Federalists v Anti Federalists on the Bill of Rights | LIVESTREAM BEGINS at 6:30 PM EDT

➡ This discussion on the History Channel focuses on the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarding the structure of the U.S. government. The Federalists, who wanted a stronger national government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared loss of liberty and states’ rights, had differing views on the powers of the three branches of government. The Federalists believed in a strong central government to enforce laws and foster economic growth, while the Anti-Federalists warned against the potential tyranny of a centralized power. The debate shaped the U.S. Constitution and the structure of the government as we know it today.
➡ The text discusses the contrasting views of Federalists and Anti-Federalists on the U.S. Constitution. Anti-Federalists, using pseudonyms like Brutus, warned of potential tyranny and overreach by the government. Federalists, like James Madison, argued for a representative republic to prevent any one group from gaining control. The debate also touched on the potential for the President to become a monarch, with Federalists arguing for checks and balances, and Anti-Federalists fearing the concentration of power.
➡ The text discusses the roles and checks of power within the U.S. government. It highlights the importance of unity and decision-making in governance, and how the President’s power is checked by Congress, courts, and voters. It also discusses the potential for misuse of power in the executive and judicial branches, with lifetime judges possibly overturning laws and expanding federal authority. Lastly, it mentions FDR’s attempt to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to push his New Deal agenda, which was ultimately unsuccessful.
➡ The text discusses the differing views of Federalists and Anti-Federalists on the role of the judiciary in the U.S. Federalists, like Hamilton, believed in the independence of judges and trusted the checks and balances system to prevent errors. Anti-Federalists, like Brutus, feared that federal judges would overpower state courts and interpret the Constitution to increase federal power. The debate over the balance of powers, the role of states, the authority of the courts, and the limits of executive action continues today.
➡ In the late 1700s, public anger grew against Federalists who suppressed dissent, leading to their political downfall. In the Gilded Age, wealthy moguls like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt used their wealth to improve their public image through philanthropy. During the Industrial Revolution, poor working conditions led to the formation of unions. However, with modern labor laws, unions have become less necessary and are often seen as self-serving.
➡ The text discusses the importance of county-level governance in the United States, highlighting how the role of the sheriff and county commission used to be more significant. It mentions a Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. Sims, which changed how state elections were held, shifting power to population centers. The text also criticizes the Federal Reserve Act and the 17th amendment, arguing they have led to federal overreach and states losing their say at the federal level. The speaker hopes for a return to a more republican form of government, as mandated by the Constitution.

Hi welcome everybody to Hi everybody. Hello. You beat me to the punch. Welcome everybody to the Until History Channel. My name is Ron Partain. It is Tuesday, May 20th and we are live working today with the continuing with the Federalist versus the anti Federalist debate. And today we’re going to be doing the debate between the type of government or the branches of government, the Federalist versus the anti Federalists and what they how they saw the three different branches of government. So you had a chance to look over the stuff that I sent you? Yes. Hi, I’m Carrington McDuffie.

I’m joining Willem today. Just so you know, I have to introduce myself on this show. Sorry, Carrington. It’s okay. Hi everybody. Glad to be here. Ready to read whatever you need me to read. Yes. And looking forward to learning something from this myself because I have not fully read through all the Federalist papers and this debate. It’s well, I always side with the anti Federalists, but of course we have Hindsight is 20 20, right? Yes. Yeah, it’s, I, I, I’m embarrassed. You know, I, I take for granted sometime know who you are and it just, it so I apologize for that.

That’s okay. I just like to say hello. Yes. No, and, and, and justifiably so so I deserved that. The but, but in any event, the did you have a chance to look over the stuff for today? Yes, briefly. Yeah. So it’s nicely laid out and there’s a lot, you’ve got a lot to cover. But it looks like, you know, the main points are, are covered. Yes, I think so. And I, I put together in a font that I thought was going to be good, but it’s going to be kind of difficult to read, guys. And I just didn’t have time to change it after the fact.

So we’re just, it’s just going to have to be one of those things where you’re going to have to if you’re following along at home and you’re looking at the screen, I apologize but you’re probably going to have a difficult time reading it. But in any event, because we’re kind of, I don’t say short on time, but let’s, let’s, let’s dive in. Yeah. And we’ll make it sound real clear so that people can understand it even if they can’t see it. Yeah, absolutely. The bigger the text, obviously the easier it’s going to be. But when we get into some of the smaller text, it’s going to be a little bit harder.

So but this is the, it’s clash of visions. The Federalist versus the anti Federalist debates over the three branches of government. And as we, you know, last week we did the Bill of Rights which was, that was, that was actually quite something. I, that was great. I’m. Yeah, I’m still. That, that was, that was a very good show. So it’s going to be interesting to see what they had to say about the three different branches of government. So again, and these are not, these are basically bullet points. We, for us to get into every single aspect of the Federalist and anti Federalist Papers, it would essentially, it would take way too long.

It would be like a 50 hour show. So. And I don’t, I don’t think either you nor I have the stamina to do something like that. Right. Desire perhaps, but not stamina or time. Exactly. All right, well we’re doing our best here. Exactly. Very well said. All right, so, so there, there the introduction here. All right. We’re going to explore the debate that shaped the U.S. constitution, especially the arguments over the structure and powers of the three branches of government. And here is where I’m going to pass it over to Carrington because everybody loves to hear your voice.

