Political Crossfire Forums

[EugenicHegemony]

10thJustice wrote:
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.

This onerous central government does as it pleases with any rights it pleases, and we already have the USC.

10thJustice wrote: FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.

EugenicHegemony wrote: 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.

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.

Quote: 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.


"A mere cursory glance" does nothing. Each state must have sovereignty over any central government. "Cohesion" for what? Are you a collective communist? I'll take strong independent individuality over compulsory collectivity.

Quote:
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 wer all about each state being a sovereign and individual entity, and nothing at the federal (dictatorial) level could force their will. Good, I want to abolish the USSC as they're appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land. It's absurd. What else could've dictatorially taken our property rights? There was also no president in the Articles; therefore no one to dictatorially appoint any USSC. President's are useless to the citizenry, and only serve the special interests who (pay) to get them elected.

Executive
Articles: None
Constitution: President

No Executive Dictatorial Check Signers

[Centrist]

EugenicHegemony wrote: 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.

A government with no power is not a government. What you're advocating is, essentially, 50 separate sovereign nations. If you think that's what we should be, more power to you, but if you believe that we're better served as one actual country, then the AoC are pretty much useless as total decentralization of a federal government renders that federal government totally ineffectual.

Quote: "A mere cursory glance" does nothing. Each state must have sovereignty over any central government.

"Must" have? To be what? As I said, if a state government is sovereign over and beyond a federal government, the federal government serves no purpose and has no function.

Quote: "Cohesion" for what? Are you a collective communist? I'll take strong independent individuality over compulsory collectivity.

The best response to that that I can think of is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No one's advocating total collectivism, at least not in this thread yet, but what you're advocating is the opposite extreme. There has to be SOME cooperation, compulsory cooperation, between state governments if we are to be one country instead of 50. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that the federal government ranks higher on the food chain.

Quote: Good, I want to abolish the USSC as they're appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land. It's absurd. What else could've dictatorially taken our property rights? There was also no president in the Articles; therefore no one to dictatorially appoint any USSC. President's are useless to the citizenry, and only serve the special interests who (pay) to get them elected.

What property rights did you lose? Forget I asked. That's not the point and it goes too far afield. I'll ask the questions in as plain a way as I can come up with: how would you set things up? And what do you think would be the end result?

[EugenicHegemony]

Centrist wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: 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.

A government with no power is not a government. What you're advocating is, essentially, 50 separate sovereign nations. If you think that's what we should be, more power to you, but if you believe that we're better served as one actual country, then the AoC are pretty much useless as total decentralization of a federal government renders that federal government totally ineffectual.

Quote: "A mere cursory glance" does nothing. Each state must have sovereignty over any central government.

"Must" have? To be what? As I said, if a state government is sovereign over and beyond a federal government, the federal government serves no purpose and has no function.

Quote: "Cohesion" for what? Are you a collective communist? I'll take strong independent individuality over compulsory collectivity.

The best response to that that I can think of is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No one's advocating total collectivism, at least not in this thread yet, but what you're advocating is the opposite extreme. There has to be SOME cooperation, compulsory cooperation, between state governments if we are to be one country instead of 50. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that the federal government ranks higher on the food chain.

Quote: Good, I want to abolish the USSC as they're appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land. It's absurd. What else could've dictatorially taken our property rights? There was also no president in the Articles; therefore no one to dictatorially appoint any USSC. President's are useless to the citizenry, and only serve the special interests who (pay) to get them elected.

What property rights did you lose? Forget I asked. That's not the point and it goes too far afield. I'll ask the questions in as plain a way as I can come up with: how would you set things up? And what do you think would be the end result?

Quote: A government with no power is not a government. What you're advocating is, essentially, 50 separate sovereign nations. If you think that's what we should be, more power to you, but if you believe that we're better served as one actual country, then the AoC are pretty much useless as total decentralization of a federal government renders that federal government totally ineffectual.

