Anti-Federalist Party

[nate895]

After reading some Anti-Federalist writings, and realizing the leaders of those who supported the Constitution in the Constitutional Convention itself were a collection of people opposed to the general principles of liberty, at least at the time of writing and/or ratification of the Constitution, it has become evident that our current constitution was designed to usurp the liberty of the people. On its face, it is seems to be a great defender of liberty, but the Anti-Federalists' predictions of lost liberty have come true, almost to the point that it makes you question if they had the power of prophecy given to them by God. The Articles of Confederation was a document extremely jealous of centralized power and protecting of our liberties. Its few weaknesses can be easily amended, such as to allow free trade among the states and for the Central government to have free trade agreement powers, to provide for corporate income taxes (the only tax other than a small sales tax I do not find objectionable), and to have the ability to organize a more centralized army during wartime.

The platform of our party is the adoption as the governing document of the United States of America to be the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, with the Following Amendments:

First Article of Amendment:

No state shall post any duties, nor regulate interstate or international commerce except with the permission of Congress for the purposes of preventing the spread of plagues of infectious diseases or crop destroying insects not already existing within the boundaries within the state in question.

Second Article of Amendment:

The Congress, shall be responsible for the organization of the Armed Forces of the United States. It shall be able to maintain, in times of peace, an army not in excess of .1% of the population according to the latest census and to maintain reserves for the army not in excess of 1% of the population, in times of war the Congress has the authority to voluntarily recruit as many men as necessary. A navy shall be organized during times of peace, but shall not exceed the size of 200 ships and enough men to maintain those ships. An air force shall be organized, but shall not exceed 6,000 aircraft and enough men to maintain those aircraft.

Third Article Amendment:

The Congress may generate revenue through a tax on corporations, but such a tax may not exceed 10% in peacetime, nor 30% in wartime.


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
Between The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

ARTICLE I
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

II
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

IV
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

V
For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

VI
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

ARTICLE VII.
When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

ARTICLE VIII.
All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

ARTICLE IX.
The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article -- of sending and receiving ambassadors -- entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -- of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated -- of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace -- appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated -- establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office -- appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers -- appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States -- making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses -- to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted -- to build and equip a navy -- to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

ARTICLE X.
The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

ARTICLE XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

ARTICLE XII.
All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.

ARTICLE XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.

DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America.

The aforefaid articles of confederation were finally ratified on the firft day of March 1781; the state of Maryland having, by their Members in Congrefs, on that day acceded thereto, and completed the fame.

[sailor]

After reading some Anti-Federalist writings, and realizing the leaders of those who supported the Constitution in the Constitutional Convention itself were a collection of people opposed to the general principles of liberty, at least at the time of writing and/or ratification of the Constitution, it has become evident that our current constitution was designed to usurp the liberty of the people.

Good to see you are progressing on your journey.

[nate895]

Good to see you are progressing on your journey.

I have held the general opinion of the Anti-Federalists for a while, but I generally also thought it was possible to bring the government into the reigns of the Constitution as the Federalist argued. However, with the minimal support for the Constitution of the more liberty-minded Federalist, yet vigorous support from the likes of Mr. Hamilton, it becomes fairly obvious that the abuse of power was, if not intentional, widely seen from the point of view of the would be tyrants.

[Dequeant]

.............

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Its true we need another Constitution, one that puts serious chains on not only the Federal government but also the States. A Bill of Rights, independent of the Constitution and incapable of being negatively amended (in otherwords, incapable of having Rights removed), would have to be the first step.

[krazy kaju]

to provide for corporate income taxes (the only tax other than a small sales tax I do not find objectionable)

Corporate taxes are some of the worst taxes when it comes to hindering economic growth. Corporate taxes severely slow investment, as much of the profits that are taxed would be reinvested into the economy. Moreover, economists estimate that for about every dollar of corporate income taxed, it reduces wages by 70 cents. That's what we call a "bad deal."

If we need taxes for government, the only taxes which would not cause great harm to the economy would be low tariffs in addition to low excise taxes on "sinful" substances like tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. By low, I mean that these cannot exceed 5%.

The fact of the matter is that the most important functions of government - law and police protection - could be funded by solely voluntary means. For example, courts could demand small fees in order to enforce contracts. The police could charge extra for someone who wants special protection. In the case of war, the government could charge the enemy for the costs of war. Government could also mint coinage, but allow competitors. Any and all budget surpluses could be put into short-term CDs in banks with the highest credit rating, eliminating human error and bureaucratic dealing.

Such a combination would lead towards a growing pool of savings that the government could draw upon on relatively short notice during a time of national crisis.

[nate895]

Might I recommend the only constitution written by Thomas Jefferson himself? (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffcons.asp)

That is the only founder whom I trust was entirely devoted to individual liberty.

That is the Constitution of a single state. That would unnecessarily give too much power to a general government. There are circumstances in Virginia which do not arise in the rest of the Union, and consolodation is not the answer to achieve liberty.


