Political Crossfire Forums

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

The decentralized Articles of Confederation is Superior to the centralized U.S. Constitution. Do you agree or not?

Please explain your answer thoroughly.

Articles of Confederation.

USC

Enemy of Masters wrote:
The "Rule of Law" is a Hoax.

We the people are managed (controlled) by our central government.

The Read The Bills Act

One's a decentralized system, and one's a centralized one. Now look where we're today, and what, has absolute control.

Comparing the Articles and the Constitution
The United States has operated under two constitutions. The first, The Articles of Confederation, was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution, replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788.

The two documents have much in common - they were established by the same people (sometimes literally the same exact people, though mostly just in terms of contemporaries). But they differ more than they do resemble each other, when one looks at the details. Comparing them can give us insight into what the Framers found important in 1781, and what they changed their minds on by 1788.

Formal name of the nation
Articles: The United States of America
Constitution: (not specified, but referred to in the Preamble as "the United States of America")

Legislature
Articles: Unicameral, called Congress
Constitution: Bicameral, called Congress, divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate

Members of Congress
Articles: Between two and seven members per state
Constitution: Two Senators per state, Representatives apportioned according to population of each state

Voting in Congress
Articles: One vote per state
Constitution: One vote per Representative or Senator

Appointment of members
Articles: All appointed by state legislatures, in the manner each legislature directed
Constitution: Representatives elected by popular vote, Senators appointed by state legislatures

Term of legislative office
Articles: One year
Constitution: Two years for Representatives, six for Senators

Term limit for legislative office
Articles: No more than three out of every six years
Constitution: None

Congressional Pay
Articles: Paid by states
Constitution: Paid by the federal government

When Congress is not in session...
Articles: A Committee of States had the full powers of Congress
Constitution: The President can call for Congress to assemble

Chair of legislature
Articles: President of Congress
Constitution: Speaker of the House of Representatives, Vice President is President of the Senate

Executive
Articles: None
Constitution: President

National Judiciary
Articles: Maritime judiciary established
Constitution: Federal judiciary established, including Supreme Court

Adjudicator of disputes between states
Articles: Congress
Constitution: Supreme Court

New States
Articles: Admitted upon agreement of nine states (special exemption provided for Canada)
Constitution: Admitted upon agreement of Congress

Amendment
Articles: When agreed upon by all states
Constitution: When agreed upon by three-fourths of all states

Navy
Articles: Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip warships to counter piracy
Constitution: Congress authorized to build a navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war

Army
Articles: Congress to decide on size of force and to requisition troops from each state according to population
Constitution: Congress authorized to raise and support armies

Power to coin money
Articles: United States and the states
Constitution: United States only

Ex post facto laws
Articles: Not forbidden
Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Bills of attainder
Articles: Not forbidden
Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Taxes
Articles: Apportioned by Congress, collected by the states
Constitution: Laid and collected by Congress

Ratification
Articles: Unanimous consent required
Constitution: Consent of nine states required

foadi · Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 14219 Location: BKK

Yes. I read The Probability Broach once. It's an alternate history type book where the Constitution was never ratified, and there's talking monkeys and dolphins. def preferable to teh constitution. no q

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

It's a lesser document in that it assumes rights are granted by the government rather than inherent.

LiveWire · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 35

The Articles of Confederation are very simply the weaker document. These were poorly thought out and almost led to the new America to break apart. The constitution served as the glue required to bind us back together. So in this way The Articles of Confederation can not be considered the stronger document.

Stygma · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:49 am Post subject:

Well, I like the part about Canada joining the US. :lol:

Falconer · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:22 pm Post subject:

The Articles of Confederation would've morphed into the Constitution eventually anyway when they realized the errors and potential damage it would incur after bigger wars and manifest destiny. Luckily, that happened pretty quickly. So there really is nothing but speculation.

mirage · Joined: 17 Apr 2004 Posts: 3715 Location: West Coast

cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lesser document in that it assumes rights are granted by the government rather than inherent.

That actually does make some sense - although it seems the USC hasn't always been a guarantee that our inalienable rights will be upheld, which challenges the idea that simply saying rights are inherent may not actually have any direct value in our lives. I feel the value of any "right" can only be preserved through observation of such a right regardless of it's source.

mirage · Joined: 17 Apr 2004 Posts: 3715 Location: West Coast

I don't think it's accurate to compare the two documents without considering the state-level laws. Without the laws, traditions and rights that come from the state level, the USC and AoC are incomplete, the AoC even more so because it shifts more of the laws, traditions and rights to the state level, something I fail to see a problem with.