Okay. So. All right. The road to conflict. Setting the stage. The road to conflict. Okay. The Articles of Confederation were weak. Federalists wanted a stronger national government and anti Federalists feared loss of liberty and states rights. And that’s pretty much what we always are looking at. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the newly independent states operated under the Articles of Confederation, a governing framework designed to minimize centralized authority. While this suited the post colonial mood of distrust towards strong national power, it soon became clear that the Articles were too weak to support a functioning republic.

Congress lacked the authority to levy taxes, regulate commerce or compel states to comply with national laws. This led to financial instability, internal conflicts such as Shays Rebellion and. And a lack of international credibility which of course for commerce is so important. Federalists saw this dysfunction as a threat to the survival of the Union. They believed a new Constitution was necessary to create a stronger federal government capable of enforcing laws, providing for national defense and fostering economic growth. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay authored the Federalist Papers to persuade Americans that a new framework was not only safe, but essential.

Right. In contrast, anti Federalists feared the proposed Constitution would replace one tyranny with another. Without explicit protections for individual rights and limits on federal power, they believed liberty itself was in jeopardy. Figures like Brutus, Cato and the Federal farmer warned that centralized power would swallow up the states and reduce citizens to subjects. Quote, a consolidated government is a great, a very great evil. From Brutus number one. And it is not to be expected that the brightest genius can at once form the best system of government. That’s from Federal farmer number one. You know what I find interesting is that the Federalists were very eager, not, maybe not eager, but they weren’t shy to put their names to the papers.

But the anti Federalists seem to use pseudonyms. Yeah, they did. And I don’t know the backstory. I’m going to check that out. I’m going to check that out. But, you know, but you know, one thing I wanted to touch on real quick is I wanted to do, you know, Shay’s Rebellion comes up quite a bit. And I’m not sure that everybody really truly knows what Shays Rebellion was. And so I’m just going to give a little paragraph of kind of what it was. Shays Rebellion was an armed uprising that took place in western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787, led by Revolutionary War veteran Daniel Shea.

Or Shays plural. It’s not. It’s S H A Y. S is how he spells his last name. The rebellion was driven by economic hardship, high taxes and aggressive debt collection practices that particularly affected poor farmers, many of whom faced foreclosure and imprisonment. Frustrated by what they saw as an unresponsive and elitist state government, the rebels attempted to shut down courts and prevent property seizures. The insurrection was eventually suppressed by a privately funded militia, but it exposed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, particularly the federal government’s inability to maintain order or suppress states in times of crisis.

Shays Rebellion became a powerful catalyst for the Constitutional Convention, convincing many leaders that a stronger central government was necessary to preserve and to preserve stability and liberty. So taxes are in there too? Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Always I hang up. Okay, thank you for that because I always think it took place in Connecticut, but it’s western Mass. Okay. Right. So the legislative branch. The core conflict concern over Congress’s power to tax, legislate and control commerce. Would it represent the people or become aristocratic? The Constitution granted Congress sweeping powers to tax, regulate commerce, declare war, and pass laws deemed necessary and proper.

Federalists saw this as a rational response to the weakness of the Articles. But anti Federalists feared it created an all powerful legislature that could erode local autonomy. Federalists argued that dividing Congress into two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate would provide internal checks that the House, elected directly by the people, would represent immediate interests, while the Senate would offer stability and insulation from popular passions. Okay, the legislative branch, the core conflict here. Anti Federalists countered that the vague language of the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause gave Congress nearly unlimited authority. They also warned that the Senate, with long terms and indirect election, would become an aristocratic elite.

And quote from Brutus number one, the powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance. And From Federalist number 10, extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. Okay, I have an answer here for you. Yeah. The anti Federalists use pseudonyms such as Brutus, Cato, Federal, Farmer and Sentinel primarily to protect themselves from political and social backlash, but also to frame their arguments within classical and philosophical traditions. At the time, the ratification debate was intensely political, and publishing under one’s real name could lead to personal, professional, or, or even legal consequences, especially for those opposing powerful Federalist figures.

So it’s interesting. Yes. I mean, I figured they were protecting themselves, but legal action, that’s interesting coming from the centralists is like. That’s worrisome, isn’t it? Additionally, the use of classical pseudonyms helped authors position themselves within the lineage of Roman republicanism and Enlightenment thought, signing to readers, or, excuse me, signaling to readers that their warnings were grounded in historical wisdom. For example, Brutus evoked the Roman senator who helped overthrow tyranny, subtly suggesting that the new Constitution risked creating a similar authoritarian threat. Those these pen names allowed anti Federalists to speak with moral and historical authority while maintaining personal anonymity.

That’s interesting. I’m glad I looked that up because that’s interesting, especially the point that you made about facing legal ramifications. Scary. I think it’s so that it makes sense, of course, that they align themselves with certain traditions in our more ancient political thought. And it makes me wonder, like, who would you align yourself with if you were going to use a, a pseudonym from, say, classical Greece? Or, like, what about Marcus Aurelius, you know, or Cleopatra, you know? No, it’s sort of an interesting question. Who would you choose? Absolutely. But I, I, I. It’s interesting when it talked about Brutus being responsible for trying to overthrow the Caesar, you know, which was who, you know, wanted to do away with the Senate.