Its true we need another Constitution, one that puts serious chains on not only the Federal government but also the States. A Bill of Rights, independent of the Constitution and incapable of being negatively amended (in otherwords, incapable of having Rights removed), would have to be the first step.

Each state has its own Bill of Rights. Under the Articles, Congress would have so little power and the states would have a great power to resist Federal intrusions, including a much greater ability to maintain armed forces.

[forsmant]

I will join. But i join everything under a pseudo name.

[nate895]

Corporate taxes are some of the worst taxes when it comes to hindering economic growth. Corporate taxes severely slow investment, as much of the profits that are taxed would be reinvested into the economy. Moreover, economists estimate that for about every dollar of corporate income taxed, it reduces wages by 70 cents. That's what we call a "bad deal."

If we need taxes for government, the only taxes which would not cause great harm to the economy would be low tariffs in addition to low excise taxes on "sinful" substances like tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. By low, I mean that these cannot exceed 5%.

The fact of the matter is that the most important functions of government - law and police protection - could be funded by solely voluntary means. For example, courts could demand small fees in order to enforce contracts. The police could charge extra for someone who wants special protection. In the case of war, the government could charge the enemy for the costs of war. Government could also mint coinage, but allow competitors. Any and all budget surpluses could be put into short-term CDs in banks with the highest credit rating, eliminating human error and bureaucratic dealing.

Such a combination would lead towards a growing pool of savings that the government could draw upon on relatively short notice during a time of national crisis.

All taxes take away from productivity, I see no reason why a tax on profits would increase that burden anymore. Low tariffs directly hurt the consumer and benefit big business. It is a regressive tax, and tariffs can't fund wars because trade lowers in a time of war. Excise taxes on sin cannot generate enough revenue to fund the everyday functions of a minimal state, and certainly could not fund a war. They are also regressive.

Corporate Income Taxes tax productivity (like all taxes), but are some of the "flattest" taxes we can possible have. They tax equally companies that make tons of money off of both rich and poor people. Banking services are especially profitable, and in a full-reserve gold standard banking system, only those with money to invest or protect will use banks. Also, those with lower incomes will pay taxes through slightly increased prices on most goods.

Courts demanding fees to enforce contracts is a good idea, which could be done through paying to have each legal document having a tax placed on it to make it enforceable, with different fees based on the type of agreement. Marriage contracts should probably have the lowest fees, with massive corporate contracts being the highest. However, police protection should be funded through taxes. Otherwise, crime will increase on those who can least afford it: Those who cannot afford police services. Use taxes in such a situation will hurt those who cannot afford it, therefore they can get anything done to them short of murder not dealt with for fear of user fees.

As for budget surpluses, they should be invested and saved for wartime. The government minting coinage is also a good idea, but it should not purchase the metals, it should merely produce coins for people who give them gold and pay a small charge.

[heavenlyboy34]

Parties are for collectivists, OP. :p

[DeadheadForPaul]

It doesn't really matter if you have a Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or whatever...they're going to do what they want

[nate895]

It doesn't really matter if you have a Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or whatever...they're going to do what they want

Really? Why didn't they keep the Articles then? Oh, yeah, that's right, because they said it didn't grant them enough power. If they could have been manipulated easily, they would have. It's not like the forces of big government weren't at work at the time of the Articles of Confederation. Just after the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is when we first started to see the tyrants among us make their first moves, and they needed to get a whole new document to do it.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Really? Why didn't they keep the Articles then? Oh, yeah, that's right, because they said it didn't grant them enough power. If they could have been manipulated easily, they would have. It's not like the forces of big government weren't at work at the time of the Articles of Confederation. Just after the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is when we first started to see the tyrants among us make their first moves, and they needed to get a whole new document to do it.

My point is that the Washington elite don't even care to follow the Constitution which isn't even THAT supportive of liberty...

They don't really care

[nate895]

My point is that the Washington elite don't even care to follow the Constitution which isn't even THAT supportive of liberty...

They don't really care

What I am saying is that the current Constitution has been manipulated to the point where they can do this under the auspices of constitutionality. In order to violate the Articles of Confederation, you have to come out and say "I don't give a damn about our governing document!!!" Then, they would have no way to enforce their decisions because they'd have to get every state to go along. There is no "Interstate Commerce," "General Welfare," or "Necessary and Proper" clause in the Articles.

Edit: In other words, the Constitution is so ambiguous that you can read into anything you want to. The Articles are straightforward with extremely few, clearly delineated powers given to the Federal Congress.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm in.

What a surprise, right?

Seriously, my online moniker, which I have used for well over 15 years now, was not chosen lightly.

The AFs didn't need "divine sight" to predict their warnings. In fact, had the term been around, they probably would have been called "conspiracy theorists".

Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence on a "conspiracy theory".

