Connect with us

Everything

We are not anti-Federalists, we are conservative, constitutionalist Federalists

Published

on

Many people have heard of the term federalism and believe it is synonymous with conservative or the right. With the rising of the new Federalist Party, it is important to know what is Federalism. If we look at North America, you see that Canada, United States, and Mexico are all based on a federalist form of government. Most of the countries around the world which have a federalist form of government would not be considered conservative.

In the United States, our Founding Fathers were divided on this issue. Should the United States have a strong federal government and Constitution or simply have each State be a nation-state and stick with the Articles of Confederation. The debate over Federalism was most prominently seen in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

The Federalist ultimately won the debate, and the compromise was the Bill of Rights. I think all modern day Federalist are happy this vigorous debate happened, and we are ever grateful to the Anti-Federalist for the Bill of Rights.

In today’s America, it might seem that the Anti-Federalist were correct. That the Federal government is too powerful and today we don’t need a Federalist Party but an Anti-Federalist Party.

I wholeheartedly agree that the federal government is way too powerful, but I would also argue that state governments are way too powerful. If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would look at our government and wouldn’t recognize our government as something born out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century from both Republicans and Democrats and the adoption of the 16th & 17th Amendments began to move this country into a centralized government which the Federalist would have opposed.

Therefore, if the Anti-Federalist seemed to have been more right should the Federalist Party rebrand itself as The Anti-Federalist Party?

In one sense, yes and no. The Federalist Party believes in having a federalist form of government by going back to the intended role on which the federal government was formed and not what we see today. So in one sense for the Federalist Party to accomplish its goal it must first become the Anti-Federalist Party until we bring down the size of the federal government and restore powers back to the States and the People.

Today, we see conservatives looking at the political landscape and seeing two political parties which are emulating the progressive policies of the early 20th Century. Many, including myself, want something new, or better yet, something old.

We want to go back to the founding principles which formed this country. We do want a federal government but one that is limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. Instead of Republicans fighting over a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – ObamaCare), why isn’t the discussion about repealing the ACA and reducing the federal government to its defined Constitutional role. The federal government has no business in nationalizing or regulating health care. We the People have not enumerated those powers in the Constitution to the federal government.

We also don’t want state governments regulated our everyday lives.
The Anti-Federalist were not only worried about State sovereignty being usurped but individual rights. If they looked at what states are doing today, they would be appalled.

What we are lacking isn’t federalism in the country what we are lacking is genuine conservatism applied to federalism. We lack leaders throughout government that believe that government is a tool, not the solution. It’s a tool for the general welfare of society. To protect our natural rights, which are universal and inalienable. Leaders that recognize that we are a People with a government and not a Government with people.

We want a federal and state governments limited to the powers we enumerate to them. Not Rights the government graciously grants us. We demand Conservative Federalism but can we expect to receive it?

The answer will always be no. You can’t wait to receive it. You must take it. You must make the decision today. Will I take back my Rights? Will I finally realize that the binary choice of Democrats and Republicans is a false narrative?

If you agree with me and want our country and government back then today is the day we resurrect the conservative movement. Together we can bring real conservative federalism back to America. I believe we can do this if we come together and destroy the binary choice of Democrat or Republican. If we unite under the flag of Federalist Party and begin our campaign of Anti-Federalism we can and we will bring true conservative federalism back to America.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report