The Platform  

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The new platform is done - or at least the first step (my draft).

Please leave your email address in the comment area if you want to participate in the inevitable editing. I will delete it as soon as I have it for your security.

Here's what it looks like at this point:

Proposed Platform for the American Federalist Party
2008


Preamble

The members of the American Federalist Party have come together in the spirit of freedom and fellowship to acknowledge several truths about our great Nation as it exists today. These truths have forced us to set aside our differences as patriotic Americans with regard to many issues for which we hold differing yet passionate positions, such as regards abortion, war, vice, and even crime, in order to stand together in defense of the very basic law, designed to protect the unalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator, that has been abused and usurped to such an extent that the wise men who gave us such would be embarrassed at what has become of their cherished creation.

Political campaigns are funded by the federal government, and people who wish to publicly support a candidate are often restricted from doing so in violation of the First Amendment.

Congress has passed legislation regulating which kinds of weapons the people may own, and many States require government permission to secure arms and registration thereof, in violation of the Second Amendment.

In violation of the Fourth Amendment, private property has been taken from the people for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues to local and State governments.

The list goes on, and in many cases the problem is so severe that the people of America often either do not know that their rights are being violated, or do not care. This is the source of the problems that overwhelm our country today. Virtually every major problem that affects Americans nationwide is the result, either directly or indirectly, of some abridgement of Constitutional rights or of some usurpation or abdication of power by those in federal, state, and/or local governments.

It goes without saying that with rights come responsibility. We will therefore not, as part of our platform, explain how the people of this great Nation should take responsibility for those aspects of life that we expect the government to vacate. Americans are a creative people, and all have the ability to learn for themselves how to succeed in the free world.

It goes without saying that with actions come consequences. We will therefore not, as part of our platform, explain how those who, experiencing negative consequences for their actions, bring themselves most readily into the ranks of the successful. The freedom to overcome adversity and succeed on one’s own has its own natural rewards for success.

It also goes without saying that not everyone will be responsible and/or successful. We reject, however, that it is within the power of government to involve itself in matters of providing for those less fortunate. We further reject that governments are in any way properly equipped to take on responsibilities such as these.

As Federalists, we believe in the separation and delegation of powers as provided in the US Constitution, with the proper delegation of the weakest powers to the federal government, and the strongest powers to the people, as provided in the bill of Rights. We acknowledge that the concerns voiced by the Anti-Federalists in the infancy of our Nation have largely come true, and wish to place restrictions upon government that will protect our unalienable rights from such abuses in future generations.

The Constitution was written in simple language so that any layman could understand it. Its plain language itself makes it a proper platform for a party trying to rescue it from the current abuses. Therefore, we believe that every American should read the Constitution thoroughly and come to a clear understanding of its meaning by reading the writings of the Founding Fathers and of those who opposed its initial ratification.

We wish our own platform to be so simple. We, however, claim none of the genius of the Founders in their wisdom; we only seek to follow their example in seeking the best way to secure the unalienable rights of the citizens of this great Nation.

Diversity and Common Ground within the Federalist Party

As a party, we seek only a few simple things. We rally around the concept of "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution, and allow all other issues to be resolved by the individual for himself. Each member or candidate will be free to hold whatever position he wishes, without interference from anyone in the party, for as Federalists we develop these positions with the Constitution in mind and reverence.

However, as Federalists, we cling to several simple concepts, and each of us freely affirms:

• That the unalienable rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights exist to protect the rights of individual Americans.
• That government infringement of those rights should be vigorously opposed.
• That government is by its very nature evil and must be watched closely by the people lest it enter into areas where it should not be allowed.
• That the concept of limited government requires that government officials work within the boundaries set forth in the Constitution, and that these limitations include lateral boundaries within the various levels of government as well as boundaries between the levels themselves.
• That compulsory government service is incompatible with the concept of individual liberty.
• That a government that does not function within its means is worse than an individuals who does the same, and that using terms like "balanced budget" and "surplus" in misleading ways merely intensifies the evil under which the people must function.
• That a vibrant and superior military with state-of-the-art weapons systems is necessary to defend the unalienable rights of Americans from those who would do them harm; and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag.
• That America is a sovereign nation with no obligations to any international organization.
• That the Right to Keep and Bear Arms includes the right to use deadly force in self-defense, as well as the right to organize into militias for defense against oppressive people and governments.
• That federal domestic and foreign aid programs are both illegal and immoral.
• That parents, not any government, are responsible for the education of their children, including manner, choice of facility, and the bearing of cost.
• That the federal government has no power to influence elections through regulation, finance, or control of the media.
• That the federal government does not possess the power to set forth an "energy policy".
• That government programs aimed at reducing poverty are neither legal nor beneficial to those they are designed to help, and
• That under a properly instituted federalist system, the federal government is at the weakest level, with local governments and the people being at the most powerful.

