#antifederalist

[chaotic-history]

👀

[rosemeriwether]

I borderline want to make Luther Martin my little pet project just for the fact he was a Federalist’s nightmare.

State rights bby!

Also I’m just going to ask why do Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton make it so easy for everyone to have a vendetta against them? Is there now a dead person who didn’t hate them?

[strangeknight]

what’s your fav apush era? mine is late 20th century cause the drama…..jfk assassination -> nixon -> clinton impeachment is UNMATCHED

i thinkkkkk maybe gilded age BUT I DO LOVE LATE 20TH CENTURY SOO MUCH pretty hippie boys....... lyndon b johnson...... nixy boy.... sexual revolution. where would we be as a society without watergate and deep throat. and i mean you've got FORD funniest president ever. not true. george w bush is funniest. They Misundestimated Me and Now Watch This Drive and I Believe Humans and Fish can Coexist Peacefully have been playing in my brain nonstop for so long. gilded age is my favorite just because it's lots of fun to learn about + you have two of my top three transgender presidents

[little-ajax-56793]

Listening to the people next to me study for the us history midterm and ohhhh boy. They're going to fail

[parseisflat]

i am now ignoring all other responsibilities in favor of one

[liberty1776]

New York was the toughest nut for the Federalists to crack. For here was one state where not only was the population overwhelmingly opposed to the Constitution, but the opposition was also in firm and determined control of the state government and the state political machinery. Here was a powerful governor, George Clinton, who would not, like Hancock and Randolph in the other critical states, yield to a sellout under pressure. Clinton had been a highly popular governor since the formation of the state, had a strong political machinery based on the mass of upstate yeomanry, and was determined to organize … Continue reading →

[way-too-addicted-to-fandoms]

The downside to my minor is that I gave to read the founding documents and all of the other essays people wrote about said documents (i.e. Federalist and Antifederalist papers) and doing so makes me feel dumb because I have to read them seven times just to understand what the heck they're saying.

And I know I'm not dumb, I know it's just the difference in dialect and formal vs. informal and the nature of language evolution. But not being able to comprehend what I'm reading the first or second time through is so irritating and discouraging.

[evilelitest2]

USA's two-party system is an abomination.

Consider Republican party. The fact that there are only two parties forces all of these to band together in support of it:

-Evangelical Christians

-Proud ideological sucessors of Nazis

-Rich assholes and wannabe rich assholes (libertarians)

-Professional con men (also libertarians)

-Incels

-Paranoid uneducated rural people who both feel underrepresented at the federal level and buy into "the Left wants to legalise pedophilia!1!" bullshit

-Cultured, intelligent, kind Catholics who love their neighbors no matter their race or income, and may even be weakly supportive of LGBT; who would have been otherwise stauch enemies of the GOP and all of the groups above... if they weren't brainwashed into feeling they have a moral obligation to protect the lives of the fetuses more than the actual human beings

The latter two groups are the most disgusting to me precisely because I can see they are not entirely bad people deep down, and seeing them destroy their potential for goodness like that is... The two-party system must be destroyed just so these people could have a better choice than to team up with neo-Nazis.

So its important to understand that the US has always had a two party system, starting right after George Washington's election our politics have been dominated by two major political groups. Federalists vs. AntiFederalists, Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans, Democratic Republicans vs. Democrats, Democrats vs Whigs, Democrats vs. Republicans, and then the two parties changing what Democrat and republican meant for about 150 years. And its due to our voting method, we have a First Past the Post Voting system, which means that to win an election you don't need a majority of the votes, just a pluroality.

So lets say that the 2024 presidental election comes down to AOC, Biden, and Trump (ignoring the electoral college) The people who would vote for AOC are likely people who would have otherwise voted for Biden, which splits the vote. So Trump wins lets say 40% of the vote, while Biden wins 38, and AOC wins 20%. Despite the fact that only 40% of the nation voted for him, Trump because the president, nevermind the fact that literally 60% of the nation voted against him. So in that scenerio, it would be stupid to vote for AOC, even though she is objectively the better choice. Its basic mathematics, voting third party in a First Past the Post System is self destructive.

