Rich Lucibella
Staff
Good thread.
Welcome change.
Thanks much.
Rich
Welcome change.
Thanks much.
Rich
Brush up on your History
- Thread starter WSM MAGNUM
- Start date
California (6th), Texas (8th), and New York (11th) have some of the largest economies in the world.
Why does easy communication and transportation make it impossible to have 50 states that manage internal affairs and work together to coordinate their interaction with each other and manage external affairs?
If easy communication and transportation and competitiveness in the world economy require a vast "consolidated government" (to use a term favored by the Founders), the logical direction in the future would be toward consolidating the US, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union.
Last edited:
That is not at all true. You take the income level and wealth of the poorest state in the United States and you have a gold mine compared even to some European countries to say nothing of the third world countries around the world.
I don't have the figures in front of me, but just think of it this way, would you rather live in Louisiana or India?
Hong Kong survived on it's own economically and was one of the wealthiest cities in the world (a mere city, not a state mind you) and probably still is just because the rest of China needs it to survive (they can't afford to impose too many socialistic laws against Hong Kong)
VERY true.
Hugh, I have to disagree with you here. The Articles of Confederation were written because while some of the States wanted to go their own separate way. Most of the delegates to the Continental Congress knew they could not stand up against another European Country like France or Spain. There was strength in numbers.Hugh said:
It was a term of art, Hugh. Nothing more. Art. IX sections 1, 3 and 4 delineated some of the powers of the states, even though they still used the term, "right."
Noah Webster defined the word "Right" when used as a noun thusly: 10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.
America was an experiment. It incorporated a central government with specific powers and duties, that a central should have while allowing the states to remain as sovereign entities. In effect, the system as devised, was one of shared sovereignty. The States acting as sovereign within their political spheres of influence and the central government as sovereign within its sphere.
That may be your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the preambles phrase, "in order to form a more perfect union..." That phrase was intended to note that the AOC was not a perfect union of the States. That this Constitution was provided to perfect that Union.
Yet you fail to acknowledge that it was not the States, through their legislative bodies, but the people in conventions of the States that ratified the Constitution. In that sense, yes, it was by a popular vote. The States governments really had nothing to do with the ratification of the Constitution.
Again, returning to Noah Webster: 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
Patrick Henry's' famous objection (see gc70's post in post #6) is lost without the context. He did not want conventions of the people to ratify the document, he wanted the individual states legislatures to ratify... or not. Hence his remarks against the wording of the preamble.
And as we can see in the above definition, while Federal is a compact that is chiefly done by states or nations, it is not always the case.
And as was done, it was state conventions that bound their respective states to the Constitution and not the legislatures. It matters not whether the Legislatures set up the conventions. The legislatures played no other part in the ratification.
The people, through the ratifying conventions, did just that. They altered the sovereignty of their respective states. Sovereignty was in fact, lessoned, and shared with the central government.
The legal minds of today would agree with that statement. But we are not dealing with thoughts of today. Back in those days, the Declaration was still a heady document. The principles it contained were still remembered and honored as a thing that was dearly fought for and won.
I confess to having a huge disagreement with Legislators and Judges today, who would tell me that the Declaration of Independence has no valid legal meaning in our system today. What was true then, is just as true today!
gc70: I am necessarily arguing from the position of the victor, not the vanquished.
I would have to disagree with the thought that the Citizens of the United States have no right to abolish or change the government. The Declaration of Independence specifically covers that people do have that right. Its hopeful that change when necessary can be accomplished through nonviolent means. However it is also stated that when men have no peaceful means to redress injustice that it might have to be done by taking up arms. That is why we broke with the British Crown by taking up arms.
Then what the heck are we doing in Iraq overthrowing a government by an armed conflict to make a democracy? If our citzens have no right to do so then this nation has no right to overthrow an established government of another nation except in self defense. Our stated goal is to create a democracy in Iraq because its government had become unbearable. Please dont use the WMD argument as President Bush and others have said that they made a mistake about this. This administration has pubicly stated that its goal is to make a democracy in Iraq. We are making democracy in Afghanistan also which is secondary to the fact that there were direct links to the 9/11 attack. Our government is telling the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that they have the right to overthrow an oppresive goverment. I think that the government and legal minds speak with forked tounge.
I fail to see why the thought that the power of government is derived from the people is a hard concept to get. Do we not have local, state and city elections? People give consent for continuing a government or changing a government by voting. States have certain powers and authorities vested in them not rights. The Constitution is a plan for goverment which according to itself was ordained by the people of those states through represenatives.