So interesting. Okay, let’s see. The Federalist view regarding the legislative branch. James Madison, in Federalist number 10 and number 51, emphasized the need for a representative republic that could filter public opinion through layers of deliberation. A large republic, he argued, would prevent any one faction from gaining control. And From Federalist number 51, ambition must be made to counteract ambition. That’s slippery. The structure of Congress was meant to slow down lawmaking and ensure a balance of power. The House of Representatives, with short terms and direct elections would be accountable to the people. The Senate would provide a check on impulsive legislation.

Quote, in the extended Republic of the United States, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good. From Federalist number 10. Yeah, and you know, I want to reiterate a point that I made. I don’t know if it was last week or the week before that. I don’t believe that the, the Federalists were tyrannical. I don’t believe that they, they espoused a tyrannical society. I believe they just wanted a government that had a little bit of teeth, that was able to do some things that needed to be done.

And the, you know, the Shays Rebellion episode showed how weak that the, the Articles of Confederation were. And so what these guys were trying to do was to come up with a balancing act to balance what they thought would have been a healthy amount of power provided to the federal government while still maintaining, you know, states rights and whatnot. So but you know, if you, if you analyze just some of the quotes that we’ve read, the, you know, at the beginning it feels like the Federalists were right, but as time has progressed, it was like the anti Federalists were correct.

Yeah, I think, you know, of course they were both right and the Federalists were really wanted. They’re looking at law and order. They want, you know, a controlled situation. And I think they’re also wanting prosperity and they’re very oriented toward that. Which means, as was stated early on in this, in the slides, that internationally the United States has to appear stable in order to be available and reliable for, for commerce. So you know, they’re thinking law and order, prosperity and they’re just more control oriented people, I think. And also, you know, to rely on in a way the system is designed for a moral people.

And maybe we’ve touched on this before, but as soon as you assume that you’re, you know, get the cops, you know, because you can’t count on people to be immoral people to the one. Right. So. But yeah, where we are now, of course the weight is pushing with you and me anyway from the anti Federalist side because of where we’ve evolved to. Well, it’s not even so much that, that I, I side with the anti Federalists because I’m philosophically More aligned with them. I am, but I think that, you know, they were. They were correct in.

I mean, it took. It took a long time for it to get to the point that it did, but they were correct. They were correct in what they foresaw. Absolutely. That’s correct. Yeah. They were 100% right in. In what they foresaw it coming to pass. They just, it just, you know, it sounds to me like, you know, but when you. When we read these documents, it sounds like they thought it was like eminence, but it was a slow process. And you know, as they. I think, what is it? The side. The societies that are the freest ultimately become the most subjugated because of the freedom.

And what happens is people take their freedom for granted. Yeah. And when you take your freedom for granted and you don’t pay attention to the things that are happening because, you know, hey, you’re just free. And you. Why you just presume. I mean, and it’s not, it’s, it’s not a. It’s. It’s not far out to presume that why would anybody want to be. Not want to be free. Right. But you. You’re not taking into consideration the human desire for control. Yeah. And, and, and there are. There are some human beings out there who. Their ultimate objective is control.

Absolutely. And I. You can see what the Anti Federalists were anticipating in that regard. Absolutely. Yeah. Shall we? Yeah, absolutely. This could go. Okay. The Federalist view regarding the legislative branch. James Madison in Federalist number 10 and number 51. Let’s see. We need to move on a slide. We did just do this. Did I just do this one? Yeah, I think we just did. Yes. We need the anti Federalist view of the legislative. My apologies. No worries. Okay. Anti Federalists express deep concerns about the potential for congressional overreach. Brutus warned that the broad and undefined powers of Congress would absorb all functions of governance.

From Brutus. Number one, the general government will be possessed of every power which is of the least importance. They were particularly concerned with the Senate, which they saw as too insulated from the people and prone to become an oligarchy. From Cato, number five, the Senate, from the mode of its appointment, its duration and the powers with which it is invested must ultimately destroy the confederation. Strong words. Very. And to the executive branch, the core conflict. Could the president become a monarch in disguise? The executive branch sparked perhaps the most visceral fears. After all, Americans had just fought a war to free themselves from a king.

Would the new Constitution create an elective monarchy? Federalists argued that an energetic executive was essential to enforce laws and provide leadership. The President would be accountable through elections, impeachable by Congress and constrained by the separation of powers. Anti Federalists saw danger in the combination of military command, pardon power and, and long terms. They feared that with enough public support or manipulation, the President could entrench himself indefinitely. From Brutus number eight. The President is to be a commander in chief of the army and Navy. It would amount to a much greater authority than possessed by any monarch in Europe.

Right. He was. And you know what? I think the, I think when Washington stepped down after two terms and he kind of set the precedent that, you know, everybody would step down after two terms, that was a, I think that was a, he led by example when he did that. And it wasn’t until, I think the first president that tried to run for a third term was Ulysses S. Grant. And he won in, I believe he won in 1818 76. And then in, oh, no, I think he won in as he, was it, was it 18, 1868.

I think he won in 1868. Right at the end of the Civil War. Okay. Yeah. So, so he went, he won in 1868. Yeah. And then I believe he won in 1872. And then I think he was running again for a third term in 1876, but ultimately lost. But he, but he, he did try. The, the only other president to run for multiple, you know, for, for more than a third term was fdr. Right. When he, when he ran, he won in, let’s see, 32, 36. And then he won. Then he ran again in 40. And he won in 40.