It is not difficult at all to predict what power hungry men will do, because they do what they always have done, since the beginning of time, which is to say that they will exercise more and more control, rapidly seizing illegitimate control and then use that to consolidate their power even further. At a number of points along that timeline they will become tyrannical and bloodthirsty.

Popes, potentates, poo bahs of every stripe have always done this, it is, unfortunately, human nature.

The AFs understood that, they understood that only by restraining the power that they could control would you be able to control that urge to power. They also understood that even with the best protections in place, there will come a time when entrenched power must be fought and the people's liberty taken back.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm in.

What a surprise, right?

Seriously, my online moniker, which I have used for well over 15 years now, was not chosen lightly.

The AFs didn't need "divine sight" to predict their warnings. In fact, had the term been around, they probably would have been called "conspiracy theorists".

Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence on a "conspiracy theory".

It is not difficult at all to predict what power hungry men will do, because they do what they always have done, since the beginning of time, which is to say that they will exercise more and more control, rapidly seizing illegitimate control and then use that to consolidate their power even further. At a number of points along that timeline they will become tyrannical and bloodthirsty.

Popes, potentates, poo bahs of every stripe have always done this, it is, unfortunately, human nature.

The AFs understood that, they understood that only by restraining the power that they could control would you be able to control that urge to power. They also understood that even with the best protections in place, there will come a time when entrenched power must be fought and the people's liberty taken back.

You're awesome, AF!! :cool::D

[Anti Federalist]

You're awesome, AF!! :cool::D

Well, thank you.;)

[nate895]

I'm in.

What a surprise, right?

Seriously, my online moniker, which I have used for well over 15 years now, was not chosen lightly.

The AFs didn't need "divine sight" to predict their warnings. In fact, had the term been around, they probably would have been called "conspiracy theorists".

Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence on a "conspiracy theory".

It is not difficult at all to predict what power hungry men will do, because they do what they always have done, since the beginning of time, which is to say that they will exercise more and more control, rapidly seizing illegitimate control and then use that to consolidate their power even further. At a number of points along that timeline they will become tyrannical and bloodthirsty.

Popes, potentates, poo bahs of every stripe have always done this, it is, unfortunately, human nature.

The AFs understood that, they understood that only by restraining the power that they could control would you be able to control that urge to power. They also understood that even with the best protections in place, there will come a time when entrenched power must be fought and the people's liberty taken back.

You were the one member I was 1,000,000% sure would support this idea. I am thinking of running in 2010 for state house on the Anti-Federalist platform.

As for your assertion they did not need divine gifts to predict their assertions, you are entirely correct. I was just emphasizing that I can't think of a prediction they made that hasn't come true.

[Anti Federalist]

You were the one member I was 1,000,000% sure would support this idea. I am thinking of running in 2010 for state house on the Anti-Federalist platform.

As for your assertion they did not need divine gifts to predict their assertions, you are entirely correct. I was just emphasizing that I can't think of a prediction they made that hasn't come true.

Excellent, keep me in mind if you decide to do so, and I'll help out any way I can.

And that is a fact, there is nothing that they warned about that has not come to pass.

I just used that as an opportunity to say, for the millionth time it seems, that the consequences of ceding absolute power to a governing entity, whatever that entity may be, and whatever saccharin promises that entity makes, will always result in the same end.

Tyranny, despotism, enslavement and in the worst cases, the killing field, the gulag and the gas chambers.

[krazy kaju]

All taxes take away from productivity, I see no reason why a tax on profits would increase that burden anymore. Low tariffs directly hurt the consumer and benefit big business. It is a regressive tax, and tariffs can't fund wars because trade lowers in a time of war. Excise taxes on sin cannot generate enough revenue to fund the everyday functions of a minimal state, and certainly could not fund a war. They are also regressive.

Corporate Income Taxes tax productivity (like all taxes), but are some of the "flattest" taxes we can possible have. They tax equally companies that make tons of money off of both rich and poor people. Banking services are especially profitable, and in a full-reserve gold standard banking system, only those with money to invest or protect will use banks. Also, those with lower incomes will pay taxes through slightly increased prices on most goods.

Courts demanding fees to enforce contracts is a good idea, which could be done through paying to have each legal document having a tax placed on it to make it enforceable, with different fees based on the type of agreement. Marriage contracts should probably have the lowest fees, with massive corporate contracts being the highest. However, police protection should be funded through taxes. Otherwise, crime will increase on those who can least afford it: Those who cannot afford police services. Use taxes in such a situation will hurt those who cannot afford it, therefore they can get anything done to them short of murder not dealt with for fear of user fees.

As for budget surpluses, they should be invested and saved for wartime. The government minting coinage is also a good idea, but it should not purchase the metals, it should merely produce coins for people who give them gold and pay a small charge.

You have not really responded to my point. It is a matter of fact that our government used to be funded by low tariffs and excise taxes on a few goods. Why can't it be so today?

