43]

Repeal of both the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way, IMO, in returning power to the people AND the States and also IMO our Supreme Court should only assure that our governments Federal, State, and local stay within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, without re-interpretation along party lines.

I used to work in the freedom fight, and would usually work repeal of the 17th Amendment into my presentations and speeches.

Most people, even the well informed, had a hard time grasping the importance of repealing the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment is a fatal blow to federalism - which is exactly why the Establishment pushed hard for its passage.

 

[Individual]

I used to work in the freedom fight, and would usually work repeal of the 17th Amendment into my presentations and speeches.

Most people, even the well informed, had a hard time grasping the importance of repealing the 17th Amendment.

The 17th Amendment is a fatal blow to federalism - which is exactly why the Establishment pushed hard for its passage.

My 6th grade American History teacher who was in her teens when Wilson was President, brought up both the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act presenting their passage in a negative light in her opinion. Only years later did I recall her words and wished we had spent time asking her questions but we didn't. It was a couple of decades later when I began to understand why she thought they should NOT have been passed, and agree that she was, IMO correct though I don't think our fiat currency system could or should ever be replaced or returned to be based on gold and/or silver. Both the 16th and 17th amendments could be repealed and return our Federal level of government to being a government of governments who in turn govern their residents within both a State and Federal Constitution, with appropriate checks and balances applied at the Federal level of government which would give the people and States more power to control Federal spending, lessening the ability of politicians and political parties to spend primarily for their own benefit.

I was shocked to find This Joint Resolution being proposed in Congress seeking to repeal the 16th amendment. I only wish the same would begin to be proposed to repeal the 17th amendment.