New Political Party Forming: The Anti-Federalist Party

And it's about time! We need a real option otherthan Dem Rep and the plethora of 3rd parties!

Some of the platform points:

We do not pretend, nor claim, that we have reached the point in our Republic where the actions undertaken by the brave Founders of this nation must, or should, be repeated. Indeed, it is the sincere hope of all who claim to be Anti-Federalists that such circumstances will never again arise in America.

We do, however, believe in the essence of 1776, and the promise of America, as expressed in The Declaration:

*

That all men (and women) are created equal.
*

That rights are not endowed or granted by government, but are unalienable and vested as a consequence of personhood, and thus can only be protected (or abrogated) by government.
*

That government exists as a lawful and just enterprise only so long as it acts with the consent of the governed.
*

That our Constitution is black letter law, not a list of suggestions.
*

That The Constitution sets forth a limited form of Federal Government, reserving most functions to The States and The People.
* That we must return to this form of limited Federal Government in order to preserve our liberties, our economy, and our national sovereignty.

Full Platform

Main Page

FAQ's

If you agree with the platform, please consider joining this party

They even have a Facebook Page

well it's about frickin time!

hope some good comes out of it

What's with the 10 political parties all saying the same thing?

Not that I have any expressed disagreement with these people but what makes them different from Libertarians, Constitutionalusts, Reform Party, America First Party, even the roots of the Republican Party?

Constantly re-branding the same ideology isnt going to get the like-minded together in the numbers needed to bring about change. It's just another pointless division like a high school clique.

Why would you have a facebook page?? Its monitored by the Gov??

Its a set up!!

reply to post by redhatty


This is a decent idea, but hard to take seriously. They referred to "unalienable" instead of "inalienable" which is a miss-read from the Declaration of Independence and a significant difference in meaning.

Thus in discussion of social contract theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. However, many social contract theorists reasoned that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Thus people form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to the authority to protect them from abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that authority.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, the sarcasm about the Constitution being "Black letter" and not a list of "suggestions" make this party hard to take seriously.

Too bad though, because it is a decent idea. Their efforts would probably be better suited energizing the Constitution Party and recruiting for it, or at this point, a hostile takeover of the Republican party seems relatively easy. I am sure the MSM and common voter would appreciate a revamping of an existing party that we could get behind in force!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Not that I have any expressed disagreement with these people but what makes them different from Libertarians, Constitutionalusts, Reform Party, America First Party, even the roots of the Republican Party?

Constantly re-branding the same ideology isnt going to get the like-minded together in the numbers needed to bring about change. It's just another pointless division like a high school clique.

I guess you didn't read the platform and then compared it against the platforms of the other parties you list.

It takes a bit of "doing your own homework" to see what the difference is

reply to post by getreadyalready


That may have been a typo, and I am quite certain that there is absolutely no sarcasm in there, they mean it when they say "black letter" and not a list of suggestions

reply to post by redhatty


This page here?

anti-federalist.org...

I read it.

So what's the difference?

All of these limited fed parties are the same. If aligning yourself with this particular label makes you happy that's fine. Just when the time comes to vote for liberty don't let some petty label prevent you from doing what's right.

Edit to add:

I suppose you are referencing this from their FAQ page

Why not support and build one of the existing third parties instead?
Bluntly, there isn't one that is focused on what we believe the essential elements of a political party in the current environment must be: Freedom and The return of our nation to its Constitutional form of government, in which most functions are held by The States or The People, respectively.

Well, as far as valid reasons and worthwhile information go this answer to a frequenly asked question is void of any real information.

I can say "Blunty, redhatty just doesnt support your liberty as much as I do" and anyone who runs with that as information is an ass. Likely the type of individual who goes around clicking pop-ups for their "valuable information."

[edit on 20-5-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

That may have been a typo, and I am quite certain that there is absolutely no sarcasm in there, they mean it when they say "black letter" and not a list of suggestions

It may have been a typo, but it is a pretty significant one to leave in your platform when you are talking about running a country. Albeit the current parties are not doing a very thorough job themselves.

I agree with you that they are not intentionally being sarcastic, but the verbage comes from some redneck bumper stickers and truckstop t-shirts. God-"The ten commandments...I meant those seriously" Constitution-"More than a list of suggestions."

I am not disparaging the movement, just suggesting that if it is a serious movement, they should polish their stuff a little more before going public, and maybe hire an ad company or a professional press agent. It is easy to get lost or discounted in the sea of politics, and such simple mistakes could hamstring them before they ever get moving!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


One major difference is this:

Social Programs and Entitlements

The Federal Government is not empowered to pass or maintain social and entitlement programs including but not limited to Social Security, Medicare, Farm Aid, block grants, and Welfare such as AFDC and WIC.

The Preamble to The Constitution often is cited as justification for such programs; it reads:

"We the People of The United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for The United States Of America."

The Preamble is a general statement of principles and confers no powers. Further, it clearly states that The Constitution exists to promote the general welfare, not provide for the general welfare. As none of the enumerated powers provide a delegation of the power necessary to create these programs they are clearly unconstitutional. In addition these programs have been mismanaged and abused; indeed, it has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court that Social Security is not a retirement program or escrow for the benefit of the retiree, but is merely a tax!

These programs must be closed down at the Federal level, protecting those currently receiving benefits when possible, with The States becoming responsible for the operation, revenue raising and distribution of these programs under their own State Constitutions and body of State Law.

Our opposition to these programs at a federal level does not signal opposition to the provision of social assistance and entitlements. On the contrary; the States are the proper place for enactment and administration of such programs, as the closer to the end beneficiary of such a program is funding and administration the more accountability and efficiency will be attained. Further, States should have the right to determine what benefits they wish to provide along with levying the taxation necessary to support them.

