Can someone explain this quote to me?

[skipos]

"I'm, in that sense, a federalist, where I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas."

Isn't that the opposite of a federalist?

[Inspired]

1. Who said this?

[skipos]

4. Palin

She makes my head hurt.

[uppityperson]

8. I bet I can guess without looking at the answer. Was it the same person who

when asked about Supreme Court decisions like Roe v Wad, rights to privacy, went on to babble about yes and that should be left up to the state?

[leftofcool]

2. That is pretty much on target

Thomas Jefferson was a Federalist and that is pretty much what he believed. That is not all of it, of course.

[Bucky]

6. Oops. Jefferson was a Republican (kind of today's Dems) Adams & Hamilton were Federalists.

[leftofcool]

9. Correct, and I knew that

Had Adams, Hefferson, Hamilton all running through my head at the same time.

[Bucky]

10. Then here's a Jefferson quote for ya

"We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists."
            -- TJ, Inauguration Day, 1801

[leftofcool]

13. It has been a long time since I heard that quote

I suppose in a way he is right, if you really think about it. Republicans in the sense that "we all believe in the republic of the US of A" Federalists in that "we all belive that states should have some say in writing their own laws." My own interpretation, of course. I wonder what TJ would think about the economic crisis?

[Bucky]

3. Maybe she's referring to the Federalist Society. Or Reagan's New Federalism.

Federalism is, by definition, the belief that states should legislate state matters and the federal government should legislate on national matters. In that sense, everyone's a federalist. And so, as seen in previous episodes of "Slow Trainwreck Back to Anchorage", Palin is just saying more words that don't mean anything.

The closest to what she means probably is Reagan's New Federalism (which is basically states' rights, but without the firehoses). But she probably intended to allude to the Fed Society, who are right wing nuts.

[Lex]

12. "Slow Trainwreck Back to Anchorage"

:rofl:

[mojowork_n]

5. Yes, if question is "states" having more say as opposed to less

The fragment might have been taken out of context, in some way, as a response to the question of whether local, municipal or county authorities deserved "more say."

That's the only way it makes sense, to me. In a "confederation" of states, each state has almost unlimited internal authority. In a "federation" the central, national government has much more power to decide what applies to ALL states.

[kenny blankenship]

7. federalist vs. nationalist

instead of Federalist vs. anti-Federalist
My guess

Anti-Federalists tended to be (even) more in favor than Federalists of preserving the sovereignty of the states and feared that the centralization of power in the United States government would make a king out of the President. They feared -or claimed to fear- that the Federalists were out to create an all-powerful, centralized state. So it sounds like the term Federalist is misapplied there, but in a lot of modern usage "federalist" carries the baggage of "states' rights" since the arrangement of power under the Constitution, prior to the Civil War and the passage of the 14th mendment, maintained many aspects of state sovereignty, and that Constitution was the brainchild of the Federalist Party. People who call themselves federalists nowadays view the strict limits on the power of the United States government which existed prior to the Civil War, and the retention by the states of all powers not expressly given to the national government by the Constitution, as a kind of Golden Age when the Constitution existed in a kind of pure, uncorrupted state and liberty was at its zenith. They are pretty much intent on stopping and reversing the application of the 14th Amendment as they view that as the event or moment when "it all went wrong". They don't want policy set on a national level, but want policy to be set at the state level as much as possible.

Putting aside the definition of nationalist as one who has an excess of pride in his country, a nationalist is one who would tend to set policy on a national level instead of in smaller internal divisions like states, provinces, prefects whatever. A nationalist sees the United States as one country with one set of laws applied equally. A federalist sees the United States as a collection of states with a different sets of laws, and with a few, strictly limited duties to the central government, which in turn has a few strictly defined tasks. As Democrats we tend to be more concerned with human rights than our competitors and we tend to believe rights should be the same wherever you live. So we tend to be nationalists on issues of human rights and many other things. Republicans tend to value traditional privileges (class privileges racial privileges) over equality of rights and seek ways to create safe harbors for discrimination. They like to call themselves federalists for that reason because it is a fancy sounding excuse for telling the central government to butt out and stop interfering with their local customs (eg: segregation, union-busting, voter disenfranchisement etc.).

[AlCzervik]

11. then she's a "state's rights" and not a Federalist.