And then he go. And then he won again in 44. Yeah, he didn’t stick around long, but, but that’s, yeah, that’s what they were fearing that kind of, I mean, that’s when we got a more socialist thing going on. That’s what, that’s what ultimately led to the amendment to, to, to limit presidential terms to, to, but we’ll see. I, I, I still think that, not to get too far off track, but I do believe that Trump will get another term. I don’t know how that’s going to play out, but I do believe that he will. And many say this is his third term, so there’s that whole rabbit hole, possibly.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve seen complaints about, you know, anyway. Okay, well, should we look at the Federalist view? Oh, wait, let’s see. Yep. This is federal. Yeah. Here we are. Of the executive branch, Alexander Hamilton passionately defended the need for a single executive. In federalist number 70, he argued that decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch were the marks of a good governance. And these required unity. Quote, a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. I have to agree. In federalist number 69, he laid out in detail how the President’s power were checked by Congress, the courts and the electorate.

Quote, the President will be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction, removed from office. It’s hard to get there, but there have been several attempts. Did FDR win his last term or was it stayed due to the war? No, he won his last term. He won. So he won. The election was in 44 and he would have been inaugurated again in. Would have been March of 45. But he didn’t. But he, I think he died in. I want to say he died in like June or July of 45. So he had only been in. He’d only been in office for just a couple of months.

Huh. Okay. Before he died. So. Yeah. Right. Next, the anti federalist view of the executive branch. Cato and Brutus saw the executive as an emerging autocrat. The fear wasn’t only the formal powers, but how those powers might be exploited. Cato, number five. The President is invested with an authority exceeding that of the most absolute monarch. Brutus noted the potential for a demagogue to gain popular support and dominate other branches. From Brutus. Number four. It is very probable that the great powers of the President may render him formidable to the people. Yeah, okay. Judicial. Oh, the judicial branch.

Yeah. I mean, this is. I, I wanted to. I, I honestly, I ran out of time today to find more content. I was looking for. I was trying to get more stuff done, but I just, it just, time was not on my side today, so. But I, I still think, I still think we’re getting a good taste of what the core disagreements were. Yeah. And regarding the judicial branch, the question is, could lifetime judges overturn laws and crush state power? Boy, is this relevant right now? Perhaps the most philosophical debates centered on the judiciary. Its members were unelected and served for life, yet they held the power to strike down laws and interpret the Constitution.

Federalists saw judicial independence as a safeguard against tyranny. The courts, they argued, would be the least dangerous branch. Anti Federalists believed lifetime tenure would create a judicial aristocracy. Judges would be insulated from accountability and use their power to expand federal authority at the expense of the states. Amen. Right, boy. Now, boy. Well, you want to talk about hitting the nail on the head? Yeah. I mean, that’s like that was right where. With a sledgehammer. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let’s see. Oh, what was the quote? Back up for one. Yeah, here we go. From Brutus, number 11. There is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions.

That lifetime tenure. I mean, I understand arguing for it because it seems like, well, if you’re serving for a lifetime, you, you know, you’re safe from. You’re. It’s the point. The point, as I understand it, why they’re, why they did that way is so that the. And I believe that this is not for. It’s. It was exclusively for the federal. For the Supreme Court. It wasn’t for any other branch or any other courts. It was, it was exclusively for the Supreme Court. But the, the theory behind it was that if they had a lifetime appointment, then they’re, they couldn’t be just, they couldn’t just be bought so easily.

And. No, they, they, they, you know, they couldn’t be bought and they couldn’t be just switched out at a whim. Oh, I see. Yes. Right, right. Because if you had. I mean, when you look back at what FDR wanted to do, FDR wanted to pack the court. I mean, that was. President wants to. Well, no, but, but I mean, FDR genuine. He literally wanted to pack the court. I think there was nine justices at the time, and because I believe they started off with. I don’t remember. I’m gonna look this up. But they, I want to say they started off with either 5 or 7, and then they expanded it to 9.

Right. But he wanted to expand it to like 11 or 13 or something like that because he wanted to push through his, his New Deal stuff his agenda. Yeah. Well, another thought. Sorry, finish the thought. And then I. Oh, no, go ahead, go ahead. Well, I was going to say also, I wonder. I’ve never read this anywhere, but I wonder if they figured that if it was a lifetime appointment, then you knew you were set so you wouldn’t worry about, you know, what other people thought and you would focus on, you know, the Constitution and what you think is right.

And, but it’s an opportunity to be bought. I don’t know. I mean, look what we’ve got now. It’s just so insane. I don’t know. Well, I think, you know, you look at, you look at the, at the court now. Yeah. And they’re very much compromised. Yeah. And do you think that they ever pictured someone like Katanji Jackson? It’s just a really awful bad joke, you know, do you think they Ever pictured it could. The. The court could consist of even one justice that was a joke like that, like dumb. And, you know, I, I just don’t know what other word to use.

Okay, so here’s, here’s. This is interesting. I didn’t know this. So the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court size changes. So in 1789, they. The original number was six. It was six. Oh, and they went to odd numbers in 1807. So it wasn’t for another, like, you know, almost 20 years that they went to. To seven. To seven. Right. And this, this is, this is to accommodate expansion into new judicial circuits in 1837. So 37. So. So 30 years later, they increased to nine to reflect the growing number of states in 1863, during the Civil War or, Or, excuse me, during the War of Northern Aggression, they increase it to 10.