Policies of the Federalist Party

As Federalists, we seek to return our government to its proper distribution of powers as set forth in our Founding Documents. All policy positions to be advocated by Federalists, ad infinitum, shall be devised and implemented to respect and enforce these limits, thus keeping the government at its proper distance from the people. As federalists we will seek to implement policies requiring:

• That laws, programs, and policies that violate the federalist structure outlined in the Constitution be repealed.
• That laws passed in violation of the Constitutional rights of the States or the people are likewise repealed.
• That laws requiring compulsory government service, or the pre-registration for the same be repealed. This includes laws that require registration for compulsory military service.
• That a Constitutional Amendment requiring the real balancing of the federal budget and the retiring of the national debt be ratified.
• That our military's superior training be continued, and development of state-of-the-art weapons systems such as SDI be expedited instead of delayed.
• That no American considered sane and safe enough to be at large shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however he wishes, without interference of any kind from any level or branch of government.
• That membership in international organizations not clearly serving the national interest be dissolved. This includes the United Nations.
• That no group of Americans be penalized for the simple act of choosing to act as part of a militia.
• That all taxpayer-funded federal aid programs be dismantled.
• That all federal involvement in the education of children be phased out, and States rightly transfer all power and authority over education to the parents.
• That all federal laws placing limits of any kind on campaign finance or procedure be repealed.
• That the federal government remove itself from all involvement in the decisions of States and businesses with regard to energy.
• That all federal assistance programs aimed at the poor, sick, or elderly be phased out in favor of private sector entities or, where state constitutions may allow, the States.
• That provisions be made so that the federal government can never again rise to greater power than any state or local government.

Federalist Philosophy

As Federalists, we believe that government is at best a necessary evil that is prone to intolerable acts, and that it is the responsibility of the people to see through the salesmanship, half-truths, and blatant lies that those in government present in their efforts to gain acceptance for the things they advocate. We pledge as Federalists, to honor in all of our decisions, the original intent of the Founding Fathers.

Legislatively:

• Federalist legislators will demand (and when in the majority, require) that all proposed legislation be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the proposed legislation is authorized under the Constitution. This report will then serve as a point of reference throughout debate and voting, as well as for executives, jurists, and the people, to assist in ensuring compliance with constitutional restraints upon government officials.
• Federalist legislators will propose, sponsor, and co-sponsor only legislation that is expressly allowed under the Constitution.
• Federalist legislators will vote against any legislation not expressly authorized by the Constitution.
• Federalist legislators will refrain from using as examples legislation passed in other countries or international organizations.
• Federalist legislators will endeavor to legislate consistently according to the Founders' original intent.

Judicially:

• Federalist justices will demand (and when in the majority, require) that all cases brought before their courts be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the relevant case either violates or is supported by the Constitution, especially in matters of government abuse.
• Federalist justices will defer powers to the States where constitutionally appropriate.
• Federalist judges will assert the powers appropriate to their level of government (state, local, etc.) over those of the federal government.
• Federalist jurists will reference the Constitution in their opinions.
• Federalist jurists will refrain from any reference to the law of any other nation or international organization in determining the course of their decisions.
• Federalist jurists will endeavor to rule consistently according to the original intent of the Founders.