So all that being said, I think that the Gop has been losing the last group for awhile now, anybody who is still with them at this point I don't think are really kind

[absolute-immunities]

so the backstory here is that the Constitution Act, 1867, includes the Constitution of Quebec and the Constitution of Ontario

the colonies had been united by the Quebec Act 1774, divided by the Constitution Act 1791, and united by the Act of Union 1840 into the Province of Canada

under the 1840 Constitution, the legislative assembly of Canada consisted of an equal number of seats from Quebec and Ontario—an arrangement that underrepresented Quebec and overrepresented Ontario in 1840 and was doing the reverse by 1867

the result was a bit like the Northern Ireland Assembly after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement: Westminster gave the colony a legislature that could only work if it had the consent of both national communities

and of course the Canadians just hated it

the future provinces of Quebec and Ontario wanted to be loose of the accursed Province of Canada as soon as possible and on basically whatever terms the Imperial Crown would consent to

for the Canadians, the idea was to restore an at least minimally effective government for the actual provinces—for the English to be free of the French, and the French of the English—with just enough sops to the minority interest to keep English Quebec onside: Protestant schools, Protestant banks, and Protestant criminal justice

the people of the Province of Canada in the 1860s would have been happy to make a new "Confederation of Canada" by devolving legislative powers to the restored provinces of Quebec and Ontario

the great achievement of Confederation was in getting two (2) of the four (4) Maritime provinces to cosign the separation agreement for Quebec and Ontario, and permitting the Constitution Act, 1867, to disguise an act of disunion as its opposite

but even that was an ordeal, with the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia falling to antifederalists after the terms came out, trying and failing to renege on the deal, and sending antifederalist slates to the first federal Parliament

for the Canadians, the Maritimes were a kind of vestigial tail—you could take them or leave them, but you couldn't do anything with them—but Canada's caudal appendage proved useful for keeping the Colonial Office distracted while Quebec and Ontario finalized the terms of their divorce

that's why the Constitution Act, 1867, includes the Constitutions of Quebec and Ontario—they wouldn't have Constitutions without them!

the Constitutions of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are also provided for in the Constitution Act, 1867, albeit only to say "keep doing what you're doing"

and that's why Quebec can, in principle, unilaterally modify the Constitution of Canada—and so can Canada

that's what section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, under the Part V heading "Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada," and right after all the wonky rules for amending the bits of the Constitution that need Parliament's consent, just says this: "the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province"

it's just that, sometimes, "the constitution of the province" is part of the Constitution of Canada, as defined by the Constitution of Canada

there you go!

[visenyaism]

had to do three lectures on federalists vs. antifederalists today and did not mention hamilton once because as an educator it is my job to break the cycle😌

[yisanged]

saying "not to confused with" doesn't help with the fact that this shit is the most stupid and confusing stuff in the world. antifederalists and federalists were simple and clear cut at least. why couldn't people bother learning new words to put in their parties after that? why did they feel the need to reuse the same terms over and over again. they should've had some sympathy for teenagers that would have to take united states history two hundred years later

[unmotivatedartistry]

ah shit time to go on a road trip for like 12 hours

any of y'all have any art requests?? or something??? I know I'm gonna have a moment where I don't wanna work on my actual projects but don't want to read the Essential Debate On The Constitution (Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches and Writings) so

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

It’s fashionable in some circles to complain about how the Constitution doesn’t mean anything and nobody follows it but when was the last time you had to quarter troops in your home in peacetime against your will?

Huh?

Checkmate, antifederalists

[187days]

Day Ninety-Six

I could breathe through my nose today, so that’s an improvement over yesterday. Hooray!

I really enjoyed the lesson I did in World, too. It was a new addition to a set of lessons I do to teach about how geography impacts other aspects of culture. Last class, we discussed how it can impact conflicts, and used the war in Yemen as an example. This class, I wanted to show them how it can affect traditional ways of life, so I played a 20-minute documentary about life in Yakutia, one of the coldest permanently inhabited places on earth, which was a huge hit with my students. We discussed it afterwards, and they had tons of comments and questions. 

So that’s a win!

I’ve got a couple of boys in my Block 2 class who are constantly attempting to push boundaries because it’s the start of the semester. They’re seeing whether or not I’ll let them get away with it (note: I won’t) and whether or not they can make me angry. So far, they’re not even damaging my calm, but they’ll probably keep trying. 

Here’s hoping they don’t keep trying all semester, though. Heh. 

After a delicious lunch down in the culinary class’ cafe (jambalaya and a grilled chicken and veggie sandwich), I led my APGOV students through one of the toughest lessons I teach: understanding Federalist 10 and Federalist 51. They’d read the former for homework, so I started by asking them specific questions about its main ideas, then took questions about any passages that were still confusing. Wash, rinse, repeat for Federalist 51; that one’s short, so we tackled it in about twenty minutes. Then we discussed the ways in which the Federalist/Antifederalist debate is relevant today. We are, after all, still talking about the role of government and the division of power between the national and state levels. And what Madison wrote about factions in large republics seemed, to my students, very prescient. 

Let us note, I taught these serious things about the foundations of our government while wearing a Cheshire Cat t-shirt because it’s Winter Carnival spirit week- I forgot to mention that in my last entry- and today was Disney day (yesterday was “Zoom in real life” day, so fancy tops and casual bottoms). That was pretty fun.

[living-history-lesson]

the rat patrick henry was smelling