The Federalists

I get a lot of visitors wanting to know more about the Federalists. I’ve decided to take some time and supply them with answers. The first form of a constitution this country ever had was the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation lasted from 1781 to 1789 until the U.S. Constitution replaced it. The Articles of Confederation had multiple flaws: 1) It couldn’t raise money by the collection of taxes. 2) It could not force the States to comply with the laws. 3) The Articles were practically impossible to amend. One of my favorite rebellions called Shay’s Rebellion contributed to the formation of the U.S. Constitution. In 1786-1787 less than a few thousand rebel farmers including Daniel Shays stormed courthouses to protest economic conditions such as high property tax, and the poll tax. The Congress of the Confederation failed to raise a force to put an end to the rebellion, so Massachusetts had to raise a private force which did the job. After another series of incidents like Shay’s rebellion, and outrage from men like George Washington, a Constitutional Convention assembled.

During the Constitutional Convention there were many debates, but the fiercest debate of all was whether to guarantee inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and property in the Constitution. The Federalists argued against including such rights in the Constitution for many reasons. Though they all agreed on the basic inalienable rights mentioned above they feared that the basic inalienable rights not mentioned would not be protected. If one basic right (that we all take for granted) is not included, then would it not be a right? They wanted simplicity, but mostly they wanted State Constitutions to protect the rights of its citizens. If States have their own legislative branch, then surely there would be disagreements from one State to another. The Federalists didn’t want a big national government that gives no flexibility to the States. Thus they were for small (limited) government. Folks that took charge of the Federalist arguments were men like James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

The Federalists practically won the Constitutional Convention, but later James Madison (a representative from Virginia at this time) drafted a Bill of Rights which would be amended to the Constitution. This upset many Federalists, but they still admired Madison. Why would Madison do such a thing? He loved States’ Rights, but there were some things he felt they just couldn’t exclude from their Constitutions. James Madison was a big advocate of property rights, gun rights, and other rights he hoped States wouldn’t exclude, so he drafted The Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) pleased the disappointed Federalists, it reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the Constitution isn’t the place for a laundry list of rights.

Contrary to popular belief Thomas Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution. He had nothing to do with it. He was a friend of the Federalists, but couldn’t fully subscribe to their ideas. Between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists, Thomas Jefferson probably leaned toward Federalist. He was a friend of James Madison. Jefferson said many great things, but also said many foolish things (especially about religion). Jefferson and the Federalists believed in strict Constitutional interpretation. It’s actually not that strict but far stricter than any other interpretation offered by anyone. Jefferson and the Federalists feared some Judges would misinterpret the Constitution, so to combat this Jefferson and the Federalists believed that Judges should discover the meaning behind the text. “The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law” (Thomas Jefferson, 1808). “Originalists,” or “Constructionists” believe in the above mentioned means of interpretation. The other means of interpreting the Constitution (offered by today’s liberals) is that the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” As I try to be nonpartisan, I believe the “living breathing” interpretation argument is that the Constitution is flexible toward rights that have been newly discovered or didn’t exist in full capacity during the time of the framers. Folks that have adopted this particular means of interpreting the Constitution use the Amendment process as an argument that the framers wanted it to be interpreted this way. But as I mentioned earlier the framers wanted the States to decide rights not mentioned nor prohibited by the Constitution, and not Justices of the Supreme Court. For example: Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and should be left up to the States.

George Washington and John Adams were the only Presidents that belonged to the official Federalist Party. James Madison and other Federalists who were President belonged to the Democratic-Republicans but were still obviously Federalists.

If the original Federalists were alive today what party would they join? They certainly wouldn’t belong to the Democratic Party. Why? The original Federalists were conservative and hated spending. They believed in free trade, not “fair” trade. They hated big government. They would also be displeased at the current Republican Party. The original Federalists would have (for the most part) liked Reagan more than any President in the past 50 years. Ford would have been a close second with everyone else trailing in the distance.

Who are the current (unofficial) Federalists? Pat Buchanan would probably consider himself a Federalist, Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney is certainly a Federalist, and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is also a Federalist. Newt Gingrich would also qualify. Some day in the future I would hope that the GOP will reform and change its name to the Federalist-Republicans. Until then I’m stuck voting for Republicans I may only agree 85% with on the issues. Libertarians I would probably agree with 14%, and Democrats 1%.

Today’s issues that would be of utter importance to the Framers (including the Federalists) would be: 1) The SIZE of government/bureaucracy. 2) Immigration. 3) The horrendous Judiciary. 4) Natl. Defense.

The Federalists would be split on Iraq, but certainly not Afghanistan. Some Federalists were isolationists, and some believed in pre-emption. It’s an even divide, and that is why I seldom comment on Iraq.