It's called decentralization of power. There is no reason one body to have all the power (or any power) in one location. It breeds despotism, and it has done just that. We're a bankrupt nation, and this pitiful Union or the USC has done nothing to quell that.

Quote: "Must" have? To be what? As I said, if a state government is sovereign over and beyond a federal government, the federal government serves no purpose and has no function.

Bingo! A limitlessly powerful central authority only serves itself, and what it thinks is best.

Quote: The best response to that that I can think of is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No one's advocating total collectivism, at least not in this thread yet, but what you're advocating is the opposite extreme. There has to be SOME cooperation, compulsory cooperation, between state governments if we are to be one country instead of 50. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that the federal government ranks higher on the food chain.

It's not an extreme; it's decentralization. There would be plenty of willing cooperation, and that's the way it must be. Trade, and all business will continue regardless. Pure competition, and no coercion from a central body is a great thing.

Quote: What property rights did you lose? Forget I asked. That's not the point and it goes too far afield.

You need look no further than the dictatorial USSC: http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-government-has-taken-our-property.html

Quote: I'll ask the questions in as plain a way as I can come up with: how would you set things up? And what do you think would be the end result?

Here's a thread I made, and you can read some ideas on the last page.. I've changed my mind about the document that is the USC in favor of the original as it was a decentralized system, and I prefer that over centralization. The AOC is superior, and conducive to liberty: Burn it down.

[mirage]

foadi wrote: 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.

My assumption is that the British felt the same way about the USA then that we feel about Iraq now. Technically, by the end of 1812, we lost half our territory to the British and gained nothing. The British basically just gave it back to us. On the surface, I'm sure this looked like a generous move, but when you consider the commerical arrangements and how profitable the independant USA continued to be for the British merchants, it may have been a commercial advantage to allow the USA to exist as an independant entity. This wouldn't be much different than preferring Iraq to exist as an "independant" entity with strong commerical lines to US corporations.

What people should understand better, I think, is that political independance and commercial independance are rarely the same thing. We really didn't escape British commercial control until we set up the embargoes on steel, which happened long after 1812.

[kang]

I would say it was going along pretty well until the Interstate Commerce Act.

Then everything both got really good and really bad, all at the same time.

Money sort of does that to things.

/shrug

[mirage]

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.

I'm actually trying to decide if that statement is intended as a joke. I'll respond as though it isn't...

Uh - The AoC doesn't work because the USC displaced it. (dugh).

[mirage]

10thJustice wrote: 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.

I think that was more or less the point that cap'n queasy was making in the first place. I'm just pointing out the difference between idealism and practicality.

[mirage]

10thJustice wrote: 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.

See, where I get a little lost is where people will say things like this and yet remain set against a world government. Those who advocate Federalism do so using the same precise arguments as those who advocate globalism. There's really no difference.

[cap'n queasy]

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.

And that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The right to defend your other rights from aggression.

[mojo]

mirage wrote: 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.

I'm actually trying to decide if that statement is intended as a joke. I'll respond as though it isn't...

Uh - The AoC doesn't work because the USC displaced it. (dugh).

The AOC failed miserably in almost all regards for cohesion. That is the whole reason the constitution was created in the first place. Because of the AOC's failure.

[cap'n queasy]

mirage wrote: 10thJustice wrote: 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.

I think that was more or less the point that cap'n queasy was making in the first place. I'm just pointing out the difference between idealism and practicality.

They can attempt to arrogate rights, but the people are armed and if it comes down to it they can defend their rights.

They may lose, but nothing in life is certain.

It is better to die free than live on your knees.

[Centrist]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Centrist wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: 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.

A government with no power is not a government. What you're advocating is, essentially, 50 separate sovereign nations. If you think that's what we should be, more power to you, but if you believe that we're better served as one actual country, then the AoC are pretty much useless as total decentralization of a federal government renders that federal government totally ineffectual.

Quote: "A mere cursory glance" does nothing. Each state must have sovereignty over any central government.

