There was a time, about 220 years ago, when the term “federalist” was used to describe those who supported a strong central government.

In the last 60 years or so, however, “federalism” has been used to describe the opposite notion, i.e., the idea that power should be delegated from Washington DC to the states.

Because of this, it is not unusual in modern times to refer to “federalists” as those who support states’ rights. Here’s an example from a couple of years ago inĀ The Daily Beast:

the president has been making a federalist argument for why the [same-sex marriage] issue should be handled at the state level, despite the fact that the same rationale has historically served as a roadblock to civil-rights advancements.

Friess refused to back down and did a reasonably good job defending himself:

But then one of his critics crossed the line:

  • steveegg

    Come on – Jammie didn’t cross the line. He merely described Friess’ future.

    • ssenecal5000

      Well the jokes on all of them, Neither the federalist nor the anti federalist would be for something as anti liberty as homosexual marriage or any rights based on your sexual desires.

  • Love of Country

    I’m so confused!

    • Red Blues

      If so, then those who wish to call ‘bad’ ,’good’ and ‘wrong’, ‘right’ have won.

      Words have meanings.

      Those meanings may well change over time but not simply because you or I say they do.

      • Love of Country

        Just some comic relief ….. the curse of the dry sense of humor is that not everyone always knows when you’re just joking around, lol.
        Truth be told I was just quoting Vinnie Barbarino, for Pete’s sake! :))

        • TugboatPhil

          Up your nose, with a rubber hose!

          • Love of Country

            Nice one my friend …. and in case you missed this morning’s episode, here’s a recap, lol …

            Vinnie Barbarino: What?…Where?…Who?……Hey Mr. Kotter, in your ear with a can of beer!

            Mr. Kotter: Nice one, Sweathog …. BTW … Did I ever tell you about my Uncle Max?

            Freddie Boom Boom: Hi there!

            Arnold: Ooooh, oooh…Mr Kottah, Mr Kottah!

            Juan: Sorry for yesterday’s absence, Mr Kotter….but I got a note!

          • TugboatPhil

            Signed: Epstein’s Mother.

  • ceemack

    If Friess thinks the original Federalists ever envisioned a federal government anywhere near as pernicious and omnipresent as what we have now, he really IS that stupid.

    • thetreyman

      i think he is confusing a federal government and a national government. we have, over the years, let more of a national government form in D.C. part of it through elections and another is from activist judges throughout the state and “federal” court systems. one of the biggest problems is the 17th amendment. its ratification was when we started toward a national government at breakneck speed. it is the reason we have the activist judges on the bench. why the 9th and 10th amendments mean nothing today. why one day you will not be able to vote with your feet and move to another, friendlier, state because every issue is being nationalized. the “federal” courts no longer have the restraint to say “we have no jurisdiction in this matter. it is left up to the individual state governments.” repeal the 17th amendment. that would be a good first step back to federalism.

  • Josephine (D)

    Federalism is the system our Founding Fathers developed for our country. There was to be one central government, then individual state governments. The central government would be leader, but the states could amend the Constitution and have their own rights and laws.

    Now the federal(central) government runs everything and states have few powers, far from what it should be.

    • Aaron

      Someone needs to tell that to my “leaders” in Albany.

  • madhatter

    Then someone needs to explain the reason for the 10th amendment then

  • WisconsinPatriot

    WAKE UP!!!! They are ALL this d*mn dumb.

  • GTFOBigGovt

    “I know all about it, i’ts a misnomer”.

    So in other words, he was trolling.

  • TocksNedlog

    Some people really are as dumb as they look.

  • BeeKaaay

    “state’s rights”, thanks to court rulings, mean that state and local governments can become totalitarian, but the federal government cannot be totalitarian.

    That’s how the 10th amendment reads under current court rulings.

    • TexSizzle

      Not disagreeing with you; just explaining terminology for those who don’t know. “States’ rights” is a misnomer. Governments do not have rights; they have powers. People have rights. The sue of the term “rights” for powers is how leftists claim that the Second Amendment applies to the states.

      • BeeKaaay

        Correct. And “state’s rights” is used to take away our human rights.

  • DavidKramer

    I refer to myself as an anti federalist, Liberal and Constitutional Libertarian. Of course I always attempt to speak classically when describing politics, what I refer to as neo linguistics-lefties changing the actual meaning of words to foment deception, tends to piss me off a little. I can see both sides of this argument, one must first agree on the definitions one is going to use in any debate. Speak classically and you get rid of 99% of the problems due to “neo linguistics”.