In a post "We must return to Federalist principals" CaptainCourtesy and I engaged in a (courteous) debate re: his perception that I had misused the term "Federalist" in that I had charecterized them as opposing a strong central government.
The "Federal" system written into the Constitution limited the power of the central government and enumerated (thereby limiting them) its powers but not sufficiently to satisfy the fears of what became known as the Anti-Federalists who fought against its ratification. In a series of compromises during the ratification process those fears were sufficiently addressed by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Extract from Wikipedia :
"........ As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington." In effect the "Anti-Federalists" ceased to exist in 1791.
After the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the "Federalist" system thus created was embraced by the Nation and it is this (post December 15, 1791) "Federalism" to which I was referring.
Beyond that comparing the "strong central government" feared by the Anti-Federalists to what we have today would be as comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite. I'd think most Conservatives would be pleased if we could return to the Fed/State power relationship of 1791. It is a return to a state of affairs more closely akin to 1791 I am and was proposing.
The "Federal" system written into the Constitution limited the power of the central government and enumerated (thereby limiting them) its powers but not sufficiently to satisfy the fears of what became known as the Anti-Federalists who fought against its ratification. In a series of compromises during the ratification process those fears were sufficiently addressed by the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Extract from Wikipedia :
"........ As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington." In effect the "Anti-Federalists" ceased to exist in 1791.
After the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the "Federalist" system thus created was embraced by the Nation and it is this (post December 15, 1791) "Federalism" to which I was referring.
Beyond that comparing the "strong central government" feared by the Anti-Federalists to what we have today would be as comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite. I'd think most Conservatives would be pleased if we could return to the Fed/State power relationship of 1791. It is a return to a state of affairs more closely akin to 1791 I am and was proposing.