Corporate income taxes are more harmful than personal income taxes because nearly all of the money that corporations earn are invested, whereas the majority of personal income is consumed. Investment reaps greater productivity, higher returns in the future, and a better economy. Consumption doesn't. Thus, we cannot discourage investment without damaging the economic outlook.

As I've said before, government can easily be funded through voluntary means, like contract fees, mints (which would compete with private mints, of course), fees to criminals for the cost of taking them to court, etc. Any small taxes like low excise taxes and tariffs could simply go into government coffers to wait for any national emergencies.

In the event of war, the first line of defense should always be a well armed citizenry. I dare any country try to invade a nation where it is legal to have assault rifles, RPGs, and armored vehicles. The second line of defense should be a small, professional army which could easily be funded from the aforementioned taxes. The third line should be private defense agencies which could be hired by government. In the event that our forces stepped into another country and overthrew their government, we should form a new laissez faire government in that country and burden it with debt that it needs to pay for our expenses in fighting the war.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, thank you.;)

you're welcome! Us awesome folks have to stick together sometimes, ya know(seeing as we're vastly outnumbered by average and mediocre folks). ;)

[nate895]

You have not really responded to my point. It is a matter of fact that our government used to be funded by low tariffs and excise taxes on a few goods. Why can't it be so today?

Corporate income taxes are more harmful than personal income taxes because nearly all of the money that corporations earn are invested, whereas the majority of personal income is consumed. Investment reaps greater productivity, higher returns in the future, and a better economy. Consumption doesn't. Thus, we cannot discourage investment without damaging the economic outlook.

As I've said before, government can easily be funded through voluntary means, like contract fees, mints (which would compete with private mints, of course), fees to criminals for the cost of taking them to court, etc. Any small taxes like low excise taxes and tariffs could simply go into government coffers to wait for any national emergencies.

In the event of war, the first line of defense should always be a well armed citizenry. I dare any country try to invade a nation where it is legal to have assault rifles, RPGs, and armored vehicles. The second line of defense should be a small, professional army which could easily be funded from the aforementioned taxes. The third line should be private defense agencies which could be hired by government. In the event that our forces stepped into another country and overthrew their government, we should form a new laissez faire government in that country and burden it with debt that it needs to pay for our expenses in fighting the war.

I am not saying that low tariffs and excise taxes cannot fund a peacetime government. They have done so in the past, and could do so in the future. I am arguing whether it is the best way to do so, and whether they can fund a wartime government. Tariffs increase consumer good prices in a regressive manner regressive, and excise taxes are similarly regressive.

As for corporate incomes being invested, this is true. I am arguing that taxes are negative sum games, no matter how you design them. You can only find the most equitable way to distribute. I see no reason why a 10% corporate income tax decreases investment much more than a 10% personal income tax, which ignores the justness of government knowing private individuals income anyway. In both cases, the profits loss will be distributed among all those involved. If a corporation loses 10% of its profits, it will increase profits by raising prices on its goods and lowering short term costs as much as possible given situations in their market. The last thing they will cut is their long term investments because they have other ways to deflect a 10% tax. As for personal income taxes, they will discourage work and lower incomes almost dollar for dollar in taxes collected (the employers will raise wages some depending on conditions in the labor market for the individual), and the first thing individuals cut is long term investments in favor of short term maintenance of their standard of living.

Edit: And, as for your assertion that enemies should pay the costs of a war, I refer you to Germany post War to End All Wars until we charge Germany for its costs. Also, defendants don't have the money to pay. All that will do is encourage them to commit crime to pay for the tax.

[nate895]

Excellent, keep me in mind if you decide to do so, and I'll help out any way I can.

And that is a fact, there is nothing that they warned about that has not come to pass.

I just used that as an opportunity to say, for the millionth time it seems, that the consequences of ceding absolute power to a governing entity, whatever that entity may be, and whatever saccharin promises that entity makes, will always result in the same end.

Tyranny, despotism, enslavement and in the worst cases, the killing field, the gulag and the gas chambers.

Heaven avert the last three from happening!!!

[TastyWheat]

I disagree with corporate income taxes. All taxes eventually fall on individuals anyway. It only stifles growth and gives socialists a false sense of satisfaction. I think repealing a few bad Amendments (16th, 17th, & 24th) would go a long way.

[nate895]

I disagree with corporate income taxes. All taxes eventually fall on individuals anyway. It only stifles growth and gives socialists a false sense of satisfaction. I think repealing a few bad Amendments (16th, 17th, & 24th) would go a long way.

I know, but corporate taxes fall on them the easiest. They are the "flattest" taxes I can think of. Tariffs and most taxes are regressive, and personal income taxes allow the government to peer in on your personal life.

[Anti Federalist]

Heaven avert the last three from happening!!!

The only way those things won't happen is if we refuse to allow it to happen.

Sometimes that refusal has to be backed up with a whole lot more than words.

I fear that not nearly enough have the stomach for that.