"Must" have? To be what? As I said, if a state government is sovereign over and beyond a federal government, the federal government serves no purpose and has no function.

Quote: "Cohesion" for what? Are you a collective communist? I'll take strong independent individuality over compulsory collectivity.

The best response to that that I can think of is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No one's advocating total collectivism, at least not in this thread yet, but what you're advocating is the opposite extreme. There has to be SOME cooperation, compulsory cooperation, between state governments if we are to be one country instead of 50. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that the federal government ranks higher on the food chain.

Quote: Good, I want to abolish the USSC as they're appointed in a dictatorial fashion, there till they die, and the last law of the land. It's absurd. What else could've dictatorially taken our property rights? There was also no president in the Articles; therefore no one to dictatorially appoint any USSC. President's are useless to the citizenry, and only serve the special interests who (pay) to get them elected.

What property rights did you lose? Forget I asked. That's not the point and it goes too far afield. I'll ask the questions in as plain a way as I can come up with: how would you set things up? And what do you think would be the end result?

Quote: A government with no power is not a government. What you're advocating is, essentially, 50 separate sovereign nations. If you think that's what we should be, more power to you, but if you believe that we're better served as one actual country, then the AoC are pretty much useless as total decentralization of a federal government renders that federal government totally ineffectual.

It's called decentralization of power. There is no reason one body to have all the power (or any power) in one location. It breeds despotism, and it has done just that. We're a bankrupt nation, and this pitiful Union or the USC has done nothing to quell that.

Quote: "Must" have? To be what? As I said, if a state government is sovereign over and beyond a federal government, the federal government serves no purpose and has no function.

Bingo! A limitlessly powerful central authority only serves itself, and what it thinks is best.

Quote: The best response to that that I can think of is the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. No one's advocating total collectivism, at least not in this thread yet, but what you're advocating is the opposite extreme. There has to be SOME cooperation, compulsory cooperation, between state governments if we are to be one country instead of 50. The only way to achieve that is to ensure that the federal government ranks higher on the food chain.

It's not an extreme; it's decentralization. There would be plenty of willing cooperation,

Uhhhh, that's a hell of an assumption to make. What makes you think the states would cooperate with each other enough for us to remain one nation in more than name only?

Quote: and that's the way it must be.

For it to work, yes, that's the only way for it to work. I simply see no reason, in logic or in history to make me think that that's how it WOULD work.

Quote: Trade, and all business will continue regardless. Pure competition, and no coercion from a central body is a great thing.

Do you pay NO attention to history? Or is your attention selective? Without oversight on a federal level, or at the very least federal coercion onto the states, pure competition inevitably and invariably results in the screwing of the workers. OSHA doesn't exist because the Federal government wanted to be bigger, it exists because it was necessary for it to exist. If you want to see what unregulated, "pure", competition results in, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, if you haven't.

Quote: Quote: What property rights did you lose? Forget I asked. That's not the point and it goes too far afield.

You need look no further than the dictatorial USSC: http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-government-has-taken-our-property.html

I knew you were referring to Kelo. Suffice it to say that your take on the result of that decision and what it means is flawed. It's the same reactionary, knee-jerk response most people have to that decision. It didn't do what you think it did.

Quote: Quote: I'll ask the questions in as plain a way as I can come up with: how would you set things up? And what do you think would be the end result?

Here's a thread I made, and you can read some ideas on the last page.. I've changed my mind about the document that is the USC in favor of the original as it was a decentralized system, and I prefer that over centralization. The AOC is superior, and conducive to liberty: Burn it down.

I understand that's what you'd prefer. I'm not advocating a wholly centralized federal government system. I do, however, dislike extremes when it comes to most things, and the AoC is an extreme decentralization.... extreme to the point of being non-functional. Non-functional to the point of the US no longer being one country but 50. Again, if that's what you'd prefer, good for you, but don't try to play it off as if it isn't a fairly extreme position.

