|
|
|
Reply
| | From: alaska0867 (Original Message) | Sent: 12/2/2008 4:13 AM |
Anti-Federalists wanted annual elections. A larger House of Representatives whose members were paid by the states, not the central government, so that they did not forget on which side their bread was buttered. Rotation in office, or term limits. A Bill of Rights. Limitations on standing armies. No ‘general welfare�?clause. ... The Anti-Federalists stood for decentralism, local democracy, antimilitarism, and a deep suspicion of central governments.�?/DIV> This is actually an essay on Luther Martin... not to be confused with Martin Luther King. It's pleasing to me when I learn I'm really not a lone voice in the gathering darkness. The very bestest thing about our soon to be extinct group here at MSN is the knowledge I obtained... there are others out there right now who think in similar was as I and, more importantly, what I'm just beginning to explore isn't new ground at all. It is ground sown by people long ago and improved bit by bit as new minds looked and added to it. Today the pentagon announced they are going to sick their troops upon us... 20 thousand of them to start. |
|
First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
(Luther) Martin’s role as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention was to filibuster, to denounce, and ultimately to leak. On Nov. 29, 1787, in a speech to the Maryland legislature, Martin described the deliberations taking place in Philadelphia, breaking the informal code of silence that theoretically bound the conventioneers. With conspiracy-fearing rhetoric that resembled the language that precipitated the Revolution, Martin accused the Federalist faction of plotting “to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of a monarchical nature.�?In that speech and in subsequent essays, he warned of the wars, tyranny, and taxes that the new system would enable, as well as (on a less libertarian note) pleading for preserving the individual states�?ability to print paper money and impose trade barriers. ... As we all know, Martin lost his fight. The Constitution was ratified, and for all its flaws the document does seem rather preferable to whatever it is that governs us now. You can thank the Antifederalists for that, too. They’re the ones who ensured the covenant included a Bill of Rights. And it was their spirit—and in some cases their bodies—that animated the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791, a campaign of civil disobedience that restrained the new regime’s attempts to impose internal taxes. But if Martin was sometimes hyperbolic about the dangers of the new Constitution, his core critique holds. He certainly seems like a prophet today, when we live, in Kauffman’s words, under “a powerful central state involved in perpetual warfare around the globe, a tax-gathering apparatus with its grip on every paycheck, states and localities reduced to mere administrative units.�?Modern America looks much more like Martin’s warnings than Madison’s promises. |
|
Reply
| |
The very bestest thing about our soon to be extinct group here at MSN is the knowledge I obtained... I sincerely hope that your source of "knowledge" didn't begin or end here! |
|
Reply
| |
There is no beginning or end to learning stuff and knowledge is something that is sought for its own sake rather than as the Federal government suggests; education is for making good little worker drones. |
|
Reply
| |
"Knowledge without Wisdom is just a survivor after everyone else killed themselves." -anon. |
|
First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
|