[nate895]

The only way those things won't happen is if we refuse to allow it to happen.

Sometimes that refusal has to backed up with a whole lot more than words.

I fear that not nearly enough have the stomach for that.

You know I have the stomach. I hope my personal friends would realize the wisdom in my more dire fears should it come to blows or facing the government down in court. They already seem to agree on many issues involved with liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

You know I have the stomach. I hope my personal friends would realize the wisdom in my more dire fears should it come to blows or facing the government down in court. They already seem to agree on many issues involved with liberty.

I'm sure you do, as do many others here, as do I, even though I've "backslidden" on some things that maybe I shouldn't have.

But we're a small minority of people.

Hopefully our efforts at education and enlightenment bear fruit.

[Dequeant]

...............

[ChaosControl]

The problem with the constitution is it is too vague in many areas and that allows for abuse as people don't read the federalist papers to figure out what the words actually mean.

So we get idiots who think "general welfare" means it is okay to redistribute tax revenues towards couch potato bums. Or excessive abuse over the "commerce clause", etc.

Any document needs to be far more strict.

I also prefer the Articles of Confederation. I think the constitution gave too much power to the federal government and opened up the can of worms for the country in years to come.

[nate895]

The problem with the constitution is it is too vague in many areas and that allows for abuse as people don't read the federalist papers to figure out what the words actually mean.

So we get idiots who think "general welfare" means it is okay to redistribute tax revenues towards couch potato bums. Or excessive abuse over the "commerce clause", etc.

Any document needs to be far more strict.

I also prefer the Articles of Confederation. I think the constitution gave too much power to the federal government and opened up the can of worms for the country in years to come.

Exactly the complaints of the Anti-Federalists of back then. Our current constitution can be manipulated and used for socialist and fascist purposes. After all, who gets to define what "general welfare" means, when it can possibly be interpreted as a grant of power. The only realistic hope for regaining liberty for ourselves and posterity is the Articles of Confederation.

[nate895]

This thread is on page 5 of Google Results for anti-federalist party.

[nate895]

Does anybody have "The Complete Anti-Federalist" edited by Herbert Storing and Murray Dry? I really want to read all of those works.

[muzzled dogg]

audiobook of the (first?) 56 a-f papers:

http://librivox.org/the-anti-federalist-papers-by-patrick-henry/

[Galileo Galilei]

the sovereign States gave up their seat at the table (in the federal government), when they ratified the 17th amendment.

You can't blame James Madison and others who wrote the Constitution for a drastic change made 126 years later.

Here are the states that ratified the 17th amendment:

"Proposal and ratification

Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment on May 13, 1912 and the following states ratified the amendment:[3]

Massachusetts (May 22, 1912)
Arizona (June 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 10, 1912)
New York (January 15, 1913)
Kansas (January 17, 1913)
Oregon (January 23, 1913)
North Carolina (January 25, 1913)
California (January 28, 1913)
Michigan (January 28, 1913)
Iowa (January 30, 1913)
Montana (January 30, 1913)
Idaho (January 31, 1913)
West Virginia (February 4, 1913)
Colorado (February 5, 1913)
Nevada (February 6, 1913)
Texas (February 7, 1913)
Washington (February 7, 1913)
Wyoming (February 8, 1913)
Arkansas (February 11, 1913)
Maine (February 11, 1913)
Illinois (February 13, 1913)
North Dakota (February 14, 1913)
Wisconsin (February 18, 1913)
Indiana (February 19, 1913)
New Hampshire (February 19, 1913)
Vermont (February 19, 1913)
South Dakota (February 19, 1913)
Oklahoma (February 24, 1913)
Ohio (February 25, 1913)
Missouri (March 7, 1913)
New Mexico (March 13, 1913)
Nebraska (March 14, 1913)
New Jersey (March 17, 1913)
Tennessee (April 1, 1913)
Pennsylvania (April 2, 1913)
Connecticut (April 8, 1913)

Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, having the required three-fourths majority.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following state:

Louisiana (June 11, 1913)

The following state rejected the amendment:

Utah (February 26, 1913)

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Virginia
South Carolina
Georgia
Maryland
Delaware
Rhode Island
Florida

As Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states prior to the ratification of the amendment, their admission to the Union simply required their adherence to the Constitution in its already-amended form, at the time of their admissions in 1959."

The fact is, the federal government cannot do that much against liberty if the Senate backs state rights. For one thing, the Senate confirms the Supreme Court, amonmg other powers.

[muzzled dogg]

regarding the 17th,

http://www.restorefederalism.org/

[nate895]

the sovereign States gave up their seat at the table (in the federal government), when they ratified the 17th amendment.

You can't blame James Madison and others who wrote the Constitution for a drastic change made 126 years later.