[mirage]

cap'n queasy wrote: 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.

And that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The right to defend your other rights from aggression.

Yes, but continuing with my point, the 2nd amendment is nothing more than words. Obviously, there is an incredible depth of legality that can obscure these rights with even more words. Some of these words, such as the war on terror or national security, act like trump cards. It would take the actual picking up of a gun and threatening or shooting a person who is obscuring your rights, most likely a police officer or US soldier, for the purpose of the 2nd amendment to be fulfilled. And if it comes to that, then what does it matter that the words ever existed in the first place?

[mirage]

politicalmojo wrote: mirage wrote: 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.

I'm actually trying to decide if that statement is intended as a joke. I'll respond as though it isn't...

Uh - The AoC doesn't work because the USC displaced it. (dugh).

The AOC failed miserably in almost all regards for cohesion. That is the whole reason the constitution was created in the first place. Because of the AOC's failure.

Say's who?

[foadi]

mirage wrote: Say's who?
Federalist fear-mongers.

[cap'n queasy]

mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: 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.

And that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The right to defend your other rights from aggression.

Yes, but continuing with my point, the 2nd amendment is nothing more than words. Obviously, there is an incredible depth of legality that can obscure these rights with even more words. Some of these words, such as the war on terror or national security, act like trump cards. It would take the actual picking up of a gun and threatening or shooting a person who is obscuring your rights, most likely a police officer or US soldier, for the purpose of the 2nd amendment to be fulfilled. And if it comes to that, then what does it matter that the words ever existed in the first place?

The words matter because they inspired the actions that forged this Nation and it's ideals.

And they will inspire people to protect it in it's darkest hours. This is why the pen is said to be mightier than the sword.
:-D

[TheCreepyApostate]

EugenicHegemony wrote: 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.

I'm still not getting your point. The AoC was put to the test and it failed to do it's job. That is the whole reason we have the Constitution. Does it need amending?? Maybe. I wouldn't ever touch the Bill of Rights, but other portions like the expansion clause need to be fixed. Amend the expansion clause and put the gov't back in it's Constitutional chains and that is all you need to decentralize.

[Gus]

FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.
Well you're like a history major or whatever, but from the (albeit little) research I have done on the AoC, here's what I posted about it in the Lib HQ:

Gus wrote: The whole "failure" of the Articles of Confederation was a lie by bond-holders to institute a tax policy so they could make some dough. Hamilton was a major pusher behind the Constitution because he thought that "a national debt . . . will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our union." The whole "failure" of the government because they couldn't levy a tax was an exaggeration of the post-war depression caused by the war (not the economic policies) and the demands of the federal government backed by large industries hurt by the depression. They couldn't "fund" the federal government because they wanted funds to control the money supply, levy tariffs, etc. Luckily the states refused to give the federal government money to do that stuff (but gave them the money they needed to pay the debt), but the lobbyists started bitching because of the depression. As always, hard times instituted statist policy instead of letting the free market work.

The country pulled out of the depression the year of the establishment of the Constitution, but that was NOT due to the Constitution, it was the inevitable stabilization of the economy.

Maybe this will stimulate some interesting discussion ;).

PS, moved to Historical Events.

[gavnook]

LiveWire wrote: 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.

The question is not which is stronger, but which is better.

[leftneckredwing]

The Constitution was actually fundamental in the ending of slavery. Beyond the 'All Men are created equal' phrase.

The framers of the USC owned slaves, but they also, as Badnarik points out, made it possible to tally slaves and what they did counted a slave as 60% more human than they had before. It was to give a recogintion of slaves to proportionally represent all sectors of the country and people. It was also for tax purposes. But it did exist and it did eventually pave the way for abolition of slavery.

I don't think that was in the A of C.

The USC was well considered and it's benefits have been long lasting and has created a cultural demand for the enforcement of those Bill of Rights. It waxes and wanes, but at least it exists.