If power to be governed does not come from the people then why do we have elections?
Then what the heck are we doing in Iraq overthrowing a government by an armed conflict to make a democracy? If our citzens have no right to do so then this nation has no right to overthrow an established government of another nation except in self defense. Our stated goal is to create a democracy in Iraq because its government had become unbearable. Please dont use the WMD argument as President Bush and others have said that they made a mistake about this. This administration has pubicly stated that its goal is to make a democracy in Iraq. We are making democracy in Afghanistan also which is secondary to the fact that there were direct links to the 9/11 attack. Our government is telling the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that they have the right to overthrow an oppresive goverment. I think that the government and legal minds speak with forked tounge.
I fail to see why the thought that the power of government is derived from the people is a hard concept to get. Do we not have local, state and city elections? People give consent for continuing a government or changing a government by voting. States have certain powers and authorities vested in them not rights. The Constitution is a plan for goverment which according to itself was ordained by the people of those states through represenatives.
If power to be governed does not come from the people then why do we have elections?
Hugh Damright
New member
The Constitution does not create a perfect Union. A perfect Union would not even be a Union anymore, it would be a State. The Constitution is intended to keep the US from ever becoming a perfect Union.
PER'FECT (1.) Finished; complete; consummate; not defective; having all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as a perfect statue; a perfect likeness; a perfect work; a perfect system.
As Antifederalist Paper #1 explained, the concern was that the US would become a perfect Union:
"the government reported by the convention does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it."
I said the US is empowered by the people as fifty sovereign bodies, not as one big sovereign body. I think it's clear that I am referring to the people of the States as sovereign bodies, and not referring to the State Legislatures.
STATE (5.) A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government ... More usually the word signifies a political body governed by representatives; a commonwealth; as the States of Greece; the States of America. In this sense, state has sometimes more immediate reference to the government, sometimes to the people or community.
The Declaration regards the right of the people of each State to alter/abolish their goverment. It is Virginians that have the right to alter/abolish Virginia government - the people of the US have no such right. As Federalist #39 explains, if the US were wholly national then the people of the US would have a right to alter/abolish the US, but the US is not wholly national:
"Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles."
Hugh, the Preamble is using the word perfect, as a verb, not an adjective. Again, from Noah Webster's 1st edition (1828):
PER'FECT, v.t. [L. perfectus, perficio.] To finish or complete so as to leave nothing wanting; to give to any thing all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as, to perfect a picture or statue.
1. To instruct fully; to make fully skillful; as, to perfect one's self in the rules of music or architecture; to perfect soldiers in discipline.
[When using definitions for word usage of the founding era, modern dictionaries are lacking. Always use the dictionary closest to the time of the reference. In this case, Webster's 1828 edition (1st edition) will always give us the meaning of the word in common usage at the time of the founding.]
The Declaration states the fundamental principle that a people may change or abolish their government when it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. It makes no other distinction as to the type of political body the "people" come from.
Hamilton is playing loose with words in Federalist #39. Remember too, that Hamilton and his faction were proponents of a strong and comprehensive central government. He wanted much more than what was devised... It would seem, that from our standpoint, his faction has won. The evidence of nationalism, as opposed to federalism, is all around us.
PER'FECT, v.t. [L. perfectus, perficio.] To finish or complete so as to leave nothing wanting; to give to any thing all that is requisite to its nature and kind; as, to perfect a picture or statue.
1. To instruct fully; to make fully skillful; as, to perfect one's self in the rules of music or architecture; to perfect soldiers in discipline.
[When using definitions for word usage of the founding era, modern dictionaries are lacking. Always use the dictionary closest to the time of the reference. In this case, Webster's 1828 edition (1st edition) will always give us the meaning of the word in common usage at the time of the founding.]
The Declaration states the fundamental principle that a people may change or abolish their government when it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for. It makes no other distinction as to the type of political body the "people" come from.
Hamilton is playing loose with words in Federalist #39. Remember too, that Hamilton and his faction were proponents of a strong and comprehensive central government. He wanted much more than what was devised... It would seem, that from our standpoint, his faction has won. The evidence of nationalism, as opposed to federalism, is all around us.
Actually if you go back in history and look at the folks who followed Hamilton's views and Jefferson's views and formed the two parties you will see that they tended to flip flop as we would call it today. Jefferson withdrew from Washington and Madison founded a party based on "strict construction" versus "implied powers". What seemed to be the truth of it is that "strict constructionist" argument was put to the side when that party was in charge and needed to do things. The "implied powers" people who opposed it then began to use the argument of "strict construction". So neither party was pure in thier ideology.
John C. Calhoun was a Federalist ("implied powers") at first but as things were done that harmed his state he turned towards the belief that the people in each state were sovereign and had given validity to the state constitution and the US Constitution by electing delegates to ratify these documents in special elections.
John C. Calhoun was a Federalist ("implied powers") at first but as things were done that harmed his state he turned towards the belief that the people in each state were sovereign and had given validity to the state constitution and the US Constitution by electing delegates to ratify these documents in special elections.
Hugh Damright
New member
I think the Preamble uses the word "perfect" as an adjective, not as a verb . The definition I provided was from Webster's 1828 edition. I also provided a reference from Antifederalist #1 where the word "perfect" was used in the same context.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
"perfect" pretty clearly modifies the word following it in that sentence, "union", making it an adjective, not a verb.
Hugh Damright
New member
I can't really respond to this because I don't know how it is that you think I contradicted myself, or what it is that I'm supposed to see by reading the amendments again.
Hugh Damright
New member
I have never before heard that Patrick Henry wanted the US Constitution to be a compact between State Legislatures. I have always been under the impression that he wanted the US Constitution to be a compact between Virginians, New Yorkers, Georgians, and so on ... as opposed to a Compact between Americans as if by "popular vote", as if the US was one big State.
"Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states ... the people gave them no power to use their name." - Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788 Virginia Ratification Convention http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_03.htm
Hugh Damright
New member
9th and 10th Amendments
You seem to be saying that the Tenth Amendment means that powers within Virginia, which are not delegated to the US nor denied to the States, are reserved to the Virginia Legislature or else to the people of the whole US. I think the Tenth Amendment was declared to prevent that very construction ... I think it was intended to declare that undelegated powers within Virginia by right remain with Virginians, or with our State Government to whom we may have granted the power in question. I think New York's request for the Tenth Amendment said it well:
"that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same"
As for the Ninth Amendment, I believe it was intended to declare that the USBOR shall not be construed so as to further empower the US. And so I believe it was intended to protect the rights of the States i.e. the collective rights of Virginians from infringement by the US, just as much as it was intended to protect individual rights from infringement by the US. The intent of the USBOR was to limit the US.
You seem to be saying that the Tenth Amendment means that powers within Virginia, which are not delegated to the US nor denied to the States, are reserved to the Virginia Legislature or else to the people of the whole US. I think the Tenth Amendment was declared to prevent that very construction ... I think it was intended to declare that undelegated powers within Virginia by right remain with Virginians, or with our State Government to whom we may have granted the power in question. I think New York's request for the Tenth Amendment said it well:
"that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same"
As for the Ninth Amendment, I believe it was intended to declare that the USBOR shall not be construed so as to further empower the US. And so I believe it was intended to protect the rights of the States i.e. the collective rights of Virginians from infringement by the US, just as much as it was intended to protect individual rights from infringement by the US. The intent of the USBOR was to limit the US.
Hugh Damright
New member
National or Federal?
The way I understand it, the US Constitution is a compact between the States - a federal system. The definition of "federal" doesn't say that in every instance a federal system must always be between States, but here is what it says:
FED'ERAL
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
But if the idea is to use Webster's 1828 Dictionary to prove whether the US Constitution is or isn't a contract between the States, I refer you to the definition of "compact":
COMPACT An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied, in a general sense, to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact. Or the word is applied to the agreement of the individuals of a community.
Of course, the US Constitution does not frame a government that is wholly federal nor wholly national but rather a hybrid system. But any national powers are delegated by the States because the whole US Constitution is a compact between the States. The US Government is at its foundation federal ... and then upon this federal foundation resides a superstructure that is part national and part federal. I am reminded of the Inaugural Address of William Henry Harrison:
"if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond."
The evidence of federalism is also all around us. Like for instance the way that gun laws vary from State to State. But even if we were completely surrounded by nothing but nationalism, would that somehow mean that the US Constitution frames a national government rather than a federal government?
The way I understand it, the US Constitution is a compact between the States - a federal system. The definition of "federal" doesn't say that in every instance a federal system must always be between States, but here is what it says:
FED'ERAL
1. Pertaining to a league or contract; derived from an agreement or covenant between parties, particularly between nations.
2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.
But if the idea is to use Webster's 1828 Dictionary to prove whether the US Constitution is or isn't a contract between the States, I refer you to the definition of "compact":
COMPACT An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied, in a general sense, to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact. Or the word is applied to the agreement of the individuals of a community.
Of course, the US Constitution does not frame a government that is wholly federal nor wholly national but rather a hybrid system. But any national powers are delegated by the States because the whole US Constitution is a compact between the States. The US Government is at its foundation federal ... and then upon this federal foundation resides a superstructure that is part national and part federal. I am reminded of the Inaugural Address of William Henry Harrison:
"if we would compare the sovereignty acknowledged to exist in the mass of our people with the power claimed by other sovereignties, even by those which have been considered most purely democratic, we shall find a most essential difference. All others lay claim to power limited only by their own will. The majority of our citizens, on the contrary, possess a sovereignty with an amount of power precisely equal to that which has been granted to them by the parties to the national compact, and nothing beyond."
auburnboattail
New member
Key word
More Perfect Union. Implies need for continuous improvement.
The intent was the best compromise amongst those with Heavy states rights views and those who supported Strong central govt.
Neither faction got all they wanted, simply brokered a deal that suited them and their circumstances at the time. Fortunatly for us it worked. although
it only delayed the Cival war and cival rights movement.
We of course will never acheive perfection but my friends we are blessed to live free and exercise our freedoms because our forfathers did compromise Our task is to protect those freedoms with all our treasure, might, faith and intelect and blood if need be. That is why we fight all wars. Americans are the most generous with our most precious treasure .. our blood.
That is why it is an affront to all who fought for our freedom not to exercise our earned right of casting a ballot to voice our preferances.
The question concerning intent really has been settled ages ago.
There is no serious debate that the constitution grants individual rights.
Federal power was intended only for National Defence, Foreign trade and diplomacy and enforcement of limited personal and property regulations.
Through inaction we have allowed the evolution to current circumstances.
We are the government and can affect change and direct policy.
Both individually and collectivly as organized groups.
As 2nd ammendement supporters we have a right and with that right a resonsibility.
We have the GOD given right to protect our personal interests as well as the responsibility to affect change and safegaurd those rights.
Thank god I was born American ...What a Country!!!
More Perfect Union. Implies need for continuous improvement.
The intent was the best compromise amongst those with Heavy states rights views and those who supported Strong central govt.
Neither faction got all they wanted, simply brokered a deal that suited them and their circumstances at the time. Fortunatly for us it worked. although
it only delayed the Cival war and cival rights movement.
We of course will never acheive perfection but my friends we are blessed to live free and exercise our freedoms because our forfathers did compromise Our task is to protect those freedoms with all our treasure, might, faith and intelect and blood if need be. That is why we fight all wars. Americans are the most generous with our most precious treasure .. our blood.
That is why it is an affront to all who fought for our freedom not to exercise our earned right of casting a ballot to voice our preferances.
The question concerning intent really has been settled ages ago.
There is no serious debate that the constitution grants individual rights.
Federal power was intended only for National Defence, Foreign trade and diplomacy and enforcement of limited personal and property regulations.
Through inaction we have allowed the evolution to current circumstances.
We are the government and can affect change and direct policy.
Both individually and collectivly as organized groups.
As 2nd ammendement supporters we have a right and with that right a resonsibility.
We have the GOD given right to protect our personal interests as well as the responsibility to affect change and safegaurd those rights.
Thank god I was born American ...What a Country!!!
Am I the only person who feels that the various papers published after the Declaration Of Independence was ratified have no power of law? They were opinions of those who wrote them, nothing more. The AoC was superseded by the Constitution, and is useful only for background.
What Jefferson, Henry, Carol, and the other signatories THOUGHT SHOULD be the interpretation of the words included in the Constitution carries no real relevance as to what the document meant to the majority who approved it.
I agree with auburnboattail. These decisions were made long ago, and further arguing them in today's context usually ends up confounding, not correcting, anyone's interpretation of the Laws of the Land.
It's also a good example of what I speak to consider the cavalier dismissal of a Supreme Court decision because one feels that the Court, over 100 years ago, was prejudging a case. Nobody here has ever spoken to anyone who actually inquired as to the reasoning behind the decision. It's a far cry easier to sieze upon another reason when the Court is all dead and buried, than to examine their position, and attempt to understand their thought processes.
