The Federalist Party in 2017

This email was forwarded to me. I am not yet on their email list.

This new year has brought about a combination of hope and fear in America. As Federalists, we share both perspectives. There is hope in hearing about a few plans to reduce government power, but there is also concern that these reductions will be mere tokens compared to the planned perpetuation of government overreach as well as increases in the federal budget.

While many are taking a “wait and see” approach, we’re proactively building the Federalist Party to push Washington DC away from their big-government addiction. To accomplish this, we’ll need to form strong party organizations in all 50 states, win elections at every level, and educate the people about the tenets of small-government Federalism. It is our strong and sincere belief that if more Americans become aware of how Federalism can defend their freedoms and prevent the government from hindering us in solving problems, people on the right and the left will embrace our mission.

This is why it gives me great pleasure to announce that we are official. As promised in our last email, we have filed the appropriate paperwork months ahead of schedule. We are starting 2017 off with a bang by engaging in our three immediate projects to promote growth and spread the word. Some of you will be able to participate in all three. Others may only be able to help in one or two areas. Everyone can help in some way.

The three current projects beginning in 2017 are:

  1. Fundraising: Unlike every other party, we intend to raise the majority of our funds by earning them. We have plans to raise funds in a business-oriented fashion, one that embraces the tenets of free market capitalism by bringing value to those who engage with us financially. Initially, we will be dependent on small- to medium-sized donors to seed our fundraising efforts. If you are willing and able to help grow the party financially, please visit our fundraising page. You don’t have to send money just yet. Currently, we are just looking for financial commitments.
  2. State Organizations: Just as the Federalist mentality promotes a balance between state and national governments, so too will we practice this with the party. There will be a central organization for the national Federalist party that will be balanced with the state Federalist party organizations. Again, this is very different from all other parties because it does not attribute undue power over the platform or policies to a national organization. To help with this, we are actively looking for leaders to help form strong Federalist Party organizations in all 50 states. If you are interested, please contact Joel Kurtinitis via email: joel@thefederalistparty.org
  3. Grassroots Growth: Even those who cannot contribute or help build their state’s party can still help by getting the word out. This is arguably the most important thing that we need. The party must reach a tipping point of support in order to make a real impact. As I’ve said many times before, we’re interested in winning elections and affecting change, not making a statement as a protest vote. This is why we’re asking you, the grassroots that powers America, to be our primary recruiters. We need as many people to join the party as possible in these early months. The sooner we can get to the tipping point, the better our chances are of winning more elections this year as well as the important election years of 2018 and 2020.

If you’re receiving this email, you have expressed interest in the party. Now is the time to take that interest to the next level if you’re ready. Many of you have already filled out the form on our homepage. This form, which has been on the site for just over two weeks, includes all of the information that we need in order to include people as members of the Federalist Party. If you haven’t filled out this form, please do so now. If you’re not sure whether you have or not, go ahead and fill it out again. Your data will not be duplicated.

Speaking of data, we have some important news. ALL personal data that we collect will be private indefinitely. We will never sell, rent, or give this information to anyone, even Federalist candidates. It may seem like a hassle to have to fill out forms, but we’re doing it for a very specific reason. We take the privacy and security of every American very seriously. By filling out our form, you can rest assured that your data will never be shared, ever. For years, other organizations have used “list building” for the sake of selling or renting out the data. We will NEVER do this. Our integrity is worth more to us than any financial benefits the party can gain from lists.

2017 is going to be the year of the Federalists. You’ve probably heard more news and discussions about Federalism over the past couple of months than ever before. The people are awakening to the reality that big government is our biggest problem. The Republicans and Democrats have chosen to embrace big government and consolidate their power in Washington DC. We intend to change that by dramatically reducing their power, giving it back to the local, city, county, and state governments where the majority of it belongs. Most importantly, we want to return the freedoms that have been removed and defend the ones that are currently under attack. This is why we’re here. It’s why we need your help.

Thank you and God Bless,

JD Rucker

Please be sure to follow the party on Facebook and Twitter as well.

“To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat you he will.” – Ronald Reagan

28 thoughts on “The Federalist Party in 2017

  1. NewFederalist

    If the United States Constitution is the basis for their platform I can’t see how they could deny secession.

  2. ATBAFT

    Secession you say? How about this:

    “Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better…Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit.”

    Jefferson Davis, right? Or maybe Alexander Stephens or John C. Calhoun? Some other fire-breathing Confederate secessionist? No, the speaker was a Whig Congressman from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln in denouncing President Polk’s war against Mexico. A Founding Flip-Flopper if there ever was one.

  3. robert capozzi

    umm, depends on how one defines “people” and “power.” SC didn’t involve half the population in the decision to “secede.”