Here are the states that ratified the 17th amendment:

"Proposal and ratification

Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment on May 13, 1912 and the following states ratified the amendment:[3]

Massachusetts (May 22, 1912)
Arizona (June 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 10, 1912)
New York (January 15, 1913)
Kansas (January 17, 1913)
Oregon (January 23, 1913)
North Carolina (January 25, 1913)
California (January 28, 1913)
Michigan (January 28, 1913)
Iowa (January 30, 1913)
Montana (January 30, 1913)
Idaho (January 31, 1913)
West Virginia (February 4, 1913)
Colorado (February 5, 1913)
Nevada (February 6, 1913)
Texas (February 7, 1913)
Washington (February 7, 1913)
Wyoming (February 8, 1913)
Arkansas (February 11, 1913)
Maine (February 11, 1913)
Illinois (February 13, 1913)
North Dakota (February 14, 1913)
Wisconsin (February 18, 1913)
Indiana (February 19, 1913)
New Hampshire (February 19, 1913)
Vermont (February 19, 1913)
South Dakota (February 19, 1913)
Oklahoma (February 24, 1913)
Ohio (February 25, 1913)
Missouri (March 7, 1913)
New Mexico (March 13, 1913)
Nebraska (March 14, 1913)
New Jersey (March 17, 1913)
Tennessee (April 1, 1913)
Pennsylvania (April 2, 1913)
Connecticut (April 8, 1913)

Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, having the required three-fourths majority.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following state:

Louisiana (June 11, 1913)

The following state rejected the amendment:

Utah (February 26, 1913)

The following states have not ratified the amendment:

Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Virginia
South Carolina
Georgia
Maryland
Delaware
Rhode Island
Florida

As Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states prior to the ratification of the amendment, their admission to the Union simply required their adherence to the Constitution in its already-amended form, at the time of their admissions in 1959."

The fact is, the federal government cannot do that much against liberty if the Senate backs state rights. For one thing, the Senate confirms the Supreme Court, amonmg other powers.

To your point, that the 17th is more dangerous than our Constitution, I submit the fact that prior to the 17th, the government had already unjustly used its powers, even just a few years after the adoption of the new Constitution. The First and Second Banks of the United States came into being without the 17th amendment. The Alien and Sedition Acts came into being, high tariffs and income taxes (even though later ruled unconstitutional) came into being, which is not to mention the invasion of the South in 1861-65. The Federal Reserve itself was implemented by a group of Senators who were elected by their legislatures, though the 17th had already been ratified at that point. Internal Improvements were created by a Congress without popularly elected Senators. Nearly all of today's ills with government can be traced back to before the ratification of the 17th, so that alone cannot justify the usurpation of Federal authority.

[Galileo Galilei]

Wars in Europe since the Constitution was signed:

List of conflicts in Europe

1789–1799 French Revolution

[edit] 19th century
1792–1815 Napoleonic Wars
1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)
1830-1831 Polish-Russian war
1848-1851 First Schleswig War
1848–1866 Italian Independence wars
1848–1849 First Italian Independence War
1859 Second Italian Independence War
1866 Third Italian Independence War
1854–1856 Crimean War
1864 Second Schleswig War
1864 January Uprising
1866 Austro-Prussian War
1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War
1877–1878 Russo–Turkish War
1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
1893–1896 Cod War of 1893
1897 First Greco–Turkish War

[edit] 20th century
(In general all wars are listed)

1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
1912–1913 Balkan Wars
1912-1913 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914–1918 World War I
1916 Easter Rising
1917–1921 Russian Civil War
1918 Finnish Civil War
1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
1922–1923 Irish Civil War
1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
1939–1945 World War II
1939-1940 Winter War
1941-1944 Continuation War
1944 Slovak National Uprising
1946-1949 Greek Civil War
1956 Uprising in Poznan
1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary
1959-Ongoing ETA's campaign
1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
1969-1998 The Troubles of Northern Ireland
1970-1984 Red Brigades campaign of terror
1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus
1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War
1991-1992 War in South Ossetia
1991-1993 Georgian civil war
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
1992 War of Transnistria
1992-1998 First War in Abkhazia
1992-1995 Bosnian War
1994–1996 First Chechen War
1996-1999 First and Second Kosovo Wars
1997-Ongoing Northern Irish Republican Dissidents conflict
1998 Second War of Abkhazia
1999-Ongoing Second Chechen War
1999-2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley

[edit] 21st century
(In general all wars are listed)

2001 2001 Macedonia conflict
2002-2007 Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge
2004 2004 unrest in Kosovo
2004 Adjara crisis
2008 War in South Ossetia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

[nate895]

Wars in Europe since the Constitution was signed:

List of conflicts in Europe

1789–1799 French Revolution

[edit] 19th century
1792–1815 Napoleonic Wars
1830 Ten Days Campaign (following the Belgian Revolt)
1830-1831 Polish-Russian war
1848-1851 First Schleswig War
1848–1866 Italian Independence wars
1848–1849 First Italian Independence War
1859 Second Italian Independence War
1866 Third Italian Independence War
1854–1856 Crimean War
1864 Second Schleswig War
1864 January Uprising
1866 Austro-Prussian War
1870–1871 Franco-Prussian War
1877–1878 Russo–Turkish War
1885 Serbo-Bulgarian War
1893–1896 Cod War of 1893
1897 First Greco–Turkish War

