General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have been reading the Federalist Papers
A couple weeks ago I told you the story of the teabagger who told me the Constitution puts strict limits on Congress while pointing at the part of the Constitution that does exactly the opposite. (He turned to Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress) and told me that section says Congress can't collect taxes or make laws. Those are two of the powers that section expressly GRANTS to Congress.) When I informed the gentleman that article says something completely different from what he was saying, he told me the Federalist Papers formed a limited government.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution does not mention the Federalist Papers, but okay...I figured I better read these.
Turns out the Federalists of old would have kicked the Teabaggers of today square in the nuts. The government the teabaggers claim the Federalist Papers endorsed, a loose collection of independent sovereigns, is exactly the government the Federalists warned against.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)If you haven't yet, you should read Adam Smith and find out what he thought of unfettered capitalism...
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Both that book and the Revolution were capitalist reactions against mercantilism, though neither trusted capitalism per se the way people did a century later (or today).
(Then again, we modelled our flag after the East India Company's flag, which was probably a bad idea.)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Adam Smith based his economics on the Labor Theory of Value; something which Proudhon and Marx built upon.
Heads should be exploding.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)They only want their interpretation of some of the first ten amendments.
Their first and second amendments are skewed. Their interpretation of the fourth didn't end slavery. Their interpretation of the tenth justified slavery. It took the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment to end the full range of slavery.
Paul Ryan says when they get enough state houses 'red' they will repeal the 14th, which they can, as these are not done by popular vote. It was the 14th that help set the stage for progressives.
Some want not only those and the 16th, 19th and 24th to be repealed. At that point, we'll nearly be back to the Articles of Confederation.
All the better to divide the nation into fiefdoms run by the Kochroaches. They aren't giving up. We have to get strong minded about keeping the Constitution that has granted us our rights.
The AoC didn't grant any to those that were not in the elite based on race, gender and social status.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That is where I learned about the differences between federalists and anti-federalists.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sometimes I feel like I went to different US history classes than other people. We definitely learned about the factions behind the Constitution.
mattclearing
(10,091 posts)Generally repeating some nonsense they heard from the usual suspects.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Though, if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
RobinA
(9,893 posts)he changed that horse mid-stream. In The Federalist papers he sounded pretty federalist to me.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)He was on both sides.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Core subject!
It's almost like you think civics is a subject.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Teabaggers try to invent things that fit the way they want things to be rather than examining things as they are.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)The first verse of A Soapbox Opera goes, "I hear only what I want to hear, but I have to believe in something."
Atman
(31,464 posts)And before you get all outraged and post "How could you possibly have a Tea Bagger friend?!" understand that this guy is, as many of our FB friends tend to be, a old school mate. We have only seen each other a couple of times over the years, and he really is a pretty good guy, if misguided. He's a vet, he's actually quite amiable, and we never let political discussions get rancorous. More like good-natured jabs. And he lives in Montana, so that explains a lot, too.
Anyway, between posting memes about having a nice day and silly pictures of animals and loving your mom and supporting our troops, he posts anti-ACA/Obama is the worst president in history crap and stories from The Heritage Foundation. He is a BIG Federalist Papers guy. He seems to think, as many Tea Baggers do, that the FP supercede our Constitution.
I sent him a link to the op, along with a warning as to where the link led. I asked for his comments. It will be interesting to read his response!
Thav
(946 posts)All you do is say some historical document supports your position and you're golden.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)My father gave me a copy of it to read when I was 12. He believed in New Deal big gummint and small business. Tea bagger spelling would flunk elementary school. Just sayin'
Javaman
(62,530 posts)a dog math.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)That's an obvious exaggeration---the Founding Fathers would have restricted AR-15's to white men only.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)I wonder what Jefferson's reaction to condominiums would have been.
Paladin
(28,264 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)No matter what one's position is people seem to feel they can expertly interpret what was really being said, and lo and behold!, what was really said EXACTLY supports what they want it to. It's amazing how this works.
malthaussen
(17,204 posts)David Hume's essays are central to understanding Madison's thought. Compare Hume's "Of Parties in General" with the critical Federalist 10.
-- Mal
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)They have no clue about history. The Federalists favored a strong, centralized government. Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans were against it. That's why Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were enemies.
But I quit trying to explain things to Teabaggers along time ago. They believe what they believe and no one is going to change their minds.