As just one example of many if "Social Security" was a state-run program it would inherently be personally vested in the retiree, since people move from state to state and they would demand portability and personal ownership of contributed funds and their earnings.

Galveston Texas provides an excellent example of how a "Social Security" type retirement program can (and should) work.

As well as the Tax Code, Education, the banking system/monetary policy

That's 4 major differences, I won't spoon feed you any more

reply to post by redhatty


I'm going to assume you have no idea what Libertarians, Constitutionalists, America First or any of these other parties are because what you cited as a "difference" is nearly verbatim the same for all of these parties.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I know both the Libertarian and Constitution parties quite well, having been an active member of each of them in my life.

I admit to not being familiar with America First party

The Constitution party's stance on Social Security is:

Social Security

The Declaration of Independence declares "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:

1. Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
* For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
2. General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.

Social Security is a form of individual welfare not authorized in the Constitution.

The Constitution grants no authority to the federal government to administrate a Social Security system. The Constitution Party advocates phasing out the entire Social Security program, while continuing to meet the obligations already incurred under the system. Until the current Social Security system can be responsibly phased out, we propose that:

* The Social Security tax not be a "rainy day" fund which politicians can pirate, or from which they can borrow to cover their errors and pay for their excesses.
* Individuals who have contributed to Social Security be allowed to withdraw those funds and transfer them into an IRA or similar investments under the control of the individual contributor.
* Any sort of merger between the U.S. Social Security System and that of any foreign country be banned, so the distribution of benefits will not go to persons who have not qualified for payments under American law as legal residents.
* Earning limitations on persons aged 62 and over be removed, so that they may earn any amount of additional income without placing their benefits at risk.
* Those provisions of the Social Security system which penalize those born during the "notch years" between 1917 and 1926 be repealed, and that such persons be placed on the same benefit schedules as all other beneficiaries.

We support the right of individuals to choose between private retirement and pension programs, either at their place of employment or independently.

source

and their position on welfare is:

Welfare

The Declaration of Independence declares "all men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ..."

The Preamble of the US Constitution shows how these rights are to be secured including "provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".

Two clear distinctions should be made here:

1. Provide implies actively and financially supporting, promote implies a more passive approach.
* For example, I'll promote that we put on a grand feast, but I want you to provide it!
2. General Welfare is not the same as individual Welfare. General Welfare would benefit the people generally; individual Welfare targets a certain segment of society to benefit, such as the poor.

Providing Individual Welfare is not authorized in the Constitution.

God, who endows us with life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue happiness, also exhorts individuals to care for the needy, the sick, the homeless, the aged, and those who are otherwise unable to care for themselves.

America's welfare crisis is a government-induced crisis. Government social and cultural policies have undermined the work ethic, even as the government's economic and regulatory policies have undermined the ability of our citizens to obtain work.

Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of these United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens. Neither should taxpayers be indentured to subsidize welfare for persons who enter these United States illegally.

The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft.

We encourage individuals, families, churches, civic groups and other private organizations, to fulfill their personal responsibility to help those in need.

The Anti-Federalist Party platform clearly says that these entitlement programs are completely within the realm of the state, to decide if it will have & to administer, that the federal gov should have NOTHING AT ALL to do with them.

and the Libertarians view:

Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

Libertarian party on Welfare

Again, a difference, nothing about state's rights, but a push to charitable orgs.

Libertarians on taxes
Constitution party on taxes

again major difference - no mention of the fair tax

The main platform of the Anti-Federalist Party is that the power of the Federal Government should be STRICTLY limited to those powers granted to it by the Constitution, all other power belongs to the States.

but if you think that the platform is simply recycled from other parties, you are free to do so, I would hope that you would reserve your right to vote until you actually understand the differences better.


[edit on 5/20/09 by redhatty]

Hi guys,

Too bad this thread didn't get more popular. You all seem to have a better understanding of the different parties than me, but I have an idea, and hopefully you guys can help. All the parties you mentioned share some fundamentalist views. As you said, even the core of the Republican party shares this stance. Why don't they organize and collaborate to push some key individuals into positions of power. I don't know if it would be by combining some parties, creating a new one, or making some collaboration agreement to support one-another's candidates. Each party is too weak, but in combination, along with heavy recruiting within the Republican party, I think they could push some people into power. Maybe a coalition is in order. My original idea was similar to Thomas Payne's "Common Sense." We can call it the "Modern Sense Coalition." The parties can push US Reps, State Reps, apply their limited power where it will be most useful, and then attack the bigger prize of Senate, Governor, and President.

Grass-roots worked well for Obama, but not for Ron Paul. We have to mimic the success of Jesse Ventura in MN, and Obama across the nation. Ron Paul is the obvious point man.

Surely all these parties have enough in common to see the benefit in joining such a movement?!?

jjkenobi

Member



Registered: 29-9-2008
Location: Indiana

Mood: Improving
Total posts:333
Total points:1,471
Member was on ATS
41 minutes ago.





Ignore this user (info)
ignore



posted on 19-5-2009 @ 07:57 AM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:


It's very interesting the GOP is losing members yet the polls are showing increased support for core conservative beliefs/values. I suspect all the GOP needs is a younger fresher face (ala BHO) to step up to the plate and attract people back to the party.

Gallup Poll - "More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time".

PEW - Public Takes Conservative Turn on Gun Control, Abortion.

Rasmussen Poll - "75% Believe Constitution Guarantees Right To Own a Gun".

Rassmussen - "40% would vote for their district's Republican while 39% would choose the Democrat".

Rasmussen - Over 60% of voters view Nancy Pelosi unfavorably. (It's in a video hopefully the link is ok). Yet she is one of the main Democratic mouth pieces.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

More info about what the people actually want, and why people are leaving the Republican party despite increases in conservative values.