|
Putting myself into the 1700's. There was no government at all, so the people didn't look to any DC location as the "federal government". They had governments in each state. The Federalists saw that this was a bit scattered to conduct commerce and offered a bit too much power to individuals. The Federalist idea was born, with a centralized Executive in DC. The Presidency.
Now I don't know exacty whose idea the House and Senate was, but it was to represent the People. They came in from the hinterlands for a few months and then went back home again. Not a permanent, constant "Federal".
So I'm thinking the Federalists supported a strong permanent Presidency, while the Jeffersonians basically, supported strong Houses of the People.
Federalists would support a centralized Presidency, Expansive Executive, because they only care about commerce laws and a defense to protect commerce. Commerce laws for the rich, that is. Caring for state and local business would be an irritant, so they just tossed all of that annoying education and road building to "states rights".
Jeffersonian types cared about an economy for the people, and took seriously the responsiblity to create a government for all the people. The idea of states not being trampled on was more an idea of the People not being trampled on and part of that was emphasis on the Houses of the People, Congress.
This is the only way I can make heads or tails of Federalists and what we end up getting as a form of government from them. The Bushies have a tightly controlled Executive, and have handed off People business to the States, in other words, abandoned the People because they never gave a shit about them in the first place. Government is to control commerce for the elite, not to worry about the people.
Does that make any sense into how we got where we got with these Federalist Society asshats?
|