Executively:

• Federalist executives will demand that all bills passed by legislators and received for approval be accompanied by a Constitutional Authorization Report detailing how the bill in question is authorized under the Constitution.
• Federalist executives will defer to state or local governments where constitutionally appropriate.
• Federalist executives will sign into law only legislation that is expressly allowed under the Constitution.
• Federalist executives will proudly veto any legislation that is not expressly authorized under the Constitution, including legislation that contains multiple provisions, only some of which may be in violation.
• Federalist executives will respect as relevant only the laws and customs of the United States of America in their decision-making processes.
• Federalist executives will endeavor to govern consistently according to the Founders' original intent.

Summary

Not all Federalists agree on all issues. Our positions on various issues are based in our individual interpretations of the Constitution. However, we reject the expansion of socialism that has plagued this country for so long as legal under the Constitution and believe that returning to our Constitutional roots will solve the majority of the problems that this evil has created and encouraged. Socialism begets hate, jealousy, and economic mediocrity in is subjects. The free people of America should stand firmly against it. The Founders made no provisions for such things in the Constitution, and we Federalists believe this to be by design.


What I'd like to do next is organize some kind of chatroom conference. Any suggestions as to the best way to go about that? Please leave those in the comment area as well.

Oh, and Sage is back to posting again. I can't wait to read his latest!

RWR



Comments (40)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I am very impressed! I am not decided on the best course of action for reform our nation, whether it be through the Republican party or a new party. The benefit of the using the Republicans is that they, as Glenn Beck has stated, already have the framework in place. However, this existing framework has a stigma attached to it that many find distasteful. It would be best that the reformist movement be open to left and right wing individuals that love the constitution and our country.
It would be best that the reformist movement be open to left and right wing individuals that love the constitution and our country.Sadly, you're not going to find very many left-wing individuals who love the Constitution. It seems the left-wingers abandoned the Constitution a long time ago.

RWR
As you well know, I am living quite "remote" these days. No E-mail here! I will still be attempting to call when i am not in a "dead zone" I am working on some new thoughts as to what is the real problem with the present governmental situation: I believe that it may be the document(constitution) itself which is most unfortunate and even worse yet may have been intended by the founders themselves There was a good reason why Patrick Henry never signed on the dotted line As with all law "the devil is in the details" I have a series of posts that I hope to share on the subject which will be forthcomung as I am able to get to the necessary technology to do so STAY TUNED!!!

2008-04-18T14:34:09
Glad to see you're still rockin', Sage. I'll look forward to those posts, which I am especially glad to see back!

RWR

2008-04-18T17:11:59
RWR, just a thought, but if this could get "rollin", maybe "El Rushbo" would give it some air time?

Hannity seems like a nice guy, but at the same time, he seems like a "wimp".

So far, it's looking good to me.

2008-04-19T01:32:42
Some people don't like Savage, but I'd almost bet he'd "talk" about it on his show.

He's a "fire brand" for sure.

2008-04-19T01:36:06
Tazz,

I already emailed Rush about this. He's definitely not jumping on the McCain bandwagon like Sean, that's for sure - AND Operation Chaos is killing the Donks as well.

Hannity has become a walking talking point for McCain. Not because McCain is conservative, but because McCain espouses less socialism than Donko and Donkette do. As someone who has voted this line of logic before, I do have the utmost respect for that. I've just decided I'm not doing it this time. Not for McCain. I'd probably go ahead if it were one of the others.

Savage, Beck, anyone with a voice would do great by us. I would also perhaps put a note in to Paul Jacobs and the Heritage Foundation. Maybe I'll have some time this week - unless you're willing to hit some of these people up?

RWR

2008-04-19T13:26:27
Great Platform!

Have you thought about how this rules would affect various current security measures? ie: Patriot Act, TSA, Homeland Security, the various three letter spy agencies.

What about Freeways, would states be required to maintain them? Would this come under Commerce clause?

As I think about this, I will come up with more questions, and maybe some answers.

Great Job!!!

Mr Minority

2008-04-13T18:39:43
Mr. M.,

What I'd like to do is have a meeting of sorts with those interested and brainstorm this kind of stuff.

Don't forget, there's only so much you can do in four years. Should we get lucky, we'd have our hands full with just the stuff we're looking at now.