Civil War 2

What if we actually enforced our immigration laws? What if we built a wall alongside our southern border and treated it like Mexico treats its southern border? We'd still have a problem with illegal immigration. Why? Because of California. James Madison suggested that factions must be stopped. Doesn't matter whether it be a majority faction or a minority faction, any faction that acts against the Constitution (or the protection of it) must cease. Liberals love to talk about symbiotic relationships. Well the security of one State affects the security of the rest. If the State of California refuses to obey our immigration laws then they must cease to be a State. I suggest giving California back to Mexico. This would practically solve over 99% of our immigration problems. Mexicans would cease to go into the United States, and instead go to "Mexifornia." I guarantee if you polled all Californian's on seceding from the Union you would probably be shocked at the result.

There are patriotic sections of California, but there are far few of them. The elected representatives just won't enforce the law, and the people keep re-electing them. It's absurd. There are only two ways to deal with the rebellion of a State. 1) Send the military. 2) Removal of Statehood. I have no problem with a flag that has fewer stars. I'd rather have 30 States working toward the same goal, than 50 divided States. Then again perhaps I'm just a confederate looking for another war. What say you?

Senate Projection

The folks at Election Projection predict at this moment in time that the Democrats will pick up one seat in the Senate after the ’06 Elections. I looked at their data and have a few disagreements.

They believe that Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida will prevail over Katherine Harris. I strongly disagree. It’s far too early to give Nelson the benefit of the doubt. Harris is loved in Florida.

In Nevada, Sen. John Ensign will easily win over Jack Carter.

Election Projection predicts that Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania will lose to Bob Casey. Highly doubt it. Santorum is a campaign machine.

Rhode Island is a mess. Can’t say that Sen. Chafee will get re-elected. I don’t think it matters…he’s practically a Democrat.

The final verdict: No number changes. Chafee will lose, but Katherine Harris will win.
Both parties will claim victory. Realistically the Republicans gain by losing Chafee and winning Harris.

Jawbreaker

We’ve had eleven chances to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Presidents Clinton and Bush have failed America time after time. Our intelligence agencies are weakening. Clinton cut CIA field operatives by 25%, and hired George Tenet who made it so inexperienced FBI personnel replaced key field operatives in the Middle East. President George W. Bush kept Tenet even though experienced CIA officers were calling for his resignation. These experienced CIA officers have saved countless American lives, and countless world leaders. These CIA officers are men like Gary Berntsen who co-authored “Jawbreaker.”

Jawbreaker is a fascinating read. Gary Berntsen was sent to Afghanistan with his Jawbreaker team to gather intelligence on Alqaeda leaders. Later he was sent back to Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Berntsen was at Tora Bora where he saw massive numbers of Alqaeda. He called down strategic air strikes which killed thousands of Alqaeda and effectively won Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was present, but somehow he escaped (wounded).

We need men like Gary Berntsen in public office. We only have a thousand CIA field operatives in the Middle East. For a period of time in the 90’s we didn’t have anyone in Afghanistan. That was clearly a mistake. Clinton was a failure at national security. He didn’t have the guts to send American troops to kill Osama bin Laden. We knew where he was several times, even after we declared war on him in the 90’s. As for our current President, he too has failed us when it comes to national security. I’m not talking about Iraq, he did the right thing (though it could have been done better). Soon Saddam tapes will be released in which he says he has WMD. It came out of the horses mouth…you can’t call Bush a liar anymore. President Bush failed us by denying Berntsen American troops to proceed down the mountains of Tora Bora (where Berntsen was) to capture Osama bin Laden. Bombs are messy, troops are precise. Yes it would have cost dozens of American lives, but that is a decision one has to make to win a war.

Recently there was a Republican straw poll. I think Bill Frist won it, and my man Romney got second place. I respect these men, but I would have liked to have seen Gary Berntsen’s name in the poll. I would like to propose that Gary Berntsen be the next President of the United States. He has experience that no other President since Eisenhower has had. Right now I’d trade a Frist, a Romney, and a Bush for an Eisenhower. Perhaps Gary Berntsen is our man? I would like to think so.

Sorry San Francisco, but I was right

Equal Access (including military recruiters) upheld.

My November stance.

The Supreme Court got it right.

The media perspective.

Other News...

"The governor of South Dakota on Monday signed into law severe restrictions on abortion, in a direct challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's legalization of the practice 33 years ago" (Reuters).

It's about time. Lets get this show on the road.





----------------------------------------------------------------



And in other news...I am probably closely related to KT McFarland (well her husband). She's the woman who will challenge New York Sen. Hillary Clinton this year.

Republicans in New York are considered Democrats in Utah. KT McFarland worked at the Pentagon during the Reagan years, other than that she's practically a Republican in name only (RINO). Here's the story.

No sleeping in court!

"It’s a question that has been asked many times: If Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell asleep during a case, would the media notice? The answer, apparently, is no" (NewsBusters).

Only FOX got it! Imagine if Scalia did this...my gosh...the media would be outraged!