0 votes

Why are we supporting the federalists' vision of America?

I've been reading Kenneth W. Royce's book Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Goverment.

It's been a shocking expose of the widespread deception, lies, and trickery used by the federalists to get the Constitution ratified. It reminds me of how the bailout was passed in late 2008...

This seems to be kinda of a hidden history--I rarely hear anyone in the liberty movement talk about this.

So, if we take this into account, shouldn't we be siding with the anti-federalists and their more libertarian Articles of Confederation?

Discuss.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

one of my top 5 books!!!!!

Great book....simply put.

Speaking from the edge of the rabbit hole

I never delved into this but was aware there was something amiss. I had an mini-epiphany when someone pointed out that the Constitution was never voted on, and is a contract between a few specific signatories. In my heart, I believe the answer is Individual Sovereignty, but I would compromise with the sleeple at the Constitution. To get them from the love of Democracy all the way to self-governance is probably a bridge too far. But you point out one of the things that has caused me to conclude there is no fixing this problem with a ballot. The "Great Men" turn out to be a long line of willing puppets and keepers of secrets.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

The concerns of the Anti-Federalists have been justified

In the Anti-Federalists Papers, there are a couple of sections in the introduction that I highly recommend. 1 is on Federalist thought and the other is on Anti-Federalist thought. It is very telling because you clearly come away with the realization that the concerns the anti-federalists had (which were responsible for the creation of the Bill of Rights) were obviously justified, when examining the events of the past 230 + years through the lens of history. The only reason the Anti-Federalists finally voted for the Constitution is that they knew they were going to get their Bill of Rights. Unfortunately over the centuries We the People did not enforce the Constitution, or the Bill of rights (a list of "shall not's" to restrain government from intruding upon our rights, freedoms, and liberties). The Federalist drive for commerce, money, power, expansion, and empire, needs to be checked.

John C Calhoun noted the battle

at the Constitutional Convention between the nationalist (Patrick Henry called them consolidationist) and federalist forces. The nationalists, Hamilton was one, wanted to reduce the states to mere provinces making the central government preeminent. The federalists wanted to create a central government with delegated powers. It would be the agent of the states.
The federalists prevailed but it was only time until federalist would morph into nationalist. Henry clearly saw this and opposed the Constitution. He saw they were trying to create an American version of the British Empire. He chided them when he said the Federalists wanted an army and navy as large as Britain's.
The central government would have taxing power, and was the judge of its own power. By hook and by crook they became what they are today.

But how were the people supposed to?

Unfortunately over the centuries We the People did not enforce the Constitution, or the Bill of rights (a list of "shall not's" to restrain government from intruding upon our rights, freedoms, and liberties).

It seems to me that the State had a large advantage over pro-liberty citizens who were trying to check its power. I mean, the State had the power to tax. With that money they could raise a standing army that could protect themselves from uprisings (ie. Whiskey Tax Rebellion, Civil War, etc) .

Once a group of individuals has enough power that it is successfully able to take money by force (or threat thereof)... watch out! I think Royce amply shows that the Constitution wasn't meant to stay limited--it was not created by freedom lovers. So, I agree that "we the people" didn't restrain the government. But I can't fault them, because I don't think they had a realistic shot at doing so.

Is Federalism Equivalent To Constitutionalism?

......or is it a particular spin.....a la Hamilton or Neo-conism? In reading a promotional for Mark Levin's (gag (*&(&)((&), I notice it speaks of his emphasis Federalism AND Constitutionalism. What's up? I've also noticed he has reached #1 in book sales on Amazon. He also has a couple hundred more reviews than Ron Paul has. I'm thinking I should read the book, as nauseating as it feels, but I hardly want to add to his numbers. The book is everywhere. Has anyone read it that might be able to provide an objective overview. Is it supposed to be a neo-con refutation of Dr. Paul's book. I know Levin does not speak favorably of the good Dr.

Federalism means states

Federalism means states rights basically.

Ventura 2012

Federalism

The Constitution was the rational for the big-government.

No

I think Constitutionalists and Libertarians exemplify and share many of the concerns for over-reaching federal power. I would say they are probably closer to Anti-Federalist thought. I haven't read Levin's book, but am also curious. It is probably another neo-con attempt at hijacking the Revolution.

The Bill of Rights

protects us from the Constitution. The Federalists Papers are considered evolution from Plato's Republic. Now that there are no more "new worlds" the stage is set for global government or global war.

How well though does it protect us?

It didn't stop the big-government Federalists' new government from having the power of taxation for example.

