Utter Failures of the anti-Federalists

[Galileo Galilei]

Utter Failures of the anti-Federalists

1) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 20th & 21st century abuse of the commerce clause.

2) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about "laws by administrative agency", which now account for about 85% of all laws.

3) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about un-ratified so-called "executive agreements", which now account for 95% of all treaties.

4) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about 20th & 21st century abuse of executive orders.

5) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about 20th & 21st century abuse of so-called "signing statements".

6) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the war of drugs.

7) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the war on terror.

8) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the alcohol prohibition.

9) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 16th amendment.

10) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 17th amendment.

PS

11) The anti-Federalists warned us about the general welfare clause, but that was already in the Articles of Confederation.

12) Some of the anti-Federalists warned us about the 3/5th clause, but that had already been implemented by the AoC congress as well.

Wild card

13) The anti-Federalists failed to prevent the ratification of the US Constitution.

As a group, the anti-federalists were failures in their own time, and they continue to fail us today. If they had at least warned us about Abraham Lincoln, I might give them some respect.

[FrankRep]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQXeB77ceMeE-7YcsprI4v3uS7Yn4gD05UBdftJ2RaSAGpzJu4&t=1&usg=__-KDPe-YRcf23cGcdUkjM64oqJ3M= (http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Constitutional-Convention-Debates-Classics/dp/0451528840)


The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Constitutional-Convention-Debates-Classics/dp/0451528840

[Deborah K]

You make good points, Galileo. Frank, have you read that book?

[Anti Federalist]

I hang my head in prognostication shame...

[FrankRep]

You make good points, Galileo. Frank, have you read that book?

Not cover-to-cover; read parts of it.

[Deborah K]

Not cover-to-cover; read parts of it.

Just wondering if you have any highlights you wish to share.

[Galileo Galilei]

The wise men could have at least warned us about the commerce clause.

[heavenlyboy34]

If not being able to know exactly what would happen constitutes "failure", then the Federalists were epic failures as well. However, the anti-Feds were right about the CONstitution. (really, the Fed/anti-Fed argument is just to keep us divided while the regime expands) If only we had a time machine to go back and teach those guys voluntaryism! :(

Your wild card is worded strangely. How could the AF's have prevented something that happened behind their backs? :rolleyes:

Utter Failures of the anti-Federalists

1) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 20th & 21st century abuse of the commerce clause.

2) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about "laws by administrative agency", which now account for about 85% of all laws.

3) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about un-ratified so-called "executive agreements", which now account for 95% of all treaties.

4) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about 20th & 21st century abuse of executive orders.

5) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about 20th & 21st century abuse of so-called "signing statements".

6) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the war of drugs.

7) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the war on terror.

8) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the alcohol prohibition.

9) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 16th amendment.

10) The anti-Federalists failed to warn us about the 17th amendment.

PS

11) The anti-Federalists warned us about the general welfare clause, but that was already in the Articles of Confederation.

12) Some of the anti-Federalists warned us about the 3/5th clause, but that had already been implemented by the AoC congress as well.

Wild card

13) The anti-Federalists failed to prevent the ratification of the US Constitution.

As a group, the anti-federalists were failures in their own time, and they continue to fail us today. If they had at least warned us about Abraham Lincoln, I might give them some respect.

[CCTelander]

Just a few posts long and already this thread is full of fail.

Just not the failure the OP alleges.

[phill4paul]

They were anti-Federalists. Not frikken Nostradamus.

[Deborah K]

Just a few posts long and already this thread is full of fail.

Just not the failure the OP alleges.

How so? Aren't some of the anti-constitutionalists always griping about how the Founders failed to foresee the problems we now face? This is just a rebuttle.

[Galileo Galilei]

They were anti-Federalists. Not frikken Nostradamus.

Event the real Nostradamus made a few specific predictions that panned out. The anti-Federalists didn't predict anything specific about the Constitution.

I'm waiting for the quatrain version of the anti-Federalists Papers to come out soon. Can't wait to read about George Clintonadamus. Anti-Federalist Clintonadamus later swore an oath to defend the US Constitution when he became VP. That's makes him a traitor to the cause.

[Galileo Galilei]

How could the AF's have prevented something that happened behind their backs? :rolleyes:

There were several anti-Federalists at the Philadelphia convention, including Elbridge Gerry, Luther Martin, William Paterson, Robert Yates, John Lansing, Roger Sherman, Gunning Bedford, and John Mercer. Edmund Randolph and George Mason are borderline cases, but both of them refused to sign the Constitution.

There were hundreds of anti-Federalists at the ratifying conventions. So you are a liar. You accuse our Founding Fathers of being in a conspiracy.

[heavenlyboy34]

How so? Aren't some of the anti-constitutionalists always griping about how the Founders failed to foresee the problems we now face? This is just a rebuttle.

Over-simplifciation. The argument is that not only did the Federalists not forsee the inherent flaws in their plans, they argued that their mistakes were correct. IOW, it was Statist Hubris. Though the Anti-Feds were not totally correct, they were more correct than the Federalists, and far less arrogant.

[heavenlyboy34]

There were several anti-Federalists at the Philadelphia convention, including Elbridge Gerry, Luther Martin, William Paterson, Robert Yates, John Lansing, Roger Sherman, Gunning Bedford, and John Mercer. Edmund Randolph and George Mason are borderline cases, but both of them refused to sign the Constitution.

There were hundreds of anti-Federalists at the ratifying conventions. So you are a liar. You accuse our Founding Fathers of being in a conspiracy.

No, I'm not a liar, I made a mistake. I was thinking of Jefferson (who was in France at the time). Plus, I was multi-tasking. Excuse moi, Les bitch. ;):p

[phill4paul]

I'm waiting for the quatrain version of the anti-Federalists Papers to come out soon. Can't wait to read about George Clintonadamus. Anti-Federalist Clintonadamus later swore an oath to defend the US Constitution when he became VP. That's makes him a traitor to the cause.

I have know idea what to make of this. Except to say (as I back away) that you are right.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Anti-Federalists Were Right (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html)


by Laurence M. Vance (lmvance@juno.com)
by Laurence M. Vance

[heavenlyboy34]

Event the real Nostradamus made a few specific predictions that panned out. The anti-Federalists didn't predict anything specific about the Constitution.

I'm waiting for the quatrain version of the anti-Federalists Papers to come out soon. Can't wait to read about George Clintonadamus. Anti-Federalist Clintonadamus later swore an oath to defend the US Constitution when he became VP. That's makes him a traitor to the cause.

Actually, that makes him an infiltrator into the regime. Besides, Clinton only changed his mind about the CONstitution after the BoR was added.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have know idea what to make of this. Except to say (as I back away) that you are right.
actually, he's wrong, but don't let that bother you. Keep on backing away. :D

[phill4paul]

actually, he's wrong, but don't let that bother you. Keep on backing away. :D

In this instance....;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why do people bother with Galileo? He is a known troll. He ignores facts, and peddles lies. If he was intellectually honest, then maybe I would give a listen, but the guy is horribly misinformed on a whole host of issues.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do people bother with Galileo? He is a known troll. He ignores facts, and peddles lies. If he was intellectually honest, then maybe I would give a listen, but the guy is horribly misinformed on a whole host of issues.

I just don't know him well enough, I guess. Thanks for the heads-up. :cool: I'll avoid him now.

[CCTelander]

Why do people bother with Galileo? He is a known troll. He ignores facts, and peddles lies. If he was intellectually honest, then maybe I would give a listen, but the guy is horribly misinformed on a whole host of issues.


Excellent points. My bad.

[Galileo Galilei]

Actually, that makes him an infiltrator into the regime. Besides, Clinton only changed his mind about the CONstitution after the BoR was added.