The combination of a state's strong constitution with the AoC could effectivly be a much stronger and more effective legal basis than a weak state constitution and the USC.

I will say one thing... The USC contains the Bill of Rights, which as far as I am concerned is the ONLY part of the USC that is really worth anything at all. The AoC left civil rights out.

mirage · Joined: 17 Apr 2004 Posts: 3715 Location: West Coast

Stygma wrote: Well, I like the part about Canada joining the US. :lol:

The founding fathers were a little miffed that the British colonies north of the St. Lawrence River didn't want to join the revolution. The idea was to expand across the entire continent from the very start and that included Canada. This more or less explains the War of 1812, where Jefferson tried to annex Canada, but failed miserably.

foadi · Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 14219 Location: BKK

mirage wrote: Stygma wrote: Well, I like the part about Canada joining the US. :lol:

The founding fathers were a little miffed that the British colonies north of the St. Lawrence River didn't want to join the revolution. The idea was to expand across the entire continent from the very start and that included Canada. This more or less explains the War of 1812, where Jefferson tried to annex Canada, but failed miserably.
too bad the british didn't take back over.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5572 Location: Dreamland, NC

The United States Constitution is better for the simple reason that it works. The same can't be said for the Articles of Confederation.

yETII90 · Joined: 27 Nov 2005 Posts: 1484 Location: New York

politicalmojo wrote: The United States Constitution is better for the simple reason that it works. The same can't be said for the Articles of Confederation.

Ditto.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Agreed, I wouldn't trade the US Consitution for the Articles of Confederation.

Falconer · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:

politicalmojo wrote: The United States Constitution is better for the simple reason that it works. The same can't be said for the Articles of Confederation.

That's an eloquent way of putting it. :-o

Shady · Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 7413 Location: VA

politicalmojo wrote: The United States Constitution is better for the simple reason that it works. The same can't be said for the Articles of Confederation.

There you go.

TheCreepyApostate · Joined: 11 Mar 2004 Posts: 19844 Location: Corruptinois

The AoC failed horribly.

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.

The Articles were a decentralized system that couldn't compulsively collect taxes or enforce (centralized) collective authoritarian law at the (centralized) federal level. Sounds like a great idea to me. If the early Pennsylvanian colony didn't fail then that's proof that decentralization is possible, successful and attainable. If they wanted to amend the Articles then all states had to be in agreeance. This effectively takes all power away from the government and leaves where it should be. We're a bankrupt nation and the USC has done nothing to stop it. Time, progress and technology would have shown the Articles as a superior document. The Bill of Rights would have came regardless as it was modeled after the Roman system. You either pay now or you pay later, and we sure as hell are paying now. Nothing substantial comes without work, and sacrifice.

micfranklin · Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject:

Honestly, i really don't care which one is superior to the other, and in this day and age, I just want the government to abide by the whole Constitution without question.

Is that so much to ask?

10thJustice · Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 1008 Location: new york

mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lesser document in that it assumes rights are granted by the government rather than inherent.

That actually does make some sense - although it seems the USC hasn't always been a guarantee that our inalienable rights will be upheld, which challenges the idea that simply saying rights are inherent may not actually have any direct value in our lives. I feel the value of any "right" can only be preserved through observation of such a right regardless of it's source.

The source of a right has one practical purpose. If rights come from the state then that state can amend or abolish that right. If a right comes from some more exotic source then the states, the courts, congress nor the president can deprive you of that right.

10thJustice · Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 1008 Location: new york

FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.

EugenicHegemony wrote: The Articles ... Sounds like a great idea to me.

Naw!!! A mere cursory glance at the Articles will reveal their inferiority. Officers of the national army are appointed by each state. Such a configuration lacks cohesion and coherence.

There is no Supreme Court. Instead the judicial power is vested in congress and it extends to disputes between 2 or more states "concerning boundaries, jurisdiction and ANY CAUSES WHATEVER!!!" (Article IX). That's a broad mandate and a formula for deep federal intrusions into individual and state's rights.

The Articles are definitely inferior to the Constitution.