    Still, what’s wrong with flip flopping? Is it better to maintain an incorrect position?

  4. ATBAFT

    While I’m unaware of Lincoln every explaining how he came to change his view on secession, there is nothing wrong with flip-flopping if one presents a non-mendacious reason for why they changed their mind. After all, I’m sure none of us have held our current position on any issue consistently from the first day we learned about said issue. What is objectionable is denying or ignoring that one ever held an opposite position. e.g. Did Obama or Clinton ever explain why they came to believe that gay marriage was the correct position or was it “I expect you to believe this has been my position all along.”

  5. Robert Capozzi

    Around, again, it’s not obvious that AL changed his position. If the people are empowered to secede, and they do so lawfully and respectfully of interested parties, I’d certainly support self-determination. Did AL ever say that he believed that no territory of the US could ever self determine?

    Yes, though, I agree with you that I’d like to hear why a person shifts his or her position, in the name of transparency and credibility. It’s my practice to do so.

  6. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Secession by big states inevitably will bring along a lot of people who don’t want to come and therefore is inherently problematic.

    Secession by smaller entities made of their own land and contiquous public land with overwhelming consent of landowners is a different matter…

  7. Just Some Random Guy

    If the United States Constitution is the basis for their platform I can’t see how they could deny secession.

    According to Texas v. White, which to my knowledge has never been overturned or contradicted by a subsequent decision, the Constitution does not allow for unilateral secession. So it’s actually the opposite. Granted, the Court can revoke a previous decision, but until that happens, secession is unconstitutional unless the rest of the states are okay with the secession.

  8. Just Some Random Guy

    @ John

    Only if you believe courts are infallible.

    I never said they were infallible. The mere fact previous decisions can be overturned shows they aren’t. The fact remains that from a constitutional perspective, the decision still stands until overturned.

  9. John

    The courts holding that something is or isn’t constitutional is not the only valid opinion on whether it is or isn’t. Other people can disagree. The court may have it wrong. The intent of the constitution is not changed by the opinion of some justices many years later. Therefore, it’s perfectly valid to say something is or is not constitutional even though courts have disagreed.

  10. Don Wills

    RandomGuy wrote ” the Constitution does not allow for unilateral secession. So it’s actually the opposite.”

    Absolutely false.

    a) the Constitution is a limitation of federal authority, not a grant of privileges to states or individuals;
    b) even if you believe the opposite of a), b) logically does not follow.

    Michael Badnarik, constitutional expert and LP 2004 presidential candidate has been speaking in favor of Texas secession in recent months. He addresses the issue of “can Texas secede legally” directly. Here are his arguments –
    http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/august-4-2016/secession-inevitable

  11. Just Some Random Guy

    Absolutely false.

    a) the Constitution is a limitation of federal authority, not a grant of privileges to states or individuals;

    What about the parts that limit what states can do? Such as entering alliances or confederations?

    Michael Badnarik, constitutional expert and LP 2004 presidential candidate

    Michael Badnarik is a software engineer and former radio talk show host. In what way does this make him a “constitutional expert”?

    has been speaking in favor of Texas secession in recent months. He addresses the issue of “can Texas secede legally” directly. Here are his arguments –
    http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/articles/august-4-2016/secession-inevitable

    Most of the document is about feasibility, not legality. The only parts on legality, really, are an appeal to the Law of Nations (a book written by a guy in Switzerland might be interesting philosophically, but seems a bit not relevant to the legality of an act) and the Declaration of Independence, stating “If Texas isn’t allowed to secede, then logically the United States can’t either, and we are still colonies subject to the British Crown.”

    There are two problems with this. First, the US was a bunch of colonies, not a state. So the situation was rather different.

    But let us suppose it was exactly the same. This then ignores a more important point. His argument is that if the US seceding is illegal, then Texas seceding would be illegal. So allow me to bring up a point you and he may be unaware of:

    PEOPLE (AND COUNTRIES) DO THINGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL!

    A law doesn’t somehow stop someone from doing something, it just gives force of law to trying to stop them from doing it or punishing them from it. If it were illegal for the US to become its own country, that doesn’t any more make it colonies still subject to the British crown than someone who went 35 MPH in a 30 MPH zone retroactively actually was going 30 MPH. Even if the US had no “right” of secession, it still succeeded in it and became its own country. All this would argue is that for Texas (or any other state) to secede, it would have to be able to get away with it, a statement so blatantly obvious it barely bears mentioning.

    One might as well claim that the French government is actually ruled by a king because, hey, I’m pretty sure the French Revolution was against the law!

  12. Bondurant

    Reading the mission statement of the Federalist Party and the few platform issues listed it sounds as if they desire to be the Constitution Party with a better website & social media presence.

