• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We must return to Federalist principals

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From the very beginning the Founders had a healthy distrust of a strong central government. The Constitution would never have been ratified had it not contained strong, clear, and precise language that limited the central government and strengthened the power of the States.

While decades of power grabbing have severely watered down those guarantees the words are still there simply waiting for the People to demand a return to those hallowed principals.

Join with others finding, supporting, and electing representatives who commit themselves to bringing sound fiscal, moral, and Constitutionally sound government back to us. Their gender, race, party, whatever are of no importance, their principals are.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,582
Reaction score
27,837
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From the very beginning the Founders had a healthy distrust of a strong central government. The Constitution would never have been ratified had it not contained strong, clear, and precise language that limited the central government and strengthened the power of the States.

While decades of power grabbing have severely watered down those guarantees the words are still there simply waiting for the People to demand a return to those hallowed principals.

Join with others finding, supporting, and electing representatives who commit themselves to bringing sound fiscal, moral, and Constitutionally sound government back to us. Their gender, race, party, whatever are of no importance, their principals are.
You'll be hated by liberals/progressives.
 

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,723
Reaction score
53,491
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Biggest problem with his post is that he is talking about ANTI-Federalism, not Federalism. I've been telling him this all day, in all of the threads he's been posting in.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Biggest problem with his post is that he is talking about ANTI-Federalism, not Federalism. I've been telling him this all day, in all of the threads he's been posting in.
Yeah you right - but, Capt. I posted this BEFORE the other.:3oops:

Still stand by the PRINCIPALs.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
All the while it was the "Federalists" who were arguing for a stronger central Government. The Federalist Papers especially the writing sof Hamilton are a good clue of that. It was the "Anti-Federalists" who wanted smaller Government and more state control. See Federalist #9
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
From the very beginning the Founders had a healthy distrust of a strong central government. The Constitution would never have been ratified had it not contained strong, clear, and precise language that limited the central government and strengthened the power of the States.

While decades of power grabbing have severely watered down those guarantees the words are still there simply waiting for the People to demand a return to those hallowed principals.

Join with others finding, supporting, and electing representatives who commit themselves to bringing sound fiscal, moral, and Constitutionally sound government back to us. Their gender, race, party, whatever are of no importance, their principals are.
You have said nothing in your post. It is completely ambiguous and demagogic with no qualifying support whatsoever.

Have you not heard of the expression, "you can not legislate morality"?
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hey, Liberal Avenger
"Here, I blow you my fart, How you like that?" Karl Wolfschtagg:2wave:
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And so was your "Thank You" Thank you
 

Your Star

Rage More!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,246
Reaction score
19,928
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
From the very beginning the Founders had a healthy distrust of a strong central government. The Constitution would never have been ratified had it not contained strong, clear, and precise language that limited the central government and strengthened the power of the States.

While decades of power grabbing have severely watered down those guarantees the words are still there simply waiting for the People to demand a return to those hallowed principals.

Join with others finding, supporting, and electing representatives who commit themselves to bringing sound fiscal, moral, and Constitutionally sound government back to us. Their gender, race, party, whatever are of no importance, their principals are.
Read a history book kid, then atleast you'll know that your beliefs fall in line with the anti-federalist. Of course if you do read a history book, you might read about how weak the US was under the Articles of Confederation, and you might change your views.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Read a history book kid, then atleast you'll know that your beliefs fall in line with the anti-federalist. Of course if you do read a history book, you might read about how weak the US was under the Articles of Confederation, and you might change your views.
Oh, but I have (Read a history book) and (from another thread) I replied:
'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.'
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Have read a book or two and as I replied to another on this subject:

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.
 
Last edited:

StaggerLee

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"The only constant is change"....You can either change or be left behind. Progression is the key. Not digression. So going back to relive a Constitution drafted over a century ago when our country was pre-pubescent is defeating. This life, this time we live in is far removed from 1776. Right? And thankfully so. We are so caught up on Revolution and adherence to Originality and procedure and constitution that Life passes us by. I for one wanna catch that bus brother. "You gotta try and see a little further..."...
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"We are so caught up on Revolution and adherence to Originality and procedure and constitution that Life passes us by. I for one wanna catch that bus brother."

There is a bus and you're free to catch it [or not] largely because of that out of date old piece of paper.
 

StaggerLee

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
4776:

Let me first say, by no means was I, or am I discrediting the value and importance of the principles of the Federalist Papers. You're absolutely correct, where would we be without them? My agrument is, rather than spend our natural lives, or parts of them, trying to get "back to where we were", we need to set our sights on what's here and now, and what's ahead. We, as a conscious group of Human Beings, are either consiously or subconsciously seek relevance and meaning of life through advancement; advancement of ideals and behaviors, mores and values because as time progresses and technology advances and understanding broadens-we continue to reach forward.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We must have a Constitution or something to take its place. What do you propose?

I've made it clear I prefer the one we have.
 

StaggerLee

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ahh; a proposition.

Here's what i don't propose: I don't propose we dismember our current Constitution. On the contrary. However; for it not to change with change of humanity would be disruptive to our progression. My point is, if it's not written in stone.... Change is necessary, so we adapt it to be relevant to our current place in time. I know that makes about 3/4 of our population want to grab their muskets and pitchforks and march. We as people, as Life on this planet in this space and time adapt, otherwise we would be extinct. Adaptation.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Something must be "written in stone". "We" change from day to day. One person's progress is another's regression. This bunch wants this, another that. Chaos, chaos.
 

StaggerLee

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
True,

but the Constitution doesn't govern the individual, it govern's the masses. So, if you so choose to lay stake to the great United States, then so shall you adhere and assimilate to its people and laws, regulations, morals, accepted practices, reward and consequence and all things that make this country who and what we are. But those things change, usually decade to decade, let alone century to century. Adaptation. Take for instance a "jam band", my favorite the Grateful Dead. They never did the same show twice. a "Stagger Lee" you heard monday night didnt exactly sound like the Stagger Lee from sunday night. The song is the same, but the emotion, energy and feeling of that song changes. Jam bands are improvisational. Meaning, alot of what they do on stage is in the moment. Ah, but, the songs were written, with chords and progressions and changes which never change. But the emotions, the manner of presentation or the medium of its presentation changes...they are adaptive to their moment. Sorry, i get off tangent a little, But my point is, although the songs are "written and coherent", they're manner will change. the lyrics dont change, the chords themselves dont change, but the song is still the same....so can it be with regards to our Constitution.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you, you helped make my point, I think. You said "Constitution doesn't govern the individual, it govern's the masses" - yes it does now. Originally it governed the Government - the central government. The individual freedom you yearn for was lost to you and me and the States, and the communities, and the people sometime in the last 60 or 70 years.
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"The individual freedom" I should have said LIBERTY
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Take for instance a "jam band", my favorite the Grateful Dead. They never did the same show twice. a "Stagger Lee" you heard monday night didnt exactly sound like the Stagger Lee from sunday night. The song is the same, but the emotion, energy and feeling of that song changes. Jam bands are improvisational. Meaning, alot of what they do on stage is in the moment. Ah, but, the songs were written, with chords and progressions and changes which never change. But the emotions, the manner of presentation or the medium of its presentation changes...they are adaptive to their moment." THAT'S LIBERTY
 

StaggerLee

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here, Here my friend,

That is Liberty. And i for one and Grateful for it. And it's that same Liberty which allows you and I to agrue our difference of opinions and at the end of it all say....."Thank You"...
 

4776

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
24
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Republic - I like the sound of the word, It means people can go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose" - John Wayne (as Davey Crocket) in "The Alamo"
 
Top Bottom