As to the individual states standing alone, that's incredible logic. The sheer number of treaties, business deals, shared operations, and technology transfers would render it impossible. Most of the work force would have to be involved in just setting up the framework. Please, while it COULD, in a perfect time and place, be done, but only after years of work. It's not going to happen. I find these flights of fancy closely akin to what we find in the Federalist Papers, and their ilk. Theory, but missing a serious dose of reality.
What Jefferson, Henry, Carol, and the other signatories THOUGHT SHOULD be the interpretation of the words included in the Constitution carries no real relevance as to what the document meant to the majority who approved it.
I agree with auburnboattail. These decisions were made long ago, and further arguing them in today's context usually ends up confounding, not correcting, anyone's interpretation of the Laws of the Land.
It's also a good example of what I speak to consider the cavalier dismissal of a Supreme Court decision because one feels that the Court, over 100 years ago, was prejudging a case. Nobody here has ever spoken to anyone who actually inquired as to the reasoning behind the decision. It's a far cry easier to sieze upon another reason when the Court is all dead and buried, than to examine their position, and attempt to understand their thought processes.
As to the individual states standing alone, that's incredible logic. The sheer number of treaties, business deals, shared operations, and technology transfers would render it impossible. Most of the work force would have to be involved in just setting up the framework. Please, while it COULD, in a perfect time and place, be done, but only after years of work. It's not going to happen. I find these flights of fancy closely akin to what we find in the Federalist Papers, and their ilk. Theory, but missing a serious dose of reality.
auburnboattail
New member
Documentation
The Federalist papers were written to pursude the public that the constitution should be adopted. The individulal writers views, post ratification, served two purposes. 1. self serving.. as no one knew the ultimate outcome all each wanted for posterity his intepretation recorded. 2. For clarification...
details on to waht each thought the intent of the constitution was.
These views are not rule of law although Jeffersons views of seapartion of church and state were adopted from a post ratification letter. Simply was to be no National Religion esTablished.Rather they should be viewed as support documentation as to waht each writer's personal views were.
As today all are prone to spin information to fit ones own predilections.
Reasonable people should be able to agree to a literal intrepretation of well written articles.
Only when intrepretaion becomes slanted to a particular groups interests or desires are when one must be concerned. But the beauty of our system is that we do have 3 branches that indeed do check and balance. and we have the right to ptotest, demonstate, speak out and act to change those policies that we as individuals and collectively we do not agree with.
That is why education and social awareness is critical to a Republic such as ours. We as Americans take for granted our part of the political process.
For example a general misconception is that the Revolutionary war began because of high taxes or quartering of soldiers. In fact the British at Lexinton and Concord were coming to confiscate a cash of Muskets and Powder.
Indeed there were other factors but the overiding issue that colonials would not stand for was firearm confiscation.
It is vital that the 2nd ammendment is preserved to ptotect all others.
The Federalist papers were written to pursude the public that the constitution should be adopted. The individulal writers views, post ratification, served two purposes. 1. self serving.. as no one knew the ultimate outcome all each wanted for posterity his intepretation recorded. 2. For clarification...
details on to waht each thought the intent of the constitution was.
These views are not rule of law although Jeffersons views of seapartion of church and state were adopted from a post ratification letter. Simply was to be no National Religion esTablished.Rather they should be viewed as support documentation as to waht each writer's personal views were.
As today all are prone to spin information to fit ones own predilections.
Reasonable people should be able to agree to a literal intrepretation of well written articles.
Only when intrepretaion becomes slanted to a particular groups interests or desires are when one must be concerned. But the beauty of our system is that we do have 3 branches that indeed do check and balance. and we have the right to ptotest, demonstate, speak out and act to change those policies that we as individuals and collectively we do not agree with.
That is why education and social awareness is critical to a Republic such as ours. We as Americans take for granted our part of the political process.
For example a general misconception is that the Revolutionary war began because of high taxes or quartering of soldiers. In fact the British at Lexinton and Concord were coming to confiscate a cash of Muskets and Powder.
Indeed there were other factors but the overiding issue that colonials would not stand for was firearm confiscation.
It is vital that the 2nd ammendment is preserved to ptotect all others.
Brush up on your history, JR47
And new countries can form, as is happening with the European Union, formerly 25 totally independent countries.
Impossible? Only if you disbelieve very recent history.
So you think it is impossible for a country to break up? Remember Yugoslavia? It is now 6 countries. Or the USSR? It is now 15 countries.
And new countries can form, as is happening with the European Union, formerly 25 totally independent countries.
Impossible? Only if you disbelieve very recent history.