  13. Andy

    Just Some Random Guy said: “Michael Badnarik is a software engineer and former radio talk show host. In what way does this make him a ‘constitutional expert’?”

    He spent many years studying the subject. One does not need fancy “official” credentials to be an expert on something.

    Check out Michael Badnarik’s website here:

    http://constitutionpreservation.org/

  14. Jim

    Andy “He spent many years studying the subject. One does not need fancy “official” credentials to be an expert on something.”

    That’s true. Even Obama claimed to be a Constitutional law professor.

  15. wolfefan

    John hits on one of the difficulties with constitutional interpretation – the intent of the Constitution. What does that mean? The original understood intent? The intent of the framers or of the public? How is that intent expressed? The literal words of the Constitution as we understand them, or as the framers understood them? How do we know what the framers understood? Many of the framers were lawyers trained and experienced in the Common Law – perhaps their intent was that the Constitution would develop along the lines of Common Law, with judge-made law becoming precedent and applying the principles adduced from the Constitution into the current circumstances. Read and construed strictly, we haven’t had a legal President since either Van Buren or Jackson – I forget which. At any rate, there is no single agreed upon “intent of the Constitution” except in fairly general terms. As to secession, even if Texas v. Davis was wrongly decided, it remains the law until modified or overturned. As a practical matter, unilateral secession is illegal unless you have the power to pull it off. The US had that power in the 18th century. I doubt that Texas does in the 21st, and I suspect Badnarik doubts it too. It’s easy to espouse theory that you know no one will ever implement, as the GOP is currently discovering to their dismay.

  16. Jim

    wolfefan “As a practical matter, unilateral secession is illegal unless you have the power to pull it off. The US had that power in the 18th century. I doubt that Texas does in the 21st”

    What do you imagine the Response of the federal government would be to a declaration of independence by Texas?

    I can’t imagine George Bush or Barack Obama bombing Texas, or leveling cities with tanks. I can picture Trump considering it, but I think he could be talked out of it. So that leaves, what, exactly? Arresting 15,000,000 people for not filing their taxes?

  17. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Bondurat

    Reading the mission statement of the Federalist Party and the few platform issues listed it sounds as if they desire to be the Constitution Party with a better website & social media presence.

    This is pretty far from the Constitution Party’s strict non-interventionist platform:
    http://thefederalistparty.org/2016/12/27/the-federalist-party-stands-with-israel-because-american-needs-her/

    Honestly, it basically seems pretty much the Republican Party (foreign policy is the main thing that the Constitution Party splits from the Republican Party on). More extreme on some issues, less extreme on others, but otherwise I’m not seeing much of a difference in policy. That’s the biggest problem I see: You really need something to differentiate yourself from the two major parties or else I don’t see how you can make much of an impact. Maybe there is some critical difference, but if there is I haven’t seen it on their site (which to be fair does seem to still be under development).

    @ wolfefan

    As to secession, even if Texas v. Davis was wrongly decided, it remains the law until modified or overturned. As a practical matter, unilateral secession is illegal unless you have the power to pull it off. The US had that power in the 18th century. I doubt that Texas does in the 21st, and I suspect Badnarik doubts it too. It’s easy to espouse theory that you know no one will ever implement, as the GOP is currently discovering to their dismay.

    Quite agreed, though it was Texas v. White, not Texas v. Davis.

    @ Jim

    What do you imagine the Response of the federal government would be to a declaration of independence by Texas?

    This is difficult to answer on the basis that Texas is so far from doing any such declaration that we wouldn’t be able to figure out what the situation would be like if it ever did. It’s like speculating what the government would do if Mexico asked to become part of the US. The situation would have to change quite a bit to get to where that would be a real possibility, so trying to figure it out without actually being in that situation is difficult to do.

  18. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    This is pretty far from the Constitution Party’s strict non-interventionist platform:
    http://thefederalistparty.org/2016/12/27/the-federalist-party-stands-with-israel-because-american-needs-her/

    The FP refers to Israel as a “she” rather than as an “it.” That’s noteworthy, unusual, and not accidental.

    I’ve long noticed — for decades — that Israel’s supporters refer to Israel as a she rather as an it. Normally a nation is an it. Maybe centuries ago, nations were referred to as a she but in modern times nations are an it. Except for Israel.

    I suspect the Israel lobby has long ago put out the word to always refer to Israel as a she. It makes Israel sound beautiful, delicate, innocent, and vulnerable. Like a maiden in distress. Referring to Israel as a she is a form of intentional, subliminal propaganda.

    That FP position page on Israel reads like a Neocon manifesto. I’m guessing the FP is a Neocon attempt to rechannel Trump’s Alt Right away from Trump’s perceived “America First” isolationism. An attempt to create “something new” on the right — Not your father’s GOP! — but which is still safely in the Neocon coral.