RWR

2008-04-13T23:31:39
Good job, Rocker. I had to kind of scan it as interruptions rule at the present time. I'll go back and look at it a little more slowly. BTW, the commerce clause is the most abused part of the constitution. It has been stretched and twisted and imagined to justify almost anything the central government wishes. Freeways aren't included there. Same article and section however.

2008-04-15T03:02:19
Hot Dam! You may have finally come up with a party affiliation I could actually support. Not sure what to do next but we need to find out.

2008-04-15T20:32:39
WW,

Please shoot me an email at americanfederalist@verizon.net.

Same with Ol' BC. MrM already did.

Next thing is to fine tune the platform in a chatroom, I think.

Then we send it out to the Constitution and Libertarian Party leadership to see what kind of support we can get from them. Bringing those factions together will be BIG, as will bringing conservative Republicans (like myself) over.

People like us have to get out and tell people about it. It's not going to spread itself around like a bad disease.

I do think we could get some good support from some talk-radio types as well, though it's pretty obvious Hannity has pledged his allegiance to McShithead.

Honestly, I can't blame people who have gone that way. Johnny's scary, to be sure, but Hitlery and Obamamama are pretty bad, too.

My feeling is that keeping the Donks out is important, but nominating an Donk on the Republican side is a pretty stupid idea as well.

RWR

2008-04-16T02:06:47
I like the radio plug ideas. It may need to be much more concise for that forum or grant someone huge editing powers. Then who knows what you'll end up with? I'll e-mail you when I get it all digested. Good stuff.

2008-04-21T03:02:30
Being too concise is the Major parties' downfall, I think. They have to express an opinion about EVERYTHING, it seems.

Why not just focus on re-committing to the ideals set forth in the Founding Documents, and let people handle their own opinions?

RWR

2008-04-21T18:54:34
What, no RSS? Is this the 80's? You're going to make me actually add you manually to my blogroll so I don't forget the address... sheesh

Just found this place (thanks to Right Wing News) and I'm liking what I see.

2008-04-25T02:20:39
Thanks, Stew!

Hope to keep seeing you here and reading your comments!

RWR

2008-04-26T16:21:42
I like it. One thing though - the Bill Of Rights was written to limit the powers of the Federal govenment, and not to protect the rights of *individual* Americans. It was not until much later that liberals made the BoR enforceable on the states, via the "incorporation" doctrine. That in itself was a radical rewrite of the US Constitution.

2008-04-27T18:07:48
I'd agree in some instances, James.

In the case of the first several Amendments, it's pretty easy to make the case that these are individual rights being protected.

Of course, this is a discussion for another post.

Hope you will be a part of it!

RWR

2008-04-28T17:39:33
Paul Cargile's avatar

Paul Cargile · 795 weeks ago

It should be stressed that the Constitution is a document by the People granting the Government Rights.

2008-05-15T03:15:31
It should be stressed that the Constitution is a document by the People granting the Government Rights.

Not rights, Paul, authority. Rights are God-given, or evolve from the process of communication and agreement among those who assert them. Authority is an agreed-upon source of protection of those rights.

You do, however, make an excellent point that we make here all the time - that the government has no authority not expressly granted by the structure set forth in the Constitution. The government doesn't grant people rights; it secures the rights with which people have already been endowed by their Creator (God).

Welcome to the ranks!

RWR

2008-05-17T06:57:07
On that same note, Paul, you are right to insist that it be stressed that the authority of the government is derived from the power of the people to assign it the same.

Thanks for the input!

RWR

2008-05-17T06:59:22
Looks good. I do want to read it twice. You have my email now?

2008-05-17T06:59:22
Yep.

I'll get you set up on the (small) mailing list.

Will you be spreading the word?

RWR

2008-05-24T03:49:20
Hi again. I'm just tired of RtWingNutCase. Glad you could keep the talk going.
I reread the platform, the Constitution, and the Constitutional Amendments and will spread the word. We're in Rhode Island, so I don't expect much. My boss is a Repub at least, so I have no problem there.
I heard your in New Jersey. I used to live there. Moved out August 2001, good luck with that place.

2008-05-24T22:28:18
Good luck, indeed. Sage left here recently, and he lived in what is likely the "reddest" county in the state (Cape May).

It's tough to get even a Republican elected around here because of the influence of organized crime. It's really bad.

