Curious, why do Libertarians only seem to care about the federal government?

[Truthmatters]

Federalist Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent during his entire presidency

 

[Truthmatters]

dude I picked this letter becuase a con talked about it .

It was chosen by someone else.

The ONLY agenda I have here is to discuss the federalist papers.


Pick any one you want and Ill discuss it with you or anyone.

Every one of them kills you guys memes dead

I believe I JUST finished offering to have YOU cite ANY of the Federalist Papers to support what appears to be your thesis (or at least the thesis in the OP, which may or may not be one you support).
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7194065-post71.html

Tell me. Is there (in your estimation as a scholar of The Federalist Papers) ANY such piece which contends that the LIMITATIONS which the FOUNDERS and FRAMERS sought to impose on the power of the Federal Government which are also supposed to be applicable to the STATE governments or localities?

If so, which one(s). Quote a bit of the one or the ones you say makes such an argument.

Im not the OP of this thread you brain addled fool

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I never hear them objecting to the nanny statism going on at the state and local level. That impacts our lives a lot more. If you have a bunch of liberals banning everything they don't like at the state level, it won't really matter too much what the feds are doing.

The states can be just as tyrannical as the Federal government, if not more so, with regard to issues such as abortion and same-sex couples’ access to marriage law, for example.

Indeed, when we review the history of civil rights litigation, we see numerous examples of the states violating individual liberty, as opposed to the Federal government.

Just a very few citations:

Hernandez v. Texas (1954): Texas laws authorizing discrimination against Hispanics struck down.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958): Arkansas law authorizing segregation struck down.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Florida law denying criminal defendants their 6Th Amendment rights struck down.

Loving v. Virginia (1967): Virginia law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying struck down.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972): Massachusetts law violating equal protection rights struck down.

Carey v. Population Services International (1977): New York law violating due process rights struck down.

Plyler v. Doe (1982): Texas law violating undocumented immigrants’ due process and equal protection rights struck down.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) Alabama law struck down violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The libertarian response to the above, of course, is that such issues should be addressed at the ballot box, not the in the courts.

There are, however, a number of problems with this position:

Whether one will have his civil rights or not is not determined by his state of residence; nor does one forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence. Whether one will have his civil liberties is also not determined by majority rule, as this is in conflict with the rule of law.

And if a person believes his civil liberties has been violated by a given state law, how long must he pursue the legislative process to seek relief? One year? Ten years? 20 years? Is not a Constitutional right delayed a right denied? In some jurisdictions it may take a lifetime before a civil liberty is restored through the political process, if at all.

Obviously the notion of ‘let the states decide,’ as advocated by many libertarians, is naïve and impractical, where citizens in fact can seek relief to violations of their civil rights only in court.

However naïve and impractical Libertarianism may be, is a nonetheless a complex dogma, more philosophy than politics, predicated on the ideal that the individual alone knows best how to conduct his life, and that government mandate, even manifested in good faith, interferes with the individual making decisions in his own best interest, to the detriment of society as a whole.

This also calls into question how libertarian dogma has been contaminated with conservative dogma, and how partisan republicans have usurped libertarianism for political expediency. Indeed, more often than not, when one claims to be a ‘libertarian,’ he is not.

 

[Truthmatters]

which is why the first American party was called the federalist.

because were all federalists after reading what the people who wrote the constitution had to say in all of the federalists papers to convince the country to agree to the constitution

 

[IlarMeilyr]

dude I picked this letter becuase a con talked about it .

It was chosen by someone else.

The ONLY agenda I have here is to discuss the federalist papers.


Pick any one you want and Ill discuss it with you or anyone.

Every one of them kills you guys memes dead

I believe I JUST finished offering to have YOU cite ANY of the Federalist Papers to support what appears to be your thesis (or at least the thesis in the OP, which may or may not be one you support).
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7194065-post71.html

Tell me. Is there (in your estimation as a scholar of The Federalist Papers) ANY such piece which contends that the LIMITATIONS which the FOUNDERS and FRAMERS sought to impose on the power of the Federal Government which are also supposed to be applicable to the STATE governments or localities?

