Are the T-partiers throwbacks to Anti-Federalists?

[skeptic 992]

I was subbing in an eight grade history class last week, and they were on the ratification of the constitution, which included the conflicts of opinion between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. One of the book's bullet points was that Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power in the central government, and also about a leadership group that would simply become another aristocratic group. I could not help but think about the arguments going on today about Federal versus States' rights.

 

But I also had to think that the Anti-Federalists' fears may have occurred, based on the current group of so called leaders in congress. They pretty much appear to feel they are above the rest of us, for the most part.

 

Of course, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists DID come to an agreement, or we would not be here today. They did something called "COMPROMISE". Where have I heard that word before?

[chaoman45 17]

Tea Partiers and Anti-Feds differ. Keep in mind the Tea Partiers generally oppose the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government, not necessarily their power (although they still don't want the feds getting out of hand). Anti-Feds were as you said.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Probably the most conspicuous failure of the constitution was the effort to enforce the idea of a limited Federal government by constitutional restrictions.

 

Those restrictions and limitations have mostly been ignored. Even Thomas Jefferson famously wrung his hands over the lack of constitutional authorization for making the Louisiana Purchase. In the end he ignored the lack of authorization and bought it anyway. That's been typical ever since, and the Supreme Court has usually been willing to ignore constitutional limitations on Federal power as well.

 

About the only limitations on Federal power are political, not constitutional. I think it's fair to say that the Tea Party has aimed to raise political objections to Federal power. Tough sledding though.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Most of the tea party folks I've talked to love to quote the Federalist Papers as if the Federalist Papers are some kind of biblical guide to the Constitution. I don't think most of them would even know what an Anti-Federalist was. So no, I don't believe they are throwbacks to the Anti-Federalists.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Calico,

 

 

The Federalist Papers pedaled the idea of structural limitations on Federal power that would limit the Federal government, even while constructing a much more robust and powerful government.

 

So I think it's plausible to quote the Federalist papers supporting the idea of a limited Federal Government based on specific, enumerated powers, even though those ideas have been a failure as a practical matter in limiting the growth of Federal power.

 

Just as an example, the President and Congress have approved sweeping new powers and roles for the Federal government in Obamacare. The only thing that might stand in the way of the Feds acquiring those sweeping new powers would be a Supreme Court decision declaring that unconstitutional.

 

The Tea Party has probably been the most active grass roots force opposing that kind of new Federal power. It's possible that view might prevail.

[BS-87 30]

Tea Partiers are probably more an "Anti-Progressive Party" than anything else. This is why they're just as focused on primarying Progressive Republicans as they are defeating Democrats in general election.

 

This is probably a relevant question considering Obama's recent outreach to the Progressive Party.

 

I think the Tea Party mentality is here to stay as a counterpoint to the Progressive Party mentality.

[Stosh 3452]

A lot of what is being discuss is the balance between the different governmental elements. The US Constitution left a lot of governmental control up to the states and local governments trying to keep the power in the hands of the people. The Federal government stayed quite small until that process was challenged during the American Civil War. How does State's Rights get defined. Since that time the Federal government has taken more and more away from the local and state governments and turned itself into a massive, wasteful bureaucracy. Local school boards used to determine what happened in their local schools. Now the bureaucracy reaches all the way to a bureaucratic entity controlled by the Federal government, something which was never envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Thousands of entitlement programs which were once controlled by local entities is now under the "guidance" of national programs, many of which are totally unaware of even who is being assisted.

 

The more the Federal government takes, the less ends up in the hands of the people. Whereas the original 13 states were in fact a confederation of multiple states with a common interest of military protection seated in the Federal government for the common protection of all, yet with each governor having his own army for the state's concerns. The vast majority of soldiers of the Civil War were members of state armies, not Federal soldiers. The US government had a standing army of 14,000 soldiers. States issued their own money as well.

 

Since 1865, there have been many changes in our form of governance, and not much of it has really been beneficial to the people. The Tea Party is only interested in getting back to the basics and getting the power of governance back in the hands of the people, not the bureaucracy of the Federal government. The idea of self-governance is a long lost ideal in today's society, but was the #1 concern of our Founding Fathers. The issue came to a head in the Civil War when the people of New York wanted to tell the people of Alabama what they could or could not do. Now we have carried that to the point where the Federal government feels it is within their power to tell each and every individual in American what they can and can't do (or even say). The Bill Rights does spell it out and yet the Federal government still picks away at even those rights. You can read about it in any newspaper published in America today.

 

"

 

 

"Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation's most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson's most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country."

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

Progressive? Or Protective?

 

De ja vue

 

Stosh