It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why don't Republicans follow the anti-federalist papers?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:06 PM
I've been reading the anti-federalist papers lately. I think that if Republicans in congress really believed in small-government and states rights would follow the anti-federalist papers and the articles of confederation based on their philosophy. I'm not saying this to downplay the Republican ideology. I just think it's weird that Republicans believe in federalism and the constitution when federalism and the constitution are against everything they stand for.

That's not to say that Republicans hate the constitution, but, it is almost as if they don't even know what the things they're saying even mean. Anti-federalism is more close to the ideology that they preach, and, if they said they were anti-federalists, I'd probably respect them more. I personally really like the anti-federalist papers myself and I think after reading the federalist papers and now reading the anti-federalist papers... most Republicans or at least conservatives who talk about the constitution don't necessarily know what they're talking about and are actually advocating something else! Check this out... this is an excerpt from the anti-federalist papers.

Antifederalist No. 12


"CINCINNATUS" is an Antifederalist writer. In this essay, from an Address to a Meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, the writer responds to James Wilson's statements about Congress' powers to tax under the Constitution. It appeared in the November 29 and December 6, 1787, New-York Journal, as reprinted from a Philadelphia newspaper.

On the subject of taxation, in which powers are to be given so largely by the new constitution, you [James Wilson of Pennsylvania] lull our fears of abuse by venturing to predict "that the great revenue of the United States must, and always will, be raised by impost"-and you elevate our hopes by holding out, "the reviving and supporting the national credit." If you have any other plan for this, than by raising money upon the people to pay the interest of the national debt, your ingenuity will deserve our thanks. Supposing however, that raising money is necessary to payment of the interest, and such a payment [is] requisite to support the credit of the union-let us see how much will be necessary for that end, and how far the impost will supply what we want. The arrearages of French and Spanish interest amount now to--1,500,000 dollars; Interest and installments of do. for 1788--850,227; Support of government; and its departments, for 1788--500,000; Arrears and anticipations of 1787-- 300,000; Interest of domestic debt-- 500,000 [total] 4,650,227 [3,650,227]

The new Congress then, supposing it to get into operation towards October, 1788, will have to provide for this sum, and for the additional sum of 3,000,000 at least for the ensuing year; which together will make the sum of 7,650,227 [6,650,227].

The present government promises nothing; the intended government, everything. From the present government little is expected; from the intended one, much. Because it is conceived that to the latter much is given; to the former, little. And yet the inability of the people to pay what is required in specie, remaining the same, the funds of the one will not much exceed those of the other. The public creditors are easy with the present government from a conviction of its inability [to pay]. They will be urgent with the new one from an opinion, that as is promised, so it can and will perform every thing. Whether the change will be for our prosperity and honor, is yet to be tried. Perhaps it will be found, that the supposed want of power in Congress to levy taxes is, at present a veil happily thrown over the inability of the people; and that the large powers given to the new government will, to every one, expose the nakedness of our land. Certain it is, that if the expectations which are grafted on the gift of those plenary powers, are not answered, our credit will be irretrievably ruined.

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:12 PM
Republicans and Democrats are one in the same, controlled by the same handlers.


posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Deebo

I think one of the things that first got me to really "wake up" was that during the 2008 election I was taking a poli-sci class and I was learning about different forms of government. I learned about what federalism was, which is the combination of the states and national government having power. John McCain was on TV and talking and he said he was a federalist. I was like, why did he call himself a federalist? Isn't he a states rights kind of guy? These people believe in the same philosophy and they try to all act that they're different from each other but they still promote the ideology that has corrupted and taken over our nation (I don't even know what ideology has corrupted our nation at this point).
edit on 15-3-2011 by Frankidealist35 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 11:10 PM
Good post, Frankidealist35. I too am a proponent of the Articles of Confederation, the documents the Constitution was taken from. Ben Franklin said, when asked about what was going on with the formation of America, "You have a Republic, if you can keep it." I too think the government should be held accountable for their actions, and un-actions. Time to rebuild America, not further tear her down. Dust off that Constitution, boys, the 1787 edition, and read it. Then proceed, know what your power is, and who gives it to you.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:24 AM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

"Why dont Repulicans follow the anti-federalist papers?"

For the very same reason a thief doesnt follow the written law that theft is illegal, or the US doesnt conform to it treaty obligations to not wage aggressive war and not torture.

No magic peice of paper will save you from being mugged in a dark ally just as no written word will restrain (for long) the exponential accumulation of violent power by a body given the monopolistic power of aggression. Try showing a copy of the Geneva convention to a US black site torturer, or the Constitution to GWB. (1 or 2, doesnt matter)

As long as the people consent to an entity that is enabled the evil and irrational *right* to attack others in a way no normal human could ever get away with, (government) the most evil and depraved will always flood to that entity and control it, as it provides the ideal enviroment for sociopaths and gives them the ability to initiate force without consequences. What murdered wouldnt want to control an army, what counterfitter wouldnt want to run the Fed. Who would limit their own power.

Sorry for the perhaps off topic and rambling post, but I just found the premise to be representive in a flaw in our modern thinking that is the root of almost all our problems - the belief that a person or group can be given the power of near infinite violence and be expected to self regulate, guided by what are surely sage words of dead people. Power, and those who seek it, dont give a **it about some old (and wise) papers, especially if those papers would limit their power.

new topics

top topics

log in