Federalist Discussion Thread

[Palancia]

---

Federalist Discussion Thread

---

Welcome to the Federalist Discussion Thread! This will be the third time that I will kick this off because I messed up that passed two times because reasons I don't want to explain. I really don't feel like making a big introduction post, so let me give it to straightforward. Please TG for suggestions, polls, partnerships with your server, page, dog, club, I don't care. But the number one rule is to be respectful towards other people's opinions and thoughts.


Previous Federalist Discussions:
Previous both locked :^(

Relevant topics:
- Federalism, Direct Democracy, Authoritarianism, Monarchism, etc.
- Economics
- Social Issues
- Religion
- News and events about elections, polls, politics, etc.
- History of Federalism such as the system of government and the former U.S. Federalist Party
- US Constitution and other Constitutions from other nations.
- Federalist cause
- Pretty much anything relevant to this topic

Basically this topic is about how people feel about federalism, if it works, and or if it doesn't work. All viewpoints are welcome here.

Useful links:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federalism

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... ted-states

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J0gosGXSgsI

https://www.reddit.com/r/EuropeanFederalists/

Federalist Discussion Thread Discord

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/1 ... =lawsocsci

Questions?:
TG me at Palancia

[Palancia]

Federalism allows the government to govern a nation easier because it giving more power to the local governments.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

What happened to the other one?

[Palancia]

What happened to the other one?

It was locked because I promoted the Discord server too much, this go round, I'm not gonna do that. Please stay on topic, I don't want another thread to get locked again.

[Palancia]

Anyways, federalism advocates for a strong central government, which means that neo-secessionists wouldn't be able to rebel against a nation.

[Ethel mermania]

The older I get, the more I want to go back to a confederacy

[Lillorainen]

I'll just quote myself from the last thread, with typos corrected:

As a player coming from a Federal Republic and running a Federation on NS, I do think I can call myself pro-federalist (in a sense of strengthening regional autonomy).
Federalist nations exist for a number of reasons - for historical reasons (e.g. USA, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Switzerland, India), for ethnic/linguistic reasons (e.g. Belgium, Russia, again Switzerland and India); they can exist due to unification of formerly sovereign states (e.g. USA, Germany, Switzerland, historically the SU, Yugoslavia), or due to formerly centralist states being federalized (e.g. Belgium, Austria, BiH).
(My NS nation is an oddly extreme example of all of the above, but that's another story.)
While, of course, a federal system is not suitable/necessary for all countries, I do think it does have its raison d'être in those nations that have it - mostly for the reasons mentioned above. Self-administration on a regional level may swallow a lot of tax dollars/euros/francs/rupees/whatever, yes, but they are also important for regional identity, and in my opinion, the principle of subsidiarity makes a country, especially a large one, more efficient - given that it's done the right way, that is. A centralist government has to deal with all political issues, whereas a federalist or devolved government (UK, Spain, Serbia, PRC being good examples for the latter) can delegate most, less substantial issues to lower-level authorities - also, cultural policies can be managed better on a local level than on a national one, in countries with many different local cultures.
Just my two cents. Don't spend them all at once.

[Alamka]

authoritarianism..... yeah it's good

[Palancia]

authoritarianism..... yeah it's good

Got anything to back that up?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I recommend adding more information about federalism, and its history to your OP.

[Palancia]

I recommend adding more information about federalism, and its history to your OP.

As I find more information about federalism, I add it to the OP

[Palancia]

Federalism today (in the United States) is pretty much from the 1930's; which gave the national government a bigger role in the country. Before then, more power was given to the states.Today's federalism isn't true federalism, the government has a role that is too big. People today think that federalism means power to the national government, hence the name "Federal Government", but that's not what it means, in reality the states have the most essential powers such as driver's licenses, hunting & fishing licenses, dentist licenses, etc., marriage laws, etc. But when it comes to law nationally, that tends to rule over local law.

[Jolthig]

Democratic Republican federalist here

[Palancia]

Democratic Republican federalist here

Welcome to the thread! One question. Wouldn't Democratic-Republicans contradict with federalist ideals? Historically it has if you go back to early 1780's to early 1800's. But you do you

[Jolthig]

Democratic Republican federalist here

Welcome to the thread! One question. Wouldn't Democratic-Republicans contradict with federalist ideals? Historically it has if you go back to early 1780's to early 1800's. But you do you

I used it in a different context. Not to be confused with the Democratic Republican party.