Still, Jonny C's screwing things up so badly I doubt even the Donks will give him a shot at another term.

RWR

2008-06-09T17:30:47
I LIKE IT! Let's keep this going, keep me informed!

2008-09-26T03:23:06
Please leave any further comments on the most recent post at http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.

I really don't come back to this thread much.

You can also shoot me an email at federalistparty@verizon.net.

RWR

2008-09-26T18:54:43
Count me in. My thoughts are spinning in a thousand different directions. I too scanned it and will need more time. But a few things come to mind: a flat or fair tax; immigration restrictions; cultural aspects like English as the national language and recognizing holidays as such (schools ignore words like Christmas -- a federal holiday); guaranteed assistance to physically or mentally disabled veterans.

I understand how you can't get so specific that the whole thing is bogged down, but what has happened with Dearborn, MI, "Little Islam," would make the founders spin. We've got to have some kind of provision for foreigners who come here and intend to take over religiously and culturally.

Also, how does the provision that schooling being left entirely to parental choice affect public schools or teachers' unions?

Have you thought about folks you want to include in promoting this? Do you want to offer "membership" to Fred Thompson, Newt, Duncan Hunter, George Allen, Rick Santorum, Jindal, Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck OR do you want this more grassroots?

I noticed this document was put together in April. Have you made any revisions since then?

2008-11-04T02:20:02
Scott Hamilton's avatar

Scott Hamilton · 795 weeks ago

Finally, someone thinking like me. The only reason to vote for McLiberal is that the damage that Government Obama will do will take a long, long time to turn around. i agree that McLiberal won't be much to cheer for, but at least he has served his country with honor and dignity. That is better than Ron Paul or Bob Barr can say.

I have been involoved with a couple of so called new political movements, only to have them crap out and run with the money. I basically agree with most of the idea's here. Please remember, Gingrich resigned from office on corruption charges and is part of the family that is in the process of taking this country down.

One question, how do we keep political enemy's from infiltrating the new Federalist's party? I vote to recruit Td Nugent to be the speaker for this new party.

Kudo's for the plaform of the new Federalist party!

2008-11-04T05:31:29
I like your platform. I wonder if enough conservatives and constitutionalists can put aside their disagreements to make an impact. I'd like to think so.

I did notice that there may be one misused word in the following --

• That a vibrant and superior military with state-of-the-art weapons systems is necessary to defend the unalienable rights of Americans from those who would do them harm; and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag.

-- I suspect "subversive" should be "subservient." Or, perhaps "subordinate." Or, if they have to be subservient, they SHOULD be subversive... but that's another matter.

Anyway, I find nothing fundamental to disagree with in the platform.

For an idea of my ideological genetics, check my blog. I posted there some things I have written over the last decade or so, that pretty much locate me in the spectrum. The top several articles are first-generation to the blog.

I'll be checking back to see what develops. Thanks for the obvious amount of time and hard work.

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year,
Tom Cox
Charlotte, TN

2008-12-26T01:49:05
TJ Alfonso's avatar

TJ Alfonso · 795 weeks ago

Hi, whoever wrote the Preamble to that Party Platform, I have a couple things to say to you. I'm not a left-wing person and I'm not "reacting" to what you're saying I just think you should know two things:
1) Not all the founding fathers were Federalists; the Party went extinct after only about 20 years due to the power of the Jefferson-Madison political machine, and

2)Jefferson himself, along with Hamilton, Washington, Ben Franklin, and many other founding fathers were atheistic Deists who could only be considered Christians in the broadest sense; Hamilton and Jefferson have both said that Christianity is the most evil creation of man; I'm only telling you all this because you seem to be a Christian, a quasi-Christian who curses a lot, anyway; so i just thought you should know those couple of things

My opinion, therefore, about the founding fathers is that they in fact would not be ashamed of what our current society has become, but only would be ashamed of the abuses of government done and atrocities committed by Bill Clinto, George W. Bush, Darth Vader, Raegan, and many more.

2009-01-09T17:43:01
1. Not all the Founding Fathers were Federalists, but the ones who weren't would, by today's standards, be considered further to the RIGHT of the Federalists. So I don't quite get the point here.