[edit] 20th century
(In general all wars are listed)

1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
1912–1913 Balkan Wars
1912-1913 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914–1918 World War I
1916 Easter Rising
1917–1921 Russian Civil War
1918 Finnish Civil War
1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
1922–1923 Irish Civil War
1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
1939–1945 World War II
1939-1940 Winter War
1941-1944 Continuation War
1944 Slovak National Uprising
1946-1949 Greek Civil War
1956 Uprising in Poznan
1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary
1959-Ongoing ETA's campaign
1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
1969-1998 The Troubles of Northern Ireland
1970-1984 Red Brigades campaign of terror
1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus
1988-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh War
1991-1992 War in South Ossetia
1991-1993 Georgian civil war
1991-1995 Croatian War of Independence
1992 War of Transnistria
1992-1998 First War in Abkhazia
1992-1995 Bosnian War
1994–1996 First Chechen War
1996-1999 First and Second Kosovo Wars
1997-Ongoing Northern Irish Republican Dissidents conflict
1998 Second War of Abkhazia
1999-Ongoing Second Chechen War
1999-2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley

[edit] 21st century
(In general all wars are listed)

2001 2001 Macedonia conflict
2002-2007 Operation Enduring Freedom - Pankisi Gorge
2004 2004 unrest in Kosovo
2004 Adjara crisis
2008 War in South Ossetia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What is your point, exactly? What does this have to do with the Articles vs. the Constitution?

Also, the period in between the Napoleonic Wars and WWI is referred to as the Pax Brittanica, it had little to do with non-interventionism in the United States. We couldn't have interfered then if we wanted to.

[Galileo Galilei]

To your point, that the 17th is more dangerous than our Constitution, I submit the fact that prior to the 17th, the government had already unjustly used its powers, even just a few years after the adoption of the new Constitution. The First and Second Banks of the United States came into being without the 17th amendment. The Alien and Sedition Acts came into being, high tariffs and income taxes (even though later ruled unconstitutional) came into being, which is not to mention the invasion of the South in 1861-65. The Federal Reserve itself was implemented by a group of Senators who were elected by their legislatures, though the 17th had already been ratified at that point. Internal Improvements were created by a Congress without popularly elected Senators. Nearly all of today's ills with government can be traced back to before the ratification of the 17th, so that alone cannot justify the usurpation of Federal authority.

Are you aware that GEORGE WASHINGTON signed the first bank bill?

Did you know that he did this because we had WAR DEBT?

Did you know the House passed the bank bill 39-20?

The Senate passed it as well. Most of these people who voted on it were FOUNDING FATHERS.

Are you also aware that this bank was temporary?

It had a 20-year charter, after which time it was assumed that the war debts would be paid off, which they were, and the bank was ended by Madison.

We had a second bank bill for the same reason, we had war debts from the SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, which was also temporary for 20 years as well.

Then we did not have a central bank for a long time, until the generation of Woodrow Wilson DROPPED THE BALL.

Also, these early banks, besides being temporary, had many differences from our current Federal Reserve System:

* they did not have fiat currency

* the money was based on gold and silver

* they did not operate in utter secrecy

* they were audited

* they were not privately owned

* they did not control the bond market

They also were not corrupt in the time of Washington (1st bank), and Madison (2nd bank).

They only became corrupt later when these great leaders were out of the way (thank weak leaders Adams and JQ Adams, and Biddle).

But since the banks were temporary, we got rid of the corruption by getting rid of the bank.

__________

Alien and Sedition Acts - these were temporary as well. John Adams is to blame for being too weak kneed to veto them.

__________

Federal Reserve itself - the Federal Reserve of today has changed quite a bit for the worst, since 1913, thanks to the 17th amendment.

An underlying problem is that the ERA OF FALSE-FLAG ATTACKS began in 1898, with the sinking of the Maine, just after Grover Cleveland left office.

Cleveland was a do-something president, he vetoed unconstitutional laws.

Then McKinley was killed and Teddy "Fascist" Roosevelt took over and we got the Panic of 1907.

McKinley was a do-nothing president, like Adams and JQ Adams.

Roosevelt was a do-something president and most of what he did was unconstitutional.

Taft was a lot better, a do-not much president.

Roosevelt took down Taft in 1912, and we got Wilson.

[nate895]

Are you aware that GEORGE WASHINGTON signed the first bank bill?

Did you know that he did this because we had WAR DEBT?

Did you know the House passed the bank bill 39-20?

The Senate passed it as well. Most of these people who voted on it were FOUNDING FATHERS.

Are you also aware that this bank was temporary?

