Boss
Take a Memo:
Well Boss if we set it up right, they will still act as Statists for themselves within their own govt structure. Just not for anyone else who doesn't freely chose that affiliation. We can call it a model or internal govt run by Parliament of each party. Each party can claim sovereignty of their own realm over their own membership. So if health care or social benefits are set up to be self sustaining, it should work whether there are 1 million members or 10 million in the pool. Let them figure it out how to make the numbers and budget work on a smaller local scale, before expanding on a higher or national scale. So they can have collective will established for all members through central govt, but organize this by party so they can agree on political beliefs that otherwise divide states. With like minded members of one party belief, they can mandate all they want and it only applies to them who already agree on and believe in the same policies.Can todays Feneralists and antifederalists rise up against the Statists? Why not demand the Statists set up their own programs and not impose through govt on others.You are sort of right and sort of confused at the same time. When we were debating Federalism vs. Anti-federalism, the arguments were BOTH opposed to a central federal power over everyone. Federalists argued that we could have a very limited small federal government which left most of our liberty to be determined by the states and people respectively. Anti-federalists feared exactly what has happened in history, that even a small federal government, limited in power, would eventually become a large centralized power enforcing it's will on society.
Today, we have a different argument. The Federalists are still arguing for a small and limited federal authority where states and people decide most of their own parameters of liberty and we have Statists who believe in a large central authority. Ironically, even though Anti-federalists no longer exist, their arguments proved to be true... we simply couldn't maintain a small limited government over time because the nature of any government is to grow in power over the individual.
So Boss now there are three groups
1. Statists are the ones who WANT the power to grow on the federal level and even fight against enforcing limits on it
2. Federalists who argue we can manage a centralized govt are split between the "new anti-federalists" who still believe in the Constitution but fear the whole thing needs to be shut down and stopped vs. the Constitutonalists saying we can use the given system and restore the limitations (and the Statists saying we can keep the given system and don't need to enforce limitations)
3. anarchists and independents who don't believe in parties or Constitutional laws at all as being able to stop abuses
I think the Statists have taken over the position of anti-federalists
in being opposed to the Constitution as limited govt, but for the opposite reason.
Before, the anti-federalists didn't think it was strong enough to PREVENT big govt from dominating over individuals.
Today, the Statists don't want the Constitutional limits as "obstruction" to get in the way of this.
So the term you use for people who want central govt as the default authority
in charge of public programs and policies is STATIST. Is that correct?
That's correct but they are not taking anything near an anti-federalist position. Their position is exactly what made an anti-federalist an anti-federalist. They were opposed to a central federal government, even in a small limited role. They sought to have us remain a confederation of states without a federal government. The Federalists made the case that a Constitution would limit and restrict the powers of Federal government and rejected the idea that it would grow out of control because they though the people would prevent it.
It's confusing today because many of the anti-federalist complaints have become the concerns of the modern federalists. Again, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists opposed a large centralized Federal government.
Which Party leaders would have to agree to such a resolution or demand to make it heard? Who do recommend, or what form of petition should the people present? Boss
I think you see the true Federalists standing strong with Constitutional Conservatives. It's reflected in who we are electing to Congress.
I don't understand your question with regard to the Statists... do you understand that a Statist seeks to use the power of government to impose it's programs and control on others? So your question is, why not demand Statists not be Statists? I think that's a great idea.
emilynghiem we don't need to set anything up. We have a beautiful system that is unique and exceptional. Our framers didn't want us to be Statists and even the people who opposed the framers didn't want us to be Statists... but here you are, trying to somehow accommodate the Statists. A Statist is a Communist. Why would you want some cockamamie system that allows Communism?
Much of what you are saying can be accomplished already through returning the power to the states as it was intended to be. If California wants to set up their little Socialist Utopia, they can do that... but don't expect the rest of us to bail you out when it all goes tits up.