The Madisonian-Federalist Party is a strict construction, letter of the law political organization that believes in equal rights, not special rights, for all individuals.

A vote for a Madisonian-Federalist candidate is a vote for freedom and the truth.

Strict Construction

Strict construction refers to the interpretation of a text simply as it is written.

When applied to the US Constitution this means emphasizing restraint and fidelity to the original meaning.

"It means what it says, and it says what it means."

-- TH

Whereas James Madison was a Federalist, those who generally pushed for a large national government, he was a strict constructionist in his interpretation of the document; thus finding favor with the Anti-Federalists who stressed a less intrusive government and one that would adhere to the precise rule of law as it is written.

Article I, Sec 8 of the US Constitution clearly lays out the powers reserved to the congress; all else belongs to the states... There is no discussion here!

It is clear and concise!

It is important to remember that the US Constitution limits the government not the people...

Those who would disagree (loose constructionists; the document can mean any number of things, depending on the circumstance) refer to three specific terms in clauses one, three, and eighteen from Article I, Sec 8 to bolster their fallacious argument for unconstitutional actions.

I, The General Welfare Clause
II, The Commerce Clause
III, The Necessary and Proper Clause



The General Welfare Clause...



Clause 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[...]" (emphasis mine).

Loose constructionists argue: "The general welfare clause gives the government the power to promote an individual's 'general welfare'!!!!"

Non-sense!!!!

Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself said:

"For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

-- James Madison, in Federalist No. 41

Simply put: Why have enumerated powers if the term "general welfare" gives congress far reaching powers?

Again, from Madison:

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

So, to use the "general welfare clause" to justify unconstitutional actions is analogous to telling Vincent Van Gogh what he meant in his famous work The Starry Night.

Who knew best what the constitution meant than its creator? Who knows best what the colors mean in a work of art? The critic or the creator?



The Commerce Clause...



Clause 3:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[...]"

Simply put, to regulate commerce means to set rules and regulations for the buying and selling of goods across state lines and with foreign nations . . . it does not give congress the power to dictate policy to local and state governments because a particular good crossed state lines. A perfect example is the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990 which limited citizens from taking a firearm "in a school zone".

The logic used by congress? The buying and selling of guns across state lines gave congress the power to write such a law.

Please note the Supreme Court's ruling on the "Lopez" case.

According to Oyez.org:

Question

Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Yes. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The law is a criminal statute that has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic activity (emphasis mine).

Commentary

Thus, those who would find fault in the court's ruling are quickly dismissed as misguided when they say that the congress can make such a law because guns are sold across state lines.

Using that logic, then congress should be able to tell every community in the United States when they must have garbage pickup because fuel is imported from overseas or shipped from out of state.

The real motive here is that congress proposes bills that benefit their image; it looks good to "care about the safety of our schools" but they would look ridiculous if they tried to tell communities when to have garbage pickup.

Such is the problem with a loose interpretation of the constitution. There is no definitive line and thus all actions are based on what will bring a politician votes.



The Necessary and Proper Clause...



Clause 18:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

One of the favorites of the loose constructionists, "necessary and proper". What a joke; they conveniently ignore the fact that there is no period after the word "proper", thus the sentence properly read gives congress only that authority to create laws to carry into execution the foregoing powers, i.e., the enumerated powers; those listed in Article I, Sec 8!!!!

Loose construction idiocy was found fraudulent in the court's ruling in regards to The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, i.e., the Brady Bill.

According to Oyez.org:

Question

Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can Congress temporarily require state CLEOs [or Chief Law Enforcement Officers] to regulate handgun purchases by performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant background-checks?

Conclusion

No. The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO's who voluntarily accepted them (emphasis mine).

Further reading:

Why I'm "wasting" my vote by Larry Elder