If so, which one(s). Quote a bit of the one or the ones you say makes such an argument.

Im not the OP of this thread you brain addled fool

"(or at least the thesis in the OP, which may or may not be one you support). "

Reading comprehension is not your forte, you stupid empty headed dishonest hack twat.

 

[Truthmatters]

The founders who wrote the constituion were very pro a strong federal government to protect and manage the states

 

[IlarMeilyr]

TderpM has established that she is content to mindlessly and pointlessly repeat the term "Federalist" to no particular purpose.

So much for this experiment.

 

[Truthmatters]

James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Federalist Papers and ratification debates

Main article: Federalist Papers

The Constitution developed by the convention in Philadelphia had to be ratified. This would be done by special conventions called in each state to decide that sole question of ratification.[32] Madison was a leader in the ratification effort. He, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, a series of 85 newspaper articles published in New York to explain how the proposed Constitution would work, mainly by responding to criticisms from anti-federalists. They were also published in book form and became a virtual debater’s handbook for the supporters of the Constitution in the ratifying conventions.[33] The historian Clinton Rossiter called the Federalist Papers “the most important work in political science that ever has been written, or is likely ever to be written, in the United States.”[34] They were not scholarly arguments or impartial justifications for the constitution, but political polemics intended to assist the federalists in New York, which was the only state to have a coordinated anti-federalist movement. Madison was involved in the project mainly because he was a delegate to the lame duck Confederation Congress, which was meeting in New York.

If Virginia, the most populous state at the time, did not ratify the Constitution, the new national government would likely not succeed. When the Virginia convention began, the constitution had not yet been ratified by the required nine states. New York, the second largest state and a bastion of anti-federalism, would likely not ratify it if Virginia rejected the constitution, and Virginia's exclusion from the new government would disqualify George Washington from being the first president.[35] Virginia delegates believed that Washington's election as the first president was an implicit condition for their acceptance of the new constitution and the new government. Without Virginia, a new convention might have been held and a new constitution written in a much more polarized atmosphere, since the constitution did not specify what would happen if it was only partially ratified. The states might have joined in regional confederacies or allied with Spain, France or Britain, which still had North American colonies.[36] Arguably the most prominent anti-federalist, the powerful orator Patrick Henry was a delegate and had a following second only to Washington (who was not a delegate). Most delegates believed that most Virginians opposed the constitution.[35] Initially Madison did not want to stand for election to the Virginia ratifying convention, but was persuaded to do so because the situation looked so bad. His role at the convention was likely critical to Virginia's ratification, and thus to the success of the constitution generally




this has great meaning to this govenment and its founding yet they refuse to discuss it

 

[Truthmatters]

see them avoid at all costs talking about the papers?

they want to make it about me instead.

 

[Truthmatters]

James Madison the man who is known as the father of the constitution wrote his defense of his constitution in the federalist papers.

the nay sayers said much of the same type of things the current right does.

then they are so stupid they call them selves defenders of the constitution.

 

[Truthmatters]

Guess who paid to have them so confused?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

TderpM says, "Blatherskate Hogwash gibberish -- hick -- grotzensoible!"

 

[Oddball]

 

[Truthmatters]

fear makes you look very very silly.


You dont want to discuss the federalist papers huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Ok pick a different one you like more and we will delve into it.


unless of course you fear what you may learn from the founders ?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

fear makes you look very very silly.


You dont want to discuss the federalist papers huh?

I invited you to state your thesis, you imbecile.

You are clearly not up to the task.

 

[Truthmatters]

I've mentioned Federalist 41 (at least) on numerous occasions, idjit.

the only reason I picked this one paper first

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What is your thesis, TderpM?

 

[Truthmatters]

fear makes you look very very silly.


You dont want to discuss the federalist papers huh?

I invited you to state your thesis, you imbecile.

You are clearly not up to the task.

I already did.

the federalist papers distroys all the right wing memes.

ready set GO

 

[Truthmatters]

I know you perfer to jsut call me silly names but at some point you have to discuss them or admitt you know Im right