Brush up on your History
- Thread starter WSM MAGNUM
- Start date
If that's your idea of success, I'll pass. The former Yugoslavia is still a hot-bed of armed rebellion, or are all those troops in Kosova and the surrounding areas just on vacation? There are incredible deprivations being suffered by the citizens of those new countries simply because they have no working relationship with their neighbors.
The former Soviet State is another good example of what I speak. The new countries are dependent on foreign aid for their existence, and are barely above survival levels for the majority of their peoples. They, as well, suffer from the lack of co-operation with their new neighbors. It's been a couple of decades for Russia, and nearly as long for the former Yugoslavia, and they still haven't solved their basic issues. How many people have to die for the theory before it can work?
The EU, on the other hand, already had existing treaties, laws, and other institutions in place. They came together, SIMPLIFYING the needed framework. A far different situation.
Besides, the question asked was if the fifty states could function as stand-alones. It had nothing to do with "recent history". I would like to thank you, though, for providing examples of what I warned of.
I did not mention "success," nor did your prior post.
Some of the 50 states could stand alone much better than most existing countries. California (6th), Texas (8th), and New York (11th) have some of the largest economies in the world.
Can countries break apart? Certainly. Success reflects the circumstances and conditions prevailing in a country before the breakup.
From the quote you provided, that is exactly what Henry is saying.Hugh said:
It was the people of the individual states that elected their legislatures, who in turn sent delegates to the Convention. Therefore, it was the States that devised the Constitution through their appointed delegates. These delegates were not elected or appointed by the people of the states, but by the legislatures.
Henry's argument was that it was the States that were the agents of the Constitution and not the people, therefore the Preamble was spurious and suggested a new national government and not a compact of the States.
No, I didn't say that at all, Hugh.Hugh said:
Those powers not enumerated (granted) by the Constitution are forbidden to the central government. They belong to the individual states, if their constitutions provide for it, or to the people of those individual states.
I believe where we are failing to communicate is that you and I hold different definitions of "State." When I refer to the State, I am necessarily referring to the government empowered by that people of that region. I am not referring to the people themselves, in a collective fashion, as you seem to be doing.
Reading is a learned skill
If you were giving me examples of what I spoke of, you're doing a fine job. If, however, you were pointing out that fragmenting countries can be successful, it's a poor job.
Most, if not all, of the reason for these huge "economies" is the arbitrary assignment of wealth based on corporate headquarters, federal military and law-enforcement bases, and other federally-sponsored programs. You seem to think that spliting the various states into seperate entities would somehow be accompanied by the corporate entities maintaining their control over other states sites. While they might be able to do that, they would soon be subjected to additional taxes and tariffs levied by the home states. It would take a huge number of people to be able to correspond with the various polities, and to ensure no violations of law. The free passage of commerce would also end, and transporting costs would sky-rocket. There's also no guarantee that the citizens of one state would be granted unlimited passage through the others.
Countries do split, and re-align. That's a given. However, the statement was that America could have fifty separate states, without federal oversight, or even federal existence. It would create chaos, and the final picture isn't one of a benevolent and happy society.
from gc70 in response to my saying:
If you were giving me examples of what I spoke of, you're doing a fine job. If, however, you were pointing out that fragmenting countries can be successful, it's a poor job.
Most, if not all, of the reason for these huge "economies" is the arbitrary assignment of wealth based on corporate headquarters, federal military and law-enforcement bases, and other federally-sponsored programs. You seem to think that spliting the various states into seperate entities would somehow be accompanied by the corporate entities maintaining their control over other states sites. While they might be able to do that, they would soon be subjected to additional taxes and tariffs levied by the home states. It would take a huge number of people to be able to correspond with the various polities, and to ensure no violations of law. The free passage of commerce would also end, and transporting costs would sky-rocket. There's also no guarantee that the citizens of one state would be granted unlimited passage through the others.
Countries do split, and re-align. That's a given. However, the statement was that America could have fifty separate states, without federal oversight, or even federal existence. It would create chaos, and the final picture isn't one of a benevolent and happy society.
gc70 posted:
Just a question. Where did you come up with that? I've checked my posts, and NOWHERE is that posited.
I would remind you that your examples of disintegrating countries were both of territories that were created, by force, from other adjoining, but politically separate, countries. None of which wished to be part of a greater country. When the military threat was removed, the original areas pushed for their re-institution. The abolition of the old treaties and laws created a vacuum that led to the mess that both are in today. What are they doing to resolve this? Why, they are working out treaties, business deals, and laws. That was the primary difficulty that I mentioned in the post you found so worthy of comment.
Just a question. Where did you come up with that? I've checked my posts, and NOWHERE is that posited.
I would remind you that your examples of disintegrating countries were both of territories that were created, by force, from other adjoining, but politically separate, countries. None of which wished to be part of a greater country. When the military threat was removed, the original areas pushed for their re-institution. The abolition of the old treaties and laws created a vacuum that led to the mess that both are in today. What are they doing to resolve this? Why, they are working out treaties, business deals, and laws. That was the primary difficulty that I mentioned in the post you found so worthy of comment.
That differs from my understanding.Hugh said:
There was some discussion in which it was suggested (and rightfully so) that by enumerating certain rights, these would come to be the primary and even sole rights of the people 1:
"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
What Madison is speaking about here, is this clause, previously stated in his speech:
"The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution."
What we see today is that the federalists were correct in this one thing. If the right in question is not an enumerated right, then it's not a right at all! The Supreme Court has dismissed the 9th amendment as having any importance at all:
"The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail." 2
Your right to privacy? It's not in the 9th amendment (where it properly belongs) but in "emanations and penumbras" 3 in other parts of the Constitution... Phaugh!
As Madison explains, the amendment was to restrict the necessary and proper clause of Art. I section 8, which he deemed could be used to abuse the rights of the people.
That's the history of the 9th amendment, straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
Footnotes:
1. The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session, pp 448-460.
2. Justice Reed; United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 95–96 (1947).
3. “...specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Justice William O. Douglas, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
auburnboattail
New member
break up
I believed we tried that route in 1860's in a little skirmish called the cival war.
All great countries braek up, it is enevitable. History shows they are not defeated externally but implode internally usually after great prosperity and cultural advance.
A Russian economist had a named a economic phenomenon where after yeras of growth a business or country reaches its peak and then continues for about 20 years after that then starta aslide into decay it is call Kontrief stagnation.
Why we might be different is that we have freedom and free markets which incentivize productivity. However moral decay and apathy may be our undoing.
In any case i can not think of 1 country that has broken up and prospered.
I believed we tried that route in 1860's in a little skirmish called the cival war.
All great countries braek up, it is enevitable. History shows they are not defeated externally but implode internally usually after great prosperity and cultural advance.
A Russian economist had a named a economic phenomenon where after yeras of growth a business or country reaches its peak and then continues for about 20 years after that then starta aslide into decay it is call Kontrief stagnation.
Why we might be different is that we have freedom and free markets which incentivize productivity. However moral decay and apathy may be our undoing.
In any case i can not think of 1 country that has broken up and prospered.
Hugh Damright
New member
After reading more about Patrick Henry's concern about the Preamble, I think he wanted the US Constitution to be a compact between the State Legislatures ... but he always seemed to say that he wanted this as opposed to a compact between the people as if by a national popular vote ... he seemed to think the choice was between a national popular vote or a compact between State Legislatures ... when of course there was a third way.
"Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."
"Are the people therefore in their aggregate capacity, the proper persons to form a Confederacy? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the Legislatures; the people having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing the Government."
I find that the word "State" often refers to people. For instance, when Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that the US Constitution is a contract between States, I don't believe it could possibly mean a contract between State Legislatures, I believe it means a contract between Virginians, Texans, and so on. I have already supplied the definition of "State" from that dictionary. I also have a very good book here titled "We the States", and it does not mean we the State Legislatures, it means we the people of the States of Virginia, Texas, and so on.
The thing is, if you think of a "State" as a government, such fundamental concepts as "State sovereignty" lose their meaning.
"Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government."
"Are the people therefore in their aggregate capacity, the proper persons to form a Confederacy? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the Legislatures; the people having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing the Government."
I find that the word "State" often refers to people. For instance, when Webster's 1828 Dictionary says that the US Constitution is a contract between States, I don't believe it could possibly mean a contract between State Legislatures, I believe it means a contract between Virginians, Texans, and so on. I have already supplied the definition of "State" from that dictionary. I also have a very good book here titled "We the States", and it does not mean we the State Legislatures, it means we the people of the States of Virginia, Texas, and so on.
The thing is, if you think of a "State" as a government, such fundamental concepts as "State sovereignty" lose their meaning.
All I'm saying is that the rights retained by the people are not only individual rights. In a federal system, the States also retain rights. The Ninth Amendment, by limiting the US, protects the reserved rights of the States and of the people.
+1
Exactly. The whole idea was and is that communities (states) be able to decide for themselves what kind of society and system they wanted without a centralized intruder dictating to them while still having a cooperation of states come together in a voluntary Union for purpose of trade and defense.
gc70 wrote:
Really? You're unawares of the Basque Autonomous Region in Spain, or the various autonomous regions in Russia, Pakistan, and Canada? Some of these formed as recently as fifteen years ago. They have their own political system, laws, police, and trade agreements with the Home Country.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Really? You're unawares of the Basque Autonomous Region in Spain, or the various autonomous regions in Russia, Pakistan, and Canada? Some of these formed as recently as fifteen years ago. They have their own political system, laws, police, and trade agreements with the Home Country.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Great post!! More people should examine & evaluate their views whatever they may be. We would be a better nation if everyone did this. Actually, Redworm initially it was the goal of the Fed to empower the states to govern themselves as much as possible. They saw the inherent danger in large govt. I think the 2nd ammendment was put in place not only to protect individuals from invaders but also from their own govt. in the event of a need for change.
If our forefathers saw the state of our nation today, they would be rolling in their graves. The Fed. no longer exists to provide value to the people in as much as it exists simply to sustain itself. When over 50% of one's income goes toward taxation, there is a huge problem. Our Govt. has become an over inflated baloon, which continually gets larger and larger until - BOOM! And unfortunately our children & grandchildren will be the ones to suffer. I for one want more personal protection for my family as things get more & more nihilistic - and they will....
If our forefathers saw the state of our nation today, they would be rolling in their graves. The Fed. no longer exists to provide value to the people in as much as it exists simply to sustain itself. When over 50% of one's income goes toward taxation, there is a huge problem. Our Govt. has become an over inflated baloon, which continually gets larger and larger until - BOOM! And unfortunately our children & grandchildren will be the ones to suffer. I for one want more personal protection for my family as things get more & more nihilistic - and they will....
What an interesting exchange of ideas. History shows that the average lifespan of of a republic is about 200 years, a fact of which the Founders were acutely aware. They last until the drooling masses realize that they can avail themselves of the largesse of the public treasury by voting into office those who are willing to dispense it. T.Jefferson made the comment that no people can be both ignorant and free. Is it any wonder that public education went swirling down the bowl when the Fedgov stuck its face into what should be a purely local matter? I believe it was Lenin who said the quickest way to take power over a people is to deprive them of the knowledge of their historic culture. It is not a coincidence that "education" these days consists of brainwashing the kiddies with the value system of international socialism while they have no idea when the Civil War occurred, or even who our enemies were during WW2. The present administration has plans to create a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. I don't scoff at the possibility- in fact I fear it will come about with the inevitable consequence that Mexicans and Canadians will have a say in how we live.
Unfortunately, we have no one (with the exception of Ron Paul) in the national legislature who would make a pimple on T. Jefferson's buttocks. God help us!
Unfortunately, we have no one (with the exception of Ron Paul) in the national legislature who would make a pimple on T. Jefferson's buttocks. God help us!
This has been a really good thread. Both for reasons of the political thought of those times and the legal thinking of those times. It is obvious that Hugh and I disagree on several issues, but we have been able to share our views without the rancor that has so often gotten threads closed lately.
This is, to my mind, one of the strengths of the L&P forum. Where disparate thinking can be shared and explored in an adult fashion.
Hugh, a personal "thank you," as I have enjoyed our little "debate" in this thread. I look forward to more of the same.
This is, to my mind, one of the strengths of the L&P forum. Where disparate thinking can be shared and explored in an adult fashion.
Hugh, a personal "thank you," as I have enjoyed our little "debate" in this thread. I look forward to more of the same.
WSM MAGNUM
New member
Her is some reading on what I think Hugh was discussing about. It`s long, but good.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Actually, I'd think that the end result of the fifty states forming a collective for defense, and the operating agreements that the Inuits have with the Canadian government would probably be a good template.
It's pretty much all speculation. The United States will never agree to dissolve itself voluntarily. The idea that the fifty states would somehow harmoniously dissolve the Union, then work out their own trade, law, and other treaties and agreements is the stuff that requires 1960s recreational pharmaceuticals to envision. Perhaps Santa could grant that wish, as well.
It's pretty much all speculation. The United States will never agree to dissolve itself voluntarily. The idea that the fifty states would somehow harmoniously dissolve the Union, then work out their own trade, law, and other treaties and agreements is the stuff that requires 1960s recreational pharmaceuticals to envision. Perhaps Santa could grant that wish, as well.
I think you are correct, But I also think it is valuable to examine the potential to do so.
Posts here in L&P repeatedly complain about the excesses of the federal government and it's never-ending hunger for power and control. The states have the ability to fight back against the federal government through the Constitution's amendment process. One extreme bargaining position would be for the states to threaten dissolution and compromise on a rollback of federal intrusion. For such a threat to have any weight, it would have to be credible - thus the value in discussing the threat scenario.