Under Lincoln, that. Well, there’s. I mean, he did. Lincoln did not like Tawny. Tawny was the chief justice at the time, and he literally was going to throw Tawny in jail. But because. Because Tawny. Tawny did not want to abandon or suspend habeas corpus, and Lincoln wanted to do that. So in 1866, it was reduced to seven by Congress to limit President Andrew Johnson’s influence. And then in 1869, it was set at 9, where it remained ever since. And that was the Judiciary act of, of 1869. So do you know anything? I always thought that, you know, the odd number made more sense because you wouldn’t wind up with an equal number.

Right. Yeah. Constantly being tied. Well, okay, so. So here’s the thing. If there’s a. When there’s a decision that’s rendered by the lower court. All right. And it gets to the Supreme Court, because there are times when a Supreme Court justice will recuse himself or herself from a decision, so you will have an even number. And when that, when that happens, if there is a tie, what happens is that the, the decision at the lower level remains. So, like. Yeah, so if you. So the decision, like, say there, say there’s. There’s a decision at the appellate court level.

If the appellate court level decision went in favor of the government or the plaintiff, then the. And it gets to the Supreme Court and there’s a tie, then the, The. Then the. It goes to the. It’s. It’s. It. The. The decision at the lower court level stays the same. I see. I’m looking up right now to see who. How many judges that FDR wanted to back the court with. He got his way anyway. Well, he didn’t get his way. All the way. He got his, he got his way with a good, a good amount of it.

Let’s see here in. Oh, holy crap. I was wrong. In 1937, FDR proposed a plan to add up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court, which would have expanded the bench from nine to 15. Under the, under his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, FDR sought to add one new justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70 and a half who refused to retire, up to a maximum of six. The rationale, according to Roosevelt, was to ease the burden on aging judges and improve judicial judicial efficiency. However, the political motive was clear. The Supreme Court had struck down several key New Deal programs and FDR wanted to ensure a more favorable bench by packing it with justice who would uphold his legislation.

The plan was highly controversial and faced intense opposition even from members of FDR’s own party, and it ultimately failed in Congress. Though the bill was never passed, the Court began to rule more favorably on New Deal legislation shortly afterwards in what became known as the switch in time. That saved nine. Interesting. I didn’t, I did not know that. Yeah, the idea that, that he’d be concerned about their health or whatever seems pretty far fetched. I just, I, I, I was just about to say. Yeah, yeah, they, yeah. When they were, if they weren’t going to go along, then they were going to be, you know, to, to, to put, put a, a number on the table that is in the, been in the, the, the news.

Okay, well, here’s the Federalist view of the judicial branch. Hamilton’s Federalist number 78 laid the intellectual foundation for judicial review. He argued that judges must be independent to rule fairly. Quote, the judiciary has no influence over either the sword or the purse. He acknowledged the potential for error, but trusted that the structure of checks and balances would contain it. And also From Federalist number 78, it may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment. Let’s see what the anti Federalists had to say. Yeah, okay. Brutus warned that federal judges, once appointed for life, would dominate state courts and interpret the Constitution broadly to aggrandize federal power.

Oops, sorry. It’s okay. Number 15. Brutus Number 15, quote, they are independent of the people, of the legislature and of every power under heaven. He feared that the judiciary would become an engine of centralization. Brutus number 11. They will give such meaning to the Constitution as will enlarge the powers of the general government. Interesting. It comes back down to the same thing. The centralization of power. And here we are in this time when. When so much, especially in finance, is all about decentralization. Right. Okay. So the conclusion, the themes and legacy. Executive overreach, courts shaping policy, Congress representative or captured.

The Constitution emerged from conflict and compromise. The Constitution was a compromise between opposing visions. Federalists believed liberty required a capable government. Anti Federalists believed government itself was the greatest threat to liberty. These tensions never went away. We still debate the balance of powers, the role of states, the authority of the courts, and the limits of executive action. From Federalist number 47. The accumulation of all powers in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. And Brutus, apparently this is paraphrased. A free people should be ever watchful of those to whom they commit power.

And this is what you were saying earlier about why free societies wind up enslaved because they don’t remain ever watchful. Because they’re having a nice time. Yep, 100%. You know, I. I played this last night on my marathon show with Ghost, but you were the one that sent this to me, and I just. I totally outed you. And I apologize for that. But there was. Is this. This. There’s a lot of strong language in this, but I think it bears repeating based on kind of what we’re talking about here, you guys. For. For those of you in the audience who have.

Who have sensitive ears. Let’s see here. Why is this thing here? That’s not what I wanted. I want. Okay, I’m gonna add this. Oh, yeah, you remember this? Yeah. This lady is. And she’s living in a double wide. Just amazing. No single wide, I think is what she said. Was it a single wide? Okay. Single wide, yeah. So if you guys are sensitive to language, close your ears or just, you know, it’s just mute yourself or whatever. But this is. This is fantastic. So here we go. You can take this quote however the you want. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. I don’t know who said it. Historians don’t seem to know who said it. Some people say that it’s attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but the message rings fucking true. This country was founded by people who fought an entire fucking revolution against the most powerful military force on the face of the planet. And as a result, they installed a constitutional republic. I’m not a historian, I’m just an autodidact. I just love American history. It’s my favorite fucking thing in the goddamn world. So I’m going to Say this with my whole fucking chest.