2. They were also regular churchgoers. I've sat in the very pews they did in Philadelphia. Kind of interesting that you would call them "atheistic".

The point of this platform is to bring the evil under control that is the US government. A further point is to unify conservatives under one flag. We seek to have conservatives of ALL stripes, including "atheistic deists", work towards the goal of empowering the people instead of the government.

RWR

2009-01-27T20:43:18
The platform sounds good overall, however there is some tweaking that needs to be done.

"That no American considered sane and safe enough to be at large shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however he wishes..." Uh, no. There are convicted felons that have been released from prison that are supposedly sane and safe enough to be at large. They should not be allowed firearms.
"and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag." I think you mean "subservient"?

Under "Policies" you need to add that the States have the right to invoke the Doctrine of Nullification if the Federal Government passes a law that is in violation of the Constitution, particularly in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Under "Legislatively" you need to add that all appropriation bills will deal with one subject only. For example, no hiding pork projects such as a Blueberry Museum in the Military Appropriations bill.

And, no highway or building may be named after any living politician. (Direct smack in the face to Sen Robert Byrd, there.)

Also under "Legislatively", Congress may not except themselves or any branch of the Federal Government from the laws they pass.

2009-07-19T16:37:53
Uh, no. There are convicted felons that have been released from prison that are supposedly sane and safe enough to be at large. They should not be allowed firearms.

If their debt is paid, then they have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. If there is a problem with that, keep them in jail.

"and American soldiers must never be subversive to non-American commanders or serve under a foreign flag." I think you mean "subservient"?

Yes we do.

Under "Policies" you need to add that the States have the right to invoke the Doctrine of Nullification if the Federal Government passes a law that is in violation of the Constitution, particularly in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.

That right is part of the 9th and 10th Amendments and needs not be restated, as the Constitution is already recognized as the basis for the platform itself.

Under "Legislatively" you need to add that all appropriation bills will deal with one subject only. For example, no hiding pork projects such as a Blueberry Museum in the Military Appropriations bill.

I like this, but simply requiring that all legislation be constitutional from the get-go with written justification should achieve this end without issue. Still, it is a great suggestion. Let's put it in.

And, no highway or building may be named after any living politician. (Direct smack in the face to Sen Robert Byrd, there.)

Eh. Who cares?

Our platform must deal with issues, not non-issues like what name a building or highway has. In fact, if Congress is busy mulling over those things, then they are not engaging in debate or voting on unconstitutional (illegal) legislation, and that is a good thing.

Also under "Legislatively", Congress may not except themselves or any branch of the Federal Government from the laws they pass.

An excellent addition. Thanks!

RWR

2009-08-12T20:54:58
I must first say, that you have done an excellent job at stating the platform of the Federalist party.

"That no American considered sane and safe enough to be at large shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however he wishes..."

Regarding this right to bear arms statement, I think it might be worded a little differently. The "...safe enough to be "at large", conjures up the thought of an escaped criminal on the run from the police. Also, it could be argued by a shifty politician, lawyer, or judge that even thought someone is at large, they are not safe enough.

What about something like - That no American, not having been adjudicated to be insane by a competent court of law, shall be deprived of the right to arm himself however and wherever he wishes..."

Again, great job!

Omegaman

2009-09-05T07:16:52
I like it, Omegaman.

Of course, the interpretation of a "competent" court of law could easily put us right back to the original statement ...

RWR

2009-09-13T18:03:15
LC BU1IMotBP's avatar

LC BU1IMotBP · 795 weeks ago

Here is my email: (removed from post)

Send me a copy of this when it is done. This sounds exactly like something I can support.

2009-09-18T16:32:38
IdahoCowboy's avatar

IdahoCowboy · 788 weeks ago

Evenin all,
I just followed a link to your site from MM's RWR, and I must say I am impressed!
Your AFP platform is a stunningly simple and straightforward. I must admit that a smile slowly made it's presence known, and after reading the whole thing, it laid claim to my face for quite awhile!
I have now bookmarked your site and plan on visiting often.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks Cowboy!

The 2010 revision is nearly complete. Look for it very soon!

RWR
Excellent

Post a new comment

Comments by