But I have recently read some of the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and another founding father

[Palancia]

Welcome to the thread! One question. Wouldn't Democratic-Republicans contradict with federalist ideals? Historically it has if you go back to early 1780's to early 1800's. But you do you

I used it in a different context. Not to be confused with the Democratic Republican party.

But I have recently read some of the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and another founding father

I've recently read the Federalist Papers too. Nice to see another Federalist in the thread!

[Jolthig]

I used it in a different context. Not to be confused with the Democratic Republican party.

But I have recently read some of the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and another founding father

I've recently read the Federalist Papers too. Nice to see another Federalist in the thread!

Yeah, I've been understanding the Constitution a lot better now.

[Palancia]

I've recently read the Federalist Papers too. Nice to see another Federalist in the thread!

Yeah, I've been understanding the Constitution a lot better now.

Same here, I've come to understand that the republican system of government and constitution proposed by the Federalists wouldn't have allowed the government to become a monarchy or tyrannical. The Constitution was the bill of rights. James Madison the was one who had this ideal, especially when it came to factions, aka political parties. Although I think its important, but I really don't see the need for the Bill of Rights.

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, I've been understanding the Constitution a lot better now.

Same here, I've come to understand that the republican system of government and constitution proposed by the Federalists wouldn't have allowed the government to become a monarchy or tyrannical. The Constitution was the bill of rights. James Madison the was one who had this ideal, especially when it came to factions, aka political parties. Although I think its important, but I really don't see the need for the Bill of Rights.

Madison thought the bill of rights unnecessary, he felt they were already implied in the constitution. The bill of rights were basically in response to the requirements of the ratifying states.

[Palancia]

Same here, I've come to understand that the republican system of government and constitution proposed by the Federalists wouldn't have allowed the government to become a monarchy or tyrannical. The Constitution was the bill of rights. James Madison the was one who had this ideal, especially when it came to factions, aka political parties. Although I think its important, but I really don't see the need for the Bill of Rights.

Madison thought the bill of rights unnecessary, he felt they were already implied in the constitution. The bill of rights were basically in response to the requirements of the ratifying states.

Exactly. But there was no need for the Bill of Rights. Sometimes Inwonfer if the Anti-Federalists actually read the proposed Constitution. The fact is, they thought the branches and the government were seperate, they're not. Checks and balances on each branch was checks and balances on the whole government.

[Ethel mermania]

Madison thought the bill of rights unnecessary, he felt they were already implied in the constitution. The bill of rights were basically in response to the requirements of the ratifying states.

Exactly. But there was no need for the Bill of Rights. Sometimes Inwonfer if the Anti-Federalists actually read the proposed Constitution. The fact is, they thought the branches and the government were seperate, they're not. Checks and balances on each branch was checks and balances on the whole government.

No need for the bill of rights? I supposed if they were enforced I would agree. The 10th amendment doesn't really exist anymore.

[Palancia]

Exactly. But there was no need for the Bill of Rights. Sometimes Inwonfer if the Anti-Federalists actually read the proposed Constitution. The fact is, they thought the branches and the government were seperate, they're not. Checks and balances on each branch was checks and balances on the whole government.

No need for the bill of rights? I supposed if they were enforced I would agree. The 10th amendment doesn't really exist anymore.

The Constitution and the B.O.R. have to be updated. Instead of revising, it should be updated.

[Ethel mermania]

No need for the bill of rights? I supposed if they were enforced I would agree. The 10th amendment doesn't really exist anymore.

The Constitution and the B.O.R. have to be updated. Instead of revising, it should be updated.

I like the constitution, I would argue our court system doesnt.

[Palancia]

The Constitution and the B.O.R. have to be updated. Instead of revising, it should be updated.

I like the constitution, I would argue our court system doesnt.

Not the entire Constitution, just parts of it like a case where someone is being sued $20 or more a jury is required: law today says $75,000 or more.

[Kowani]

Welcome to the thread! One question. Wouldn't Democratic-Republicans contradict with federalist ideals? Historically it has if you go back to early 1780's to early 1800's. But you do you

I used it in a different context. Not to be confused with the Democratic Republican party.

But I have recently read some of the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison, and another founding father

John Jay