Back in the day, elected representatives were terrified of the people who elected them into office. Why? Because if they didn’t do the will of the people who put them in the position they held, they were hung, tarred and feathered. That’s not hyperbole. That is a fact. That is a historical fucking fact. Fact. When the people in this country actually had power, the people enforced that power. Why? Because they had to. Because this was their country. And the people who have been elected to certain offices seem to have forgotten that fact. I don’t give a that it’s Elon Musk who is uncovering fraud, waste and abuse.

I don’t care that he’s employing 20 year olds to help him do it. What I care about is that Democrats are standing on their soapboxes screaming about how egregious it is that they have access to all of this information through a microphone at all of us taxpayers. As if we’re gonna fucking side with them. I’m so sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but boot polish is not on my list of ingredients when I cook for food for my family. Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? This is our fucking country. These are our fucking tax dollars.

And while Congress may hold the fucking strings to the purse, it is us taxpayers that fills that fucking purse. I don’t want my fucking money going towards transgender monkey studies or Moroccan pottery classes, Sesame street in Iraq. $20 million. Do you know what I could do with $20 million? I currently live in a single wide trailer with my family that we rent and my husband and I work our asses off. I’m pissed. I’m angry. And if you are not, there is something psychologically wrong with you. You’re mad at the guy who is showing you how badly you have been.

We, the people who voted for Donald J. Trump, are pissed. And it’s only going to get worse from here because we have found so much fraud, waste and abuse. It is unconscionable for you to even utter that. The problem is Elon Musk is. Yeah, pretty pretty much like elect her. You know, why is she pretty much single wide? You can tell how smart she is. Yeah. And it’s really. Actually I find it really affirming and encouraging that someone, you know, and I talk to people like this a lot who are blue collar and are living like she is.

And they know the score. They’re the ones who know the score. You know, it seems like the more money people get, the less they have A brain. I don’t know. Right. You know, I wanted to. I wanted to share this because this is. I did a search on this, and this is the. This is the. This is chat. GPT. I asked, I said, were you. Were us politicians or federal ever hung or tarred and feathered for any act that the public perceived as wrong? And it says yes. Yes. In early American history, particularly during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, acts of mob justice like tarring and feathering or physical threats were occasionally used against government officials or political figures, including those aligned with Federalist policies.

Interesting. While no federal politician was officially hung or hanged by the state for political actions, there were instances of violent public backlash against policies perceived as unjust or oppressive. So I’m remembering and you’ll know which scene this was. There was a scene in this series about John Adams where who is it gets tarred and feathered, which is. He was one. He was one of the guys who was delivering the. The. He was delivering the tea and. Okay, he was delivering the tea. And this was in the first episode, right? Okay. It was the very first episode.

And he literally. The. The. The mob was there and he was demanding that he get paid the, you know, the taxes, and they weren’t having it, and the mob got crazy and he realized that he was in deep shit. Yes. Yeah. Tarring and feathering, that’s, you know, you burning to death. You’re burning, you know, you’re cooking. You’re cooking. Yeah, yeah. That tarring is like. It’s like serious. It’s scalding hot. Yeah. I mean, you. You probably got third degree burns all over your body. Yeah. You would die from the skin, you know, because all the functions your skin performs are no longer available.

Right. You have to have skin, you know. Yeah. You know, that’s a good question. I want. I’m curious here, but I wanted to. Going through here is like tarring and feathering. In the Federalist era, during the Whiskey Rebellion, tax collectors enforcing Alexander Hamilton’s federal excise tax on wixie, on whiskey, were frequently tarred, feathered, or beaten by angry frontiersmen. In Western Pennsylvania. Though these agents were not elected politicians, they were seen as instruments of federal overreach. The rebellion was seen by many anti Federalists as justified resistance against elite tyranny by Federalists. It underscored the need for a strong national government to enforce the law or get rid of the irs, which is basically who those people are.

Right. Violence and threats to politicians, some loyalists and federalist sympathizers during the revolution and Post revolutionary period were driven from towns beaten or threatened. Though this was not, Though this was more common during the 1770s and 1780s. That was during the time of the, of the revolution. After the passage of the Alien and sedition act in 1798, public outrage grew towards Federalists who supported the suppression of dissent. Though no hangings occurred, it helped fuel the collapse of the Federalist party as Jefferson’s republicans gained ground right on and, but, but mob action was real but rarely fatal.

While public punishment like tarring and feathering were a form of extra legal intimidation. Actual executions of U. S. Politicians by mob or state authorities did not occur in the founding era over political disagreements. Instead, intense backlash often took the form of political defeat, public disgrace or resignation. Public, public disgrace was a much more powerful. Had much more leverage then than it does now. Now everyone. You can’t even believe how people behave. No, they, they don’t even care. They, they hire people to spin, they hire people to spend just to, you know, make it go away. And, and it works.

You know the, the, the, the sad thing is is that people literally subscribe to the bullshit that they’ve been fed. Yeah. You know, you, you look at, you know, John D. Rockefeller and my, my good friend Brady was the one who told me about this. He’s like. Because I was reading some, I was reading a, a Thomas woods and Thomas woods talked about how a lot of these guys, these, you know, these, the, the biggest moguls of the late of the, you know, of the Gilded Age, Pullman and huh guys. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, you know, all these guys, what they did was they, I mean they had so much wealth and really they had, and it was no different then than it is now because they, I mean these, these few people had more wealth combined just in, in that like that tiny little 1% than all of the other people combined.