The anti-Federalists OPPOSED the bill-of-Rights.

James Madison is the person who actually went through the effort to write them and push them through congress.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why do people bother with Galileo? He is a known troll. He ignores facts, and peddles lies. If he was intellectually honest, then maybe I would give a listen, but the guy is horribly misinformed on a whole host of issues.

nice generalization. Your silence on the initial post speaks volumes. I thought you were my friend, but apparently you have turned Pope Urban VIII on me.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Anti-Federalists Were Right (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html)


by Laurence M. Vance (lmvance@juno.com)
by Laurence M. Vance

Any way to find the quatrain verse version in Middle French?

[BuddyRey]

* Here is Ben Franklin (who nonetheless signed the document): having read the Constitution in draft form when he arrived at the already started deliberations and recommended to the delegation three changes, “there are 3 places in the Constitution where unbridled power had been granted — and these places were (1) in the Executive Branch, (2) in the Legislative Branch, and (3) in the Judicial Branch.” Of course, his suggestions were ignored.

"Gentlemen, you now have a Constitution. It is not as good as we could have hoped, but it is good as we are going to get. It will serve us alright for a while. But it will end in tyranny because there is nothing within it to prevent it.

[Galileo Galilei]

* Here is Ben Franklin (who nonetheless signed the document): having read the Constitution in draft form when he arrived at the already started deliberations and recommended to the delegation three changes, “there are 3 places in the Constitution where unbridled power had been granted — and these places were (1) in the Executive Branch, (2) in the Legislative Branch, and (3) in the Judicial Branch.” Of course, his suggestions were ignored.

"Gentlemen, you now have a Constitution. It is not as good as we could have hoped, but it is good as we are going to get. It will serve us alright for a while. But it will end in tyranny because there is nothing within it to prevent it.

The States can prevent centralization of power whenever they want to under the Constitution. All they have to do is amend the Constitution. At least under the Constitution power is divided. Under the AoC, power was centralized into one body.

[Travlyr]

* Here is Ben Franklin (who nonetheless signed the document): having read the Constitution in draft form when he arrived at the already started deliberations and recommended to the delegation three changes, “there are 3 places in the Constitution where unbridled power had been granted — and these places were (1) in the Executive Branch, (2) in the Legislative Branch, and (3) in the Judicial Branch.” Of course, his suggestions were ignored.

"Gentlemen, you now have a Constitution. It is not as good as we could have hoped, but it is good as we are going to get. It will serve us alright for a while. But it will end in tyranny because there is nothing within it to prevent it.

What about Article VI. Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America?

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

They are bound by Oath. If they violate their Oath of Office, then their penal bond can be called which removes them from office.

[Travlyr]

The Anti-Federalists Were Right (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance106.html)


by Laurence M. Vance (lmvance@juno.com)
by Laurence M. Vance

And I would imagine that every one of the quoted Anti-Federalists went to their grave thinking ~ "'Son of Bitch' ... it did work!" Because when you read the diaries and history of the American people from 1787 to around 1860, many people were free and prosperous... living and loving liberty.

Of course the Anti-Federalists were eventually right because creating a government that protects individual rights that would last into perpetuity would be difficult even today.

[goopc]

And I would imagine that every one of the quoted Anti-Federalists went to their grave thinking ~ "'Son of Bitch' ... it did work!" Because when you read the diaries and history of the American people from 1787 to around 1860, many people were free and prosperous... living and loving liberty.

If any of the anti-federalists were whiskey producers in western PA, then they would have been proven right by October 1794 when 13,000 federal troops marched on them.

[Galileo Galilei]

If any of the anti-federalists were whiskey producers in western PA, then they would have been proven right by October 1794 when 13,000 federal troops marched on them.

Or Shay's rebellion? When federal troops marched on them. Oh, wait, that one went down the memory hole.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

As a group, the anti-federalists were failures in their own time,

I agree. The Anti-Federalists were failures. Doesn't mean their ideas sucked but they certainly lost the argument.

Anti-Federalists have been outperformed at almost every opportunity by the propaganda brilliance of Federalists.

What marketing suggestions do you have for people who prefer a vision of society that leans Anti-Federalist or voluntary?

What suggestions do you have for Anti-Federalist leaning individuals to insure they do not get outperformed by propaganda in the future?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The States can prevent centralization of power whenever they want to under the Constitution. All they have to do is amend the Constitution. At least under the Constitution power is divided. Under the AoC, power was centralized into one body.

Your point is a fail. The States lost that argument in a Civil War.

[Galileo Galilei]

Your point is a fail. The States lost that argument in a Civil War.

No the majority of the states won that battle. The South would have won if Lee and Davis had listened to Stonewall Jackson.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No the majority of the states won that battle. The South would have won if Lee and Davis had listened to Stonewall Jackson.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... the fact is the States right argument lost. If you are going to get into woulda, coulda, shoulda, then go back and edit the OP.

In the meantime I look forward to any marketing suggestions you may have based on my previous post conceding your point the Anti-Federalists were losers by losing the argument.

[goopc]

Or Shay's rebellion? When federal troops marched on them. Oh, wait, that one went down the memory hole.

So because MA used force against its citizens, then the feds could use force against the Whiskey Tax revolters? Two wrongs don't make a right.

How much more free would we be today if Washington hadn't listened to Hamilton and instead he let the Whiskey Tax remain unenforced?

[Galileo Galilei]

So because MA used force against its citizens, then the feds could use force against the Whiskey Tax revolters? Two wrongs don't make a right.

How much more free would we be today if Washington hadn't listened to Hamilton and instead he let the Whiskey Tax remain unenforced?

Pennsylvania asked for help. It wasn't any different than before the Constitution. The Revolution started when the NE states asked for help.

[goopc]

Pennsylvania asked for help. It wasn't any different than before the Constitution. The Revolution started when the NE states asked for help.

In the revolution New England was fighting for independence from England. In the Whiskey Rebellion Hamilton was exercising federal power to crush citizens who didn't want to pay taxes.

The nature of the federal government was outlined less than a decade after it's founding. It obvious how we got to where we are today.

[Galileo Galilei]

In the revolution New England was fighting for independence from England. In the Whiskey Rebellion Hamilton was exercising federal power to crush citizens who didn't want to pay taxes.

The nature of the federal government was outlined less than a decade after it's founding. It obvious how we got to where we are today.

You are blaming the federal government for what is the fault of Pennsylvania. The Feds did not invade Pennsylvania, the governor of PA asked for help from the other states.

This is exactly the same as what happened in Shay's rebellion.

I am in agreement with James Madison that the response to the Whiskey rebellion was way too harsh. However, Washington did pardon the convicted men who actually had a fair trial prior to that. And this is a pretty lame argument against the Constitution because there war one little incident like this.

You also forget that there was a war going on between western PA and Connecticut at this time that had begun before the Constitution was ratified. These regional wars can easily spread around the continent, especially is foreign agents from England get involved to secretly supply one side or the other.

[Travlyr]

If any of the anti-federalists were whiskey producers in western PA, then they would have been proven right by October 1794 when 13,000 federal troops marched on them.

I doubt it. They realized that the central government created order. Do you support the burning of people's homes as a way to get what you want?

Whiskey Rebellion - http://www.answers.com/topic/whiskey-rebellion


"While serving a process, a federal marshal was attacked by angered residents in Allegheny County, and on 17 July several hundred men, led by members of a local "Democratic society," besieged and burned the home of General John Neville, the regional inspector of the excise."

The treatment of these angered residents after their arrest is a testament to the honor of the men in charge at the time.

"All of them were acquitted or pardoned, or the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence."

The result: A lot of people were afraid of anarchy.

"The rebellion strengthened the political power of Hamilton and the Federalist Party."