I really don’t understand how people can think that federalism is for limited government. Yes, it is limited up into the idea that the powers are defined to each branch of government but they did not seek to limit the amount of power that the actual government had.
I’ve been recently reading the anti-federalist papers and it makes clear just how much power that the constitution and the federalists sought to give the constitution. They wanted to expand to have a national government and to regulate commerce and the power of taxation and to rebel insurrections when they so pleased. It exposes how the founding fathers wanted an empire, and said rightfully so that the constitution wouldn’t make the country a better place. It also expoesd how the FFs originally said nothing about having a bill-of-rights.
if anything I think that the people who believe in small-government should be following the anti-federalists, and, not the vile people who were our founding fathers who turned our country into an oppressive aristocracy.
Actually, the constitution was originally pretty oppressive. The founding fathers other than James Madison did NOT mention anything about a bill of rights and the bill of rights was only a concession to the anti-federalists that showed that the constitution could lead us to the same path of tyranny that the confederacy did, and was not a remedy for our problems.
I believe the main thesis of the anti-federalist papers (I’m only on the tenth essay now) is that the constitution allows for tyranny and does little to prevent it. The founding fathers were only interested in vesting more control and power over the nation itself and that it would be worse than the present situation. That’s my understanding. Can someone else who knows a bit more than me fill in and elucidate a bit?
The scary part is that Hamilton the nationalist wanted even more power the current U.S. Constitution document. He argued against having a Bill of Rights, which the anti-federalists (thank God) insisted on including before signing. However, I really don’t know why states like Rhode Island and Virginia even signed it.
Without the anti-federalist influence, we would all be a lot more lost now…if that’s even possible. The nationalists (who deceptively referred to themselves as the federalists, though federalism was what they were against), if I recall correctly, wanted a president who was elected by a senate, the senate of which was elected by the house, and the house elected by the people.
The federalists argued that the flexibility of the Constitution allowed for the people to have an active role in changing it as needed due to representation.
Basically, they changed America from a confederation to a nation, and they forced the states to join their nationalist policies and America has slowly slipped into the despotic state it’s currently experiencing.
today if someone says that they are an anti-federalist, they want MORE centralized power. I think thats a good way of showing how far the debate (or at least language) has moved.
That’s awesome that you’re reading the Anti-Federalist Papers. They really lay out how America was supposed to function and how Alexander Hamilton ruined the true American vision.
You’re spot on in saying that people who believe in small government need to be quoting the anti-federalists versus the federalists. The federalists ruined our country with big government. During the time of the Articles of Confederation, states had supreme authority over themselves; now we’re all on this big raft and it’s going over the edge of a waterfall.
Good post, keep reading them and make another post soon with more details. People need to really learn about the anti-federalists because they are never mentioned but esoterically.
Rhode Island signed it because they were forced to after the Constitution was illegaly ratified. They faced economic sanctions by the nationalists if they didn’t ratify the Constitution.