It was crazy. Yeah. And, and so what, what? There was negative perception against them. So this guy, so Rockefeller actually hired somebody to help him polish up his image. Yeah. Wasn’t he the first one to do that? I think he was the first one to use pr. Yeah. Yeah. And then what, and then, and so what they, so what he had to do was he okay, well take some of your money and put it into like philanthropic organizations. And that was where you get the Rockefeller foundation and so you get the Rockefeller Center. That’s where you get a lot of these things that are, that are done in a manner to, you know, to try to make it look like they were on, you know, good men who were Trying to do what was good for society.

But in, at the end of the day, the money that they shelled out for, for the public good was probably the equivalent of you, you know, driving by somebody who’s got a cup out at the, at the intersection and you flipping a penny at him. Yeah, didn’t Pullman, Wasn’t it Pullman who created the library system? Or is that Carnegie? I don’t, I mean, I feel like some, I think Pullman actually did some good stuff. I, I don’t remember the, I don’t know the answer to that question. But, but in any event, it was, they, you know, I mean, there was, there was a, you know, I, I understand where unions came from in the late 1800s because, you know, there were no, there were no labor laws.

So you know, the, the, the, the people had to come together and say, no, we’re not gonna do this. And that’s the industrial revolution where you have children working and working, you know. Yeah, yeah, well, you get, you got like 12 year olds, 10, 10, 12 year olds working in mines and where, you know, the mines would collapse and all, you know, so, yeah, so you had all these, you didn’t have any labor laws. And as a result of that, you know, the people had to come together and unionize so that they would, you know, they could say, no, we’re not going to put up with this, with this brutality or brutal treatment.

It wasn’t so much about wages, although it was, I mean, there was, there was definitely a financial aspect to it, but I think that it was much more about, you know, on a percentage level, I think it was much more about the deplorable working conditions. Yeah, conditions that, that these, that these people had to suffer through because a lot of times they’re, you know, a lot of times their lives were on the line. I mean, it was work, it was hazardous, very hazardous work. And so anyway, now with all the labor laws that are on the books, unions have essentially become obsolete.

And now unions are there. Unions exist basically to serve themselves and to, and to take money out of the, out of the pockets of, you know, of the people and you know, and move that money into, what am I trying to say? You know, they, they, they move that money into political arenas. So, you know, into, you know, I don’t want to say just exclusively the Democrat party, but they definitely move it. Probably the Democrat party gets the vast majority of it, but. And they have their nice buildings and all their bureaucracy and all that too.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, this was the. So, so this is the, the Federalist versus the anti Federalist debate on the, on the three branches of government. So this was a, it was. I don’t know. What are your thoughts? I see both sides. I just see that the anti Federalists had foresight that the Federalists, you know, Hamilton kept saying, oh, checks and balances will take care of it. And, and I think that’s more the theory. So it seems like there’s more theory going on there and the anti Federalists have got more on the ground practice, you know, concerns about re.

The reality on the ground. That’s one thing I noticed. I agree. You know, less theoretical and more real world. I agree. I think the, I think it’s interesting to see what is, you know, just in looking like I said. Well, I said it before, looking at what the anti Federalists, foresaw. You know, they, they’ve, they, they were like Nostradamus. They saw it, they saw it clear as a bell. Yeah. And everything, almost everything that they predicted has come to pass. Yeah. Yes. Well. And I do agree with the Federalists about needing a strong leader in the form of the executive branch because I, I just.

Without that you can. Well, again, history has borne that out. You can see what happens. Well, you have a weak president. So to that I’ll say that I do believe that the American public has been slowly, I’ll say, trained as opposed to brainwashed. We have been trained to subscribe to the notion that we need a strong central government and that the president holds, you know, the, the president is the, is the, is the, the main guy. That’s why whenever you have a presidential election, that’s when that, those, the presidential election gets the biggest turnout. Sure. The final word.

In a state. In a state, if you’re having a gubernatorial election, you’re going to have a, you’re going to have a larger turnout. But. And if it’s just a senatorial race or something like that, you don’t get the turnout that you would get with the press with the presidential race. Yeah. And you’ve made the point before, I think, how important it is for the voting to happen and the awareness to be there on a really local level, which is what they were also trying to design. It was supposed to be a government that. From the ground up, and maybe that’s also the two sides.

You have the anti Federalists thinking more from the ground up and the Federalists thinking more top down. I don’t know, maybe generalization. No, I think so, but maybe not. But see, the anti Federalists, what They wanted. Was they did not want the power centers or they didn’t want the power structures to be, to be concentrated in like population density areas. Right. That’s why, that’s why they, they did it the way they did. You know, the, you know, if you look at the counties each. So the, the counties came together and formed states. Right. So the states were born out of counties, out of counties coming together and forming a state.

Then the states came together and they formed the federal government. So you have, you have two layers there at the state level. You’ve got the counties, which the county is. That’s why they say the high. The, the, the, the, the, the. What did I say was it the, the, the highest law of the land is the sheriff, right? Well, because they’re independent. Yeah. That is the highest law of the land is the sheriff of the county. He, he can, he can tell federal, he can tell federal authorities to go pound sand. In fact, a federal. If, if, if federal authorities want to come in and conduct a search warrant on Anna on a house within a county, technically speaking, they are supposed to seek permission from the county sheriff.

Well, and sheriffs range so widely in how much independence they actually do claim. And it’s a position that’s also easily bought. And you can see that in Texas. Let me. Well, but that’s a little bit off topic of kind of what I’m with the point that I’m trying to make. Yeah. Go where you’re going. County. The county is supposed to be the main thing. The main thing. Do you remember. And this is the grand jury. This is where the grand jury comes from. Yeah. Do you remember. Yeah. Do you remember the movie Porky’s when, when we were younger.

Remember the movie Porkies? Okay, so it was like from in the early 80s and it was, it was, it was, it’s a total cheesy, you know, like a high school flick and anyway, but, and what they were trying to do is they were, they were, it was down in Florida and they were doing something, some mischief. These kids were doing some mischief and they had to get to the county line because once they got to the county line, it, the, the sheriff didn’t have any authority to do anything because they were crossing, they crossed the county line.

And there’s a lot of. That was, you know that there was a big emphasis put on the, on the significance of the sheriff. And in certain portions of the country that is a big deal. But the point I’m trying to make all that to say is that the county is supposed to be like the core structure of government at the state level. And then the state, the state is basically a collection of the counties. And that’s reflected in the federal versus state setup too, right? Yes, but see, but see. Well, Reynolds v. Sims. Reynolds v. Sims changed that.

That was in 1964, I believe. 64, 65, something like that. Reynolds v. Sims was a Supreme Court case. And what it did was it essentially altered how state senatorial and state, how state elections were supposed to be held. It used to be where the county would get one senator and the senator was elected by the county commission. So the county commission who would have been voted on by the members of, you know, by the people who lived within that county, they would vote for, for the county commissioners, which was, which would essentially be the, the, the, the legislature of the county.

And then the, and then the, the, the legislature of the county would then vote for a senator to go represent them at the state senate level. And then you’d have the legislators who were, you know, that was all parsed out by based on population. So in California, if you had one senator per county in California, you would have a senate that would be overwhelmingly conservative. People think that, people think that California is this, is this liberal bastion. No, look at the whole San Joaquin, the San Joaquin Valley. It is. No, there’s so much corruption. It’s right.

Even. But the point, but, but again what I’m saying is so if, if, if it was, if we didn’t have Reynolds v. Sims, then you’d have. California would be a, wouldn’t be in the, the mess that it’s in now. But with right Now, I think LA county alone, just because of the population, has 13 or 14 senators. Yeah. So it’s like now that what it did is it they concentrated power into the population centers. And that’s exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Now that then was, that was in 1960, I guess it. 64.

But the, the, when they, when they altered how the Senate was elected because the senators were supposed to be elected by the. One senator was supposed to be elected by the state legislature and the other senator was supposed to be elected by the state senate, if I remember correctly. So you had two senators, one would be put there by the legislature and one would be put there by the Senate. And then they were alternating like every three years you would have a new senator or you’d have an election for a senator and they’d either keep that guy in place or they’d put a new one in.

But the point being is that when the 17th amendment was ratified, allegedly the states literally gave away their say at the federal level. Seems unlikely. Yeah, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the states would do that. So anyway, so all that to be said is that we are so far away from where the, where, where we should be, where we original. Where we were originally supposed to be. And, and, and I think, you know, I, I truly hope that we do get back to being that republic, that, that Republican form of government that the Constitution of all. You know, there’s only one thing in the Constitution that it mandates that the states to do, and that is that the state has to be a Republican form of government.

That’s it. That’s the only thing that the Constitution can mandate to the states. Everything else is, is left to the states. So, but what we’re seeing today even now is, is federal, complete federal overreach. And by, and, and with the, with the, with the Federal Reserve Act. Yeah. So much of that’s about money. That. Yeah, yeah. You know, you’ve heard of the golden rule? Which one, sir? One I hadn’t, hadn’t heard of. Well, there’s the golden rule about treat others as you want to be treated. But then, but then there’s the, then there’s the real golden rule that said he who has the gold makes the rules.

Makes the rules. Sure. Right. So. And, and when you reverse the flow of money from the federal government back out to the states, and now the states are dependent on the federal government for money. Now the states get. Now the federal government gets control of the states. Yeah. And that’s where we are. That’s how that works. Yes, that’s exactly where we are. That’s why all these people, all these Democrats are getting so pissy because now. Oh, my God, what are we gonna do? Get a job. Get a job. Yeah, exactly. So anyway. All right, everybody, it is time.

Yep, it is time. So we thank you for tuning in today. Appreciate your time, and we will see you next week. I think we have at least one more week before Doug comes back, so. Right, okay. But, but once, once that come, once Doug comes back, we’re still going to continue this, but, but we’re going to actually get into the, the, we’re going to dive much deeper into the Federalist and anti Federalist papers. So that’s, that’s what we’re looking forward to doing. So this is just kind of a stop, this is a, A stop gap to fill in the time until Doug is.

Doug returns. That’s all I am. I’M just a stop gap. Nice seeing you. Nah. Yeah, don’t take it that. No, I’m giving you a hard time because. I know, because that’s, you know, because you deserve it. Yeah, I do. I do deserve it. All right, guys, well, I’ll be back here in about. About 20 minutes with the. With the great Mike King. We will be finishing up World War II. The World War II today, so look forward to seeing you guys here in about 20 minutes. And Carrington, we will see you next week. Have a good week.

Talk to you soon.
[tr:tra].