Individual states had the

Individual states had the power to tax even before the constitution. Obviously the rule of law is only as strong as those who vigilantly guard it, something that even Rothbard's vaporous "libertarian law" required.

Ventura 2012

decentralization

Government needs competition. As long as people can move from state to state and hide money in the best states, then the government can't own the people.

A central Federal government has hurt the new world in my opinion.

1) destroy the Federal government
2) destroy the States

#2 is more of an afterthought though. If we had more decentralized competing government things would be fine.

That's true

But two wrongs don't make a right. The individual states should not have signed onto the trans-national government of the Articles of Confederation + the Constitution.

HARVARD has no edge on insight

THE " RIGHT to SECESSION is just that a RIGHT ,no better than the people who enforce that secession ..Remember the Civil War ...You people need to wake up out of your sleep...(Everything) is on paper & paper doesn't enforce anything,,PEOPLE do ..The REV. War was on paper but it was the enforsement of the paper that made it worth anything..WE have Rights galore ,are they worth anything ???SO your bantying words on paper no matter what, back to square 1...The FED GOV't is a lot better equiped to enforce "it's" will on the States than the reverse..Just like the Civil War...You better get with your GOVERNORS and plan ahead if you intend a secession some day...AND whose hip pocket do you suppose your leaders are subject to??The progressives plan to take the Country ,"LEGALLY"...STACK the deck of voters & all is well ..Reference the past election & you can see for yourself....Federalist or not it doesn't matter ..What matters is the LINE...This is what the REP PARTY lost sight of ..There is no compromise with the devil...NO middle ground ,otherwise you become your enemy....
AKA: ARLAN SPECTOR ,NUFFsaid
you-no

We arent supporting the

We arent supporting the constitution because its "pick your fav old document lulz" day, we support it because it is the law of the land. As far as principles, the constitution isnt perfect but its close.

Ventura 2012

Law of the land?

According to which theory of law? Definitely not natural law.

Social contract, which is a

Social contract, which is a screwed up theory but whaddyagonnado

Ventura 2012

Well,

one can be a minarchist and oppose the Federalists' Constitution. That's the position I would take if I was a minarchist.

The Constitution is fine.

The Constitution is fine. Its the best weapon we have. If we attack it, who will defend it? Then the government will REALLY run hog-wild over it.

Ventura 2012

The Constitution is fine?

Well I'd say it is if you like political documents that were subtly designed to give us big government. And I would differ that's it's the best weapon that liberty people have. I think things like the FSP (which could eventually turn into seceding from the rule of said Constitution) might be the best.

If we attack it, who will defend it?

I'm sure they'll be a bunch of people who will.

Then the government will REALLY run hog-wild over it.

I don't think so. Attacking the Constitution doesn't mean stopping to defend liberty. In fact, I'd say that if once we start seeing the deceptional nature of the Constitution for what it is, we will be able to better defend liberty + oppose the State.

I disagree 100% with

I disagree 100% with everything you said. Don't you understand that libertarians in other countries would kill(figure of speech) to have a constitution like we have? Why look a gift horse in the mouth?

Ventura 2012

Yes, that's true

that others would kill to have it. I'm not sure what your point is though. Are you saying that we shouldn't try for something better than the Federalists' big government document just because others would kill to have it?

Yes, because our

Yes, because our Constitution is the best that we've seen. It is sufficiently malleable if it needs to be adjusted. We will always have government, so why not pick the best one. You have to understand that minarchists do not think that anarchy in the long run is possible and therefore remove it from our minds.

Ventura 2012

"We will always have government"?

I don't think that can be said with certainty...

The Constitution means

whatever SCOTUS says it means, that's the reality. We can read it, worship it, try to understand its meaning. In the end it doesn't matter what we think, only what SCOTUS thinks. They call it a "living constitution", meaning the court can change it at will without the amending process. The Constitution is a dead letter, has been for a long time. To support the Constitution means no more than the support of SCOTUS. Statists of all types understand this. What did G W Bush say, "it's only a goddamn piece of paper"? Those of us who support freedom need to understand the truth of his statement. D.C. made it that way.

Look at his link and read

The comments.

If I had to choose

between the Bill of Rights and the Right to Secede I would choose the latter. Without the right to secede all other rights are impossible.

We have the right to secede

It's called a gun and some grit.

Up past you bed time

Go to sleep. You might miss the Saturday morning cartoons. We know how sad you get if you miss them.

Anti-constitution? What is a world without a constitution? Monarchy.