Ron Paul: America's Last Federalist?
In the days leading up to the formation of the United States, there were also two political movements that were getting off the ground. These two movements were the Federalist Movement, and the Anti-Federalist Movement.
The Federalists wanted the Colonies to band together, and create a Constitution to govern over them as a Country. They believed that the future strength of the Country depended on a strong Constitution that would set the rules in place for the Government.
The Anti-Federalists were not interested in having a Constitution. They believed that the Articles of Confederation were strong enough to lead the Nation into the future. They took every opportunity to attack the Constitution, and attempted on many occasions later to go against the Constitution.
The Federalists believed that the Constitution encompassed everything the Nation stood for. The defended the Constitution, and believed that it should be the ultimate authority in the United States. There were many times in which the Federalists would point out in the future after ratification that the United States had not been following the Constitution.
Enter Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been spending his entire campaign pointing out that the United States has just about given up on the Constitution. Paul has pointed out that the Nation will need to go back to the Constitution, and it's rulings to make the Nation stronger again.
Ron Paul believes that the main reason why the Nation has seen so many hardships in the past is because we have drifted away from the Constitution. Government has created it's own rules that are not endorsed by the Constitution. Ron Paul believes that this is wrong.
Since Ron Paul is pushing so hard for the reintroduction of the Constitution, there is a strong argument for the possibility that he is more of a Federalist then anything else. Ron Paul has exemplified the old Federalist Movement in that he believes that the only way that we can strengthen the Nation, is by going back to the Constitution, and making that the ultimate law in the Country.
It will be interesting to see how the Country accepts Ron Paul's ideas and ideals about the Constitution. So far, the Internet community has been buzzing about his campaign, and about him. Only time will tell if the rest of the Country will accept this Federalist.
Published by L. Vincent Poupard - Featured Contributor in Arts & Entertainment and Travel
L. Vincent Poupard is known for his insightful news commentaries and unique takes on the entertainment industry. Along with his career in writing, he works as a political/business consultant and has helped b... View profile
- Ron Paul is Gaining in Money and Momentum!What's the buzz on Ron Paul? He is garnering money and support from blue collar workers, college kids, the world of the Internet. Why? Read on for who Ron Paul is, how he's voted and what he believes in for America.
- Presidential Hopeful Ron Paul: Raising the Roof in Iowa If crowd approval is any indication of votes in the Iowa Straw Poll, Ron Paul is a contender.
- Hello Ron Paul or Goodbye ReadersNewspapers have ignored the Ron Paul Presidential campaign in spite of its dramatic fundraising success and grassroots support and newsworthiness. By ignoring Ron Paul, newspapers are losing credibility with their re...
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Goes InternationalThis Champion of Liberty, that at least everyone on the Internet in America has heard about, Ron Paul, has popularity in other international countries now, yet the mainstream media in America tells us he's the little...
- Ron Paul Captures the BlogosphereRon Paul seems to have struck a nerve in the vast blogosphere where he has gotten two thirds of his contributions. His strict constitutionalist stand, after the savagery that the Bush Administration subjected the Cons...
- Ron Paul: The Candidate with the Golden Dollar
- Ron Paul Draws Large, Diverse Crowd in Pittsburgh
- Analysis: Canadian Company Leads in Ron Paul Coverage
- Is Ron Paul the Subject of a Google Bomb?
- The CNN Utube Debates in Wichita, Kansas - Ron Paul Grass Roots Meeting
- Ron Paul Known by 51% of Americans
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Has a Blimp
19 Comments
Post a CommentAnd I am not trying to sound rude. And appoligize if thats what I sounded like. This is just something that very few people are aware of, and something that I only recently learned about.
(that was me again where it says "your name")
You should read Patrick Henry's speeches warning about what adopting the US Constitution would do. And he was exactly right.
You can read them here: http://www.constitution.org/afp/phenry00.htm
Just the mere fact the Constitution ISN'T being followed, proves that it is not good enough, and that it can in no way, whatsoever, secure our freedom and liberty.
The US Consitution was counter-revolutionary. And the american people never even got a say as to whether or not it should be adopted. A majority of the states agreed, I know. But the PEOPLE of those states did NOT have a say in the matter. The Constitution gave unlimted power to the president and the executive branch. It made the president a king. And it gave all sorts of ways for the government to do things in secret, and violate the Constitution easily without anyone knowing. And that is exactly what has been happening ever since the Constitution was adopted. From the day the Constitution was adopted, it was being violated. Why? Because that was the reason for the Constitution. To destroy individual freedom and liberty, and lay the foundation for an imperialistic empire. Which is exactly what America is today.
You have it the opposite way around. George Washington, and the federalists, who were traitors, wanted a more powerful and centralized federal government. And that is what the US Constitution gave them, a more powerful federal government. Under the articles of confederation the powers of the federal government were way, way, more limited and restricted than with the US Constitution. I do not know where you are getting these ridiculous ideas. But you are dead wrong. Maybe you should go read the Articles of Confederation, and read the US Constitution before you go writing articles talking about how the Constitution is better. When it is exactly the opposite way around.
Obscure use of terms. Reintroduction of the Constitution? The mere fact that the Constitution itself is treated like a figurehead monarch of our couintry is disgusting.
My my... what a hornets nest you have stirred up ;)
As I have stated, the term, "Federalist," here is represented from the original use of the term. It refers to the people that pushed for the adoption of the Constitution over teh Articles of Confederation.
L.
Ummm.
How was the Articles of Confederation a stronger central government? Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were pretty much independent from one another, and actions of the central government had to have unanimous consent of the states. Between 1783 and 1788, the central government could get nothing accomplished. It was far weaker form of union than the one established by the ratified Constitution. Anti-Federalists have always advocated greater autonomy by the states and the Federalists have always advocated greater centralization. Jefferson established the Democratic Republican Party against what he saw as unconstitutional centralization of power by the Federalist Party. Ron Paul is of the Jeffersonian mold. He is objecting to the unconstitutional centralization of power in Washington DC.
the use in this article is the original meaning that was meant for someone who pushed for the adoption of the Constitution.
L.
Definition: Magruder's American Government: Federalists: Those persons who supported the adoption of the Constitution in 1787-1788. Can also be used to describe someone from the Federalist Party. the term holds a dual meaning, and is commonly confused.
Federalist Party: Party established by Alexander Hamilton in support of a strong Federal Government.