    There’s really nothing especially new about the FP. Other than for the above reason — a Neocon attempt to draw supporters away from the Alt Right — I don’t see why anyone would bother to create the FP.

  19. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Good point about calling Israel she. Heavens forbid people should think of it as the big hairy balls dragging along the ground land grabbing ethnic cleansing militaristic beast it really is. Here in the us of course, the iron fist is in a slightly more velvety glove. Having organized and/or participated in many protests against the annual AIPAC conference in DC, I’ve seen many NON-she depictions of the Israeli STATE… Anyone has a right to start their own religious state on their own property ruling only those who agree to join it. But that’s not the state of Israel, is it??

  20. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Root’s Teeth Are Awesome

    I’ve long noticed — for decades — that Israel’s supporters refer to Israel as a she rather as an it. Normally a nation is an it. Maybe centuries ago, nations were referred to as a she but in modern times nations are an it. Except for Israel.

    Hrm. I feel like I’ve seen other countries referred to as she as well. It’s pretty rare, though, and I believe is only used by very strong supporters of that country.

    That FP position page on Israel reads like a Neocon manifesto. I’m guessing the FP is a Neocon attempt to rechannel Trump’s Alt Right away from Trump’s perceived “America First” isolationism. An attempt to create “something new” on the right — Not your father’s GOP! — but which is still safely in the Neocon coral.

    There’s really nothing especially new about the FP. Other than for the above reason — a Neocon attempt to draw supporters away from the Alt Right — I don’t see why anyone would bother to create the FP.

    You don’t seem wrong. The site’s news/opinion archive only goes back to November, but in truth the party’s been around longer than that, at least in concept. I was curious to see how long its Facebook was around, so I scrolled all the way to the back and discovered originally it was called the Unified Conservative Party. I did a quick search on it, and if you want to see the articles related to it that predate the Federalist Party website, take a look:
    http://thenewamericana.com/a-new-conservative-party/

    You’ll notice the first article happened, surprise surprise, at around the time Trump officially got the nomination. And until they adopted the name Federalist Party, it’s all about how they want to make a new conservative party. Nothing about federalism for quite a while, in fact.

    It might be coy about admitting it on their new website, but it’s really just #NeverTrump: The Party. It certainly explains why, unlike the Constitution Party, they don’t seem to deviate from the Republican rhetoric on any issue despite claims that the party “breaks the dichotomy of the left-right political scale” (exact quote from the title of one of their articles which is amusing considering the above knowledge).

    Oddly, I think the party would probably have a lot more success if it did try to clearly reframe itself as the party for conservatives dissatisfied with the Republican Party, rather than trying to downplay that fact.

  21. AC

    Arguing about the theoretical legality of secession is kind of pointless when nowhere close to a majority of the people want to secede in any state.

    If that changed and there was more than hyper-minority fringe support for it anywhere, it would start to be more seriously discussed. If a state, through the actions of its legislature and a referendum with super-majority support, expressed its desire to peacefully secede, and they’re persistent enough in that demand and elect members of Congress who introduce legislation to allow it… it’s probably going to end up happening, and it won’t come to the Air Force bombing the state capitol while the Army invades.

    Example: Canada (and in particular Quebec). Canada has a recognized right of peaceful secession. So, too, does the United Kingdom now. There’s just the minor problem that they put secession on the ballot in the province/county concerned and *it lost*. Narrowly in both cases, but that’s still ten times the level of support for secession that currently exists in any U.S. state.

  22. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Secession is just another category under freedom of individuals/freedom of association/self-determination/”right of the people to alter or abolish government”. It’s always useful to discuss all aspects of liberty to get people acquainted with them so they will know what it is time to exercise them. And note among libertarians who are not states rights people, the secessionist entitites can be much smaller than current states, including communities, counties, cities, regions that network and confederate as they find necessary and useful.

  23. Thomas Sutrina

    Federalist Party is an Enigma. The Republican Party in the 1850’s had slavery as a focusing issue. I have yet to find the Federalist Party focusing issue to gather the voters, political activist/worker, and candidates around. I agree with Steve Deace that the Republican Party is too corrupt to be salvageable. No one has come after Goldwater and Reagan to lead them in the GOP. The conservative think tanks have been infiltrated and are not spouting conservatism. Tea Party has also been infiltrated and neutered by both the Democrat and Republican Party with help from the IRS. The debt has exploded and I hear nothing from the tea party, their focal point issue.

    Grass needs earth, fertilizer, and water to grow. Plenty of dirt but no grass seeds, fertilizer, or water seems to be coming from anywhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *