The Founders vs. The Republican Party

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 12:30:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Josh Marshall writes:

If you read about how the federal constitution came about, one thing is crystal clear: it was devised by people who wanted to create a strong federal government and saw the states as obstacles to doing so. The people who believed in states rights and an anemic federal government — the ancestors of today’s Tea Party — were the Anti-Federalists. And they lost.

Regular readers know this: see The Republican Party, The Anti-Federalists And The Tea Parties, Taking The Tenth Amendment Seriously, The Tea Party v. Alexander Hamilton, What The Tea Party Believes, What The Founders Believed and David Brooks' Dishonest Invocation of Alexander Hamilton.

Marshall reports on the somewhat more honest GOP attempts to reinstate the Articles of Confederation. Marshall writes:

[N]ow it seems that anti-federal government thought has become so powerful and accepted that it’s finally ready to come out of the Anti-Federalist closet and embrace its true heritage: The Articles of Confederation, the failed union of sovereign states the federal constitution was hatched to replace.

In her latest column, Amity Shlaes proposed a major reversion to the Articles of the Confederation model: removing the federal government’s ability to tax individuals and replacing it with a claim on states. In other words, devolving the taxing power to the states. And the idea actually appears to come from none other than Kevin Hassett, one of Mitt Romney’s economic advisors.

Whatever else, getting the real identities of the players in the ‘federalism’ debate is a very positive development.

Yes indeed, understanding the anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution arguments embraced by Republicans is important and needs to be discussed often. Romney and Republicans support the Articles of Confederation. They are anti-Federalists.

Obama and Democrats support the Constitution. They are the heirs to the Founders.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | TARP and the Incompetence of Tim Geithner >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Founders vs. The Republican Party | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Should the Federalist Socity have named (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:10:50 PM EST

itself the "Articles of Confederation Society"?

Hooey (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 12:59:02 PM EST

They didn't lose. There was something called a compromise.

Nope (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:00:07 PM EST

They opposed ratification of the Constitution.

See The Anti-Federalist Papers.

You are incorrect Jim.


But thanks to the Anti-Federalists (none / 0) (#4)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:12:27 PM EST

Which Marshall seems to ignore, is that they are responsible for that tiny little technicality called the Bill of Rights, which came out of the Massachuesetts Compromise.

Without that, there would have been no ratification of the Constitution at that time, or maybe ever.


Tell that to the modern day (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:16:50 PM EST

anti-Federalists.

I'm sure they love Miranda rights.


But that's not what Marshall wrote (none / 0) (#8)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:28:55 PM EST

He wrote and you quoted:

If you read about how the federal constitution came about, one thing is crystal clear: it was devised by people who wanted to create a strong federal government and saw the states as obstacles to doing so. The people who believed in states rights and an anemic federal government -- the ancestors of today's Tea Party -- were the Anti-Federalists. And they lost.

Which is not completely true. The Anti-Federalists got their individual rights ratified in the Constitution. Today's Anti-Federalists (conservatives)(which are now the Federalist Society) aren't anything like those of the time of ratification - just as the Federalists are nothing like today's liberals.


: You're wrong (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:42:30 PM EST

The Constitution was in fact written by such people. That they compromised on the Bill of Rights does not alter the fact they wrote the Constitution.
The discussion of federal government power starts with the Constitution. Once you understand that the power created a strong federal government, then we can discuss what limits the Bill of Rights placed on that power.
Thus, as Hamilton wrote:

In entering upon the argument, it ought to be premised that the objections of the Secretary of State and Attorney General are founded on a general denial of the authority of the United States to erect corporations. The latter, indeed, expressly admits, that if there be anything in the bill which is not warranted by the Constitution, it is the clause of incorporation.
Now it appears to the Secretary of the Treasury that this general principle is inherent in the very definition of government, and essential to every step of progress to be made by that of the United States, namely: That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.
This principle, in its application to government in general, would be admitted as an axiom; and it will be incumbent upon those who may incline to deny it, to prove a distinction, and to show that a rule which, in the general system of things, is essential to the preservation of the social order, is inapplicable to the United States.
The circumstance that the powers of sovereignty are in this country divided between the National and State governments, does not afford the distinction required. It does not follow from this, that each of the portion of powers delegated to the one or to the other, is not sovereign with regard to its proper objects. It will only follow from it, that each has sovereign power as to certain things, and not as to other things. To deny that the government of the United States has sovereign power, as to its declared purposes and trusts, because its power does not extend to all cases would be equally to deny that the State governments have sovereign power in any case, because their power does not extend to every case. The tenth section of the first article of the Constitution exhibits a long list of very important things which they may not do. And thus the United States would furnish the singular spectacle of a political society without sovereignty, or of a people governed, without government.
If it would be necessary to bring proof to a proposition so clear, as that which affirms that the powers of the federal government, as to its objects, were sovereign, there is a clause of its Constitution which would be decisive. It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, shall be the serene law of the land. The power which can create the supreme law of the land in any case, is doubtless sovereign as to such case.
Now, what restrictions on this broad power are encompassed in the Bill of Rights? The First Amendment is well known. The 2nd Amendment has been construed novelly recently. The 3rd is clear, though an anachronism. The 4th, see Terry etc. The 5th, see Miranda. The 6th, see Gideon. The 7th, see juries. The 8th, well that's mostly a dead letter, but in theory it prohibit cruel and unusual punishments. The 9th? I'm sure the modern day anti-Federalists LOVE it. NOT.
And the immortal Tenth, which says those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the People or the States.
There is the big concession. Except, it is not. It says nothing.
A textualist can not defend the federalism arguments the Court has adopted.
It is triumph of the anti-Federalist through judicial fiat.
Such is politics.

I wouldn't call James Madison (none / 0) (#6)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:24:00 PM EST

a strict "Anti-Federalist" at the time of the composing of the Bill of Rights. Does anyone?


Except (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:26:52 PM EST

It was John Hancock and Samuel Adams that worked out the compromise.


Any way you slice it (none / 0) (#9)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:29:43 PM EST

"the Anti-Federalists were responsible" (as in solely) is a bit of a heavy-handed gloss on history.


"Heavy handed gloss of history" (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:34:24 PM EST

to say the Anti-Federalists lost and to "get over it".


That's the truth (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:43:23 PM EST

They anti-Federalists opposed ratification, with or without Bill of Rights.

I'm sorry that you are having a problem with that fact.


And yet (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:49:23 PM EST

they agreed to ratification when their demands for the Bill of Rights was accepted. And it was ratified.

Not sure if you understand but most legislation, is a product of compromise. And yes, even the Constitution itself, was a product of compromise too, which means both sides get some of what they want and have to give up other stuff.

And without the agreement of the Anti-Federalists, there would have been no Constitution.


No they did not agree (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:53:26 PM EST

Why do you keep saying that? You are wrong.


If htey did not agree (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:54:32 PM EST

then why would they vote to ratify it?

Your comment makes no sense.

They didn't have to like in its entirety what they were ratifying - but they still voted for it.


They did not vote for it (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:57:45 PM EST

They were defeated by narrow majorities.

You make it sound like there was a unanimous vote in favor. As I just demonstrated to you, there was no such vote.

Indeed, the constitution was barely ratified in New York and Virginia, critical states to the ratification of the Constitution.


I didn't say it was unanimous (none / 0) (#22)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:03:25 PM EST

You are reading something into my words that plainly isn't there.

But with the compromise, they were able to convince enough Anti-Federalists to vote for ratification because of the addition of the Bill of Rights.

And Virginia won by 10 votes and North Carolina was not even close with an overwhelming majority voting for ratification.


Also (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:04:44 PM EST

Massachussetts, South Carolina, and Maryland weren't close either. NewHampshire also passed with 10 votes to spare.


: Proving what in your mind? (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:09:26 PM EST

Did not convince many (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:08:57 PM EST

The point being, that MOST anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution.

Your argument is like saying getting Olympia Snowe to vote for the stimulus is the equivalent of Republicans supporting the stimulus.

In short, your argument is ridiculous.


So? (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:46:31 PM EST

They ALL didn't

The Anti-Federalists actually had clear majorities in a number of states, but were out organized and didn't have as well known spokesmen as the Federalists.

And yet, they still convinced enough of them to vote to ratify.

The Federalist Party died in 1824. Yet, some of the Anti-Federalist's beliefs are still with us today:

Even in defeat the Antifederalists managed to score a number of lasting victories. Most notably they forced an extensive, wide-ranging, at times highly detailed debate over the proposed Constitution's underlying assumptions as well as over the meaning of its many specific and often terse provisions. The fears Antifederalists expressed in many instances forced Federalists to publicly retreat from positions they may otherwise have desired.

SNIP

Another Antifederalist legacy is the Bill of Rights (1791). Few of the Constitution's features generated more persistent and widespread criticism than its failure to include a genuine enumeration of liberties, an omission that stood in stark contrast to the constitutions of the states. Certain Federalist leaders, notably Alexander Hamilton, Madison, and Wilson, replied that a bill of rights was irrelevant on the grounds of popular sovereignty.

The Antifederalist inheritance lingers in the idea of a loyal opposition. By engaging in the ratification process so fully, the Constitution's opponents paradoxically legitimated it, making it far more difficult to reject whatever outcome the final votes produced. Washington's election as president and Congress's approval of the Bill of Rights, however flawed, further set Antifederalist minds at ease. Rather than resist the new government, those who had argued against its adoption therefore chose to seek their goals within its framework.

Instead, it was in their writings, understandings, and rhetoric that the Antifederalists endured--in certain respects, even into the twenty-first century. Historians generally agree that their views contributed heavily to Jeffersonian and Jacksonian thought. Antifederalist concerns also emerged in later dissenting traditions, including elements of the Progressive movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Since the New Deal (1933-1941), fears of a too-powerful, too-distant federal government have also echoed the Antifederalists' original concerns. Ironically, later advocates of state power and democratic accountability often invoked the Federalists rather than their true forebears. In this the Antifederalists continued to lose, even as they won.

So, who lost?


: The anti Federalists lost (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:54:38 PM EST

The y opposed the ratification of the Constitution.
That they continued to fight does not change that fact.

FTR (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:56:14 PM EST

"The votes in Virginia and New York were hard-won, and close. Virginia voted 89-79, and New York, a month later, voted 30-27 to ratify."

Who were those nay votes in your mind?


one wild swing calls for another, eh? (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:53:04 PM EST

You would know (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:53:28 PM EST

nice comeback, Hannah Montana (none / 0) (#18)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:55:51 PM EST

The funny thing is (none / 0) (#21)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 01:58:51 PM EST

You never add any substance to any post. What are you - 13 years old and in your parents' basement?

Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion?


you're the final arbiter of substance? (1.00 / 1) (#26)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:42:22 PM EST

I already pointed out, quite accurately I believe, that your bit about the Anti-Federalists being responsible for The Bill of Rights was a gross, over-reaching historical distortion, and I did it without chewing up a good third of the thread as you chronically do.


Naw (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:47:17 PM EST

You do that calling jim names.


yeah, I knew (none / 0) (#31)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:57:43 PM EST

that's what it was really about..

Upset about the rough treatment that the other conservative who posts here gets sometimes..


Right (none / 0) (#32)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:58:36 PM EST

'Cuz I agree with Jim on so many things.

((rolls eyes).


No, it's more that you so reflexively (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Anne on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 03:21:21 PM EST

disagree with certain commenters, and with BTD.

I've been guilty of doing it myself - ABG comes to mind, for me - it's a battle of the last word that no one ever wins.

You aren't going to convince BTD that you're right and he's wrong, so there may not be much point in trying.


You two are getting tiresome. (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 03:01:02 PM EST

: Sorry. (none / 0) (#34)
by jbindc on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 03:03:50 PM EST

Not a Bad Idea (none / 0) (#29)
by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 02:50:11 PM EST

In her latest column, Amity Shlaes proposed a major reversion to the Articles of the Confederation model: removing the federal government's ability to tax individuals and replacing it with a claim on states.

Just kidding, but the idea of getting ride of DoD, DEA, and the IRS does have a certain appeal. I presume step two is annexing the Cayman Island for the super rich and making the tax rate zero.

Seriously, I would love to hear how a country is run without a Federal Tax.

: Getting rid of DoD (none / 0) (#36)
by sj on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 04:26:12 PM EST

and DEA sound fine. But I actually believe that paying taxes is one's contribution to a civilized society, so I'm fine with IRS.
Conceptually.