It had a 20-year charter, after which time it was assumed that the war debts would be paid off, which they were, and the bank was ended by Madison.

We had a second bank bill for the same reason, we had war debts from the SECOND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, which was also temporary for 20 years as well.

Then we did not have a central bank for a long time, until the generation of Woodrow Wilson DROPPED THE BALL.

Also, these early banks, besides being temporary, had many differences from our current Federal Reserve System:

* they did not have fiat currency

* the money was based on gold and silver

* they did not operate in utter secrecy

* they were audited

* they were not privately owned

* they did not control the bond market

They also were not corrupt in the time of Washington (1st bank), and Madison (2nd bank).

They only became corrupt later when these great leaders were out of the way (thank weak leaders Adams and JQ Adams, and Biddle).

But since the banks were temporary, we got rid of the corruption by getting rid of the bank.

__________

Alien and Sedition Acts - these were temporary as well. John Adams is to blame for being too weak kneed to veto them.

__________

Federal Reserve itself - the Federal Reserve of today has changed quite a bit for the worst, since 1913, thanks to the 17th amendment.

An underlying problem is that the ERA OF FALSE-FLAG ATTACKS began in 1898, with the sinking of the Maine, just after Grover Cleveland left office.

Cleveland was a do-something president, he vetoed unconstitutional laws.

Then McKinley was killed and Teddy "Fascist" Roosevelt took over and we got the Panic of 1907.

McKinley was a do-nothing president, like Adams and JQ Adams.

Roosevelt was a do-something president and most of what he did was unconstitutional.

Taft was a lot better, a do-not much president.

Roosevelt took down Taft in 1912, and we got Wilson.

I don't care who signed it, or who voted for it. The First and Second Banks were the brainchildren of Mr. Hamilton (the Second on account that it was an extension of the first), who wanted the First Bank to secure the debt of his wealthy friends. It was only owned 20% by the Federal Government, it was owned 80% by interests other than the Federal Government. The Second Bank is well documented and was full of corruption, and the Senate and House passed the recharter for the next period of time for the Second Bank, and President Jackson sent it back to them, where they could not override his veto. The Senate, despite its being made up entirely of state legislature appointees, failed in the case of the Second Bank, and the First Bank. As for them not printing fiat currency, that still does not take away from the fact it adds another money multiplier effect that a free market banking system does not have.

As for the Federal Reserve changing thanks to the 17th amendment, that is highly doubtful. It was the President who got them off of gold in both the '30s, and entirely in the '70s. The Senate had little to do with it, and Occum's Razor would still favor my argument in this instance anyway. I need only assume that, had the Articles of Confederation been in place, it could not have been manipulated in the way the Constitution is being because they tried and they couldn't back then, even for their relatively small-scale violations. You need to assume that the State Legislatures would have been dominated by Jeffersonians (or at least light Hamiltonians), who would in turn never be fooled into electing heavy Hamiltonians, and those Jeffersonians in the Senate would have never been pressured by a House and a President opposed to their policies. Three assumptions, a few of whom have already proven false, versus one assumption already relatively proven.

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't care who signed it, or who voted for it. The First and Second Banks were the brainchildren of Mr. Hamilton (the Second on account that it was an extension of the first), who wanted the First Bank to secure the debt of his wealthy friends. It was only owned 20% by the Federal Government, it was owned 80% by interests other than the Federal Government. The Second Bank is well documented and was full of corruption, and the Senate and House passed the recharter for the next period of time for the Second Bank, and President Jackson sent it back to them, where they could not override his veto. The Senate, despite its being made up entirely of state legislature appointees, failed in the case of the Second Bank, and the First Bank. As for them not printing fiat currency, that still does not take away from the fact it adds another money multiplier effect that a free market banking system does not have.

As for the Federal Reserve changing thanks to the 17th amendment, that is highly doubtful. It was the President who got them off of gold in both the '30s, and entirely in the '70s. The Senate had little to do with it, and Occum's Razor would still favor my argument in this instance anyway. I need only assume that, had the Articles of Confederation been in place, it could not have been manipulated in the way the Constitution is being because they tried and they couldn't back then, even for their relatively small-scale violations. You need to assume that the State Legislatures would have been dominated by Jeffersonians (or at least light Hamiltonians), who would in turn never be fooled into electing heavy Hamiltonians, and those Jeffersonians in the Senate would have never been pressured by a House and a President opposed to their policies. Three assumptions, a few of whom have already proven false, versus one assumption already relatively proven.

Hamilton never voted for the bank bill, the first congress did.

I have highlighted founding fathers who either signed the Declaration of Independence or attended the Constitutional Convention, who were in the 1st congress:

Senate

Connecticut

Oliver Ellsworth (P)
William S. Johnson (P)

Delaware

Richard Bassett (A)
George Read (P)

Georgia

William Few (A)
James Gunn (A)

Maryland

John Henry (P)
Charles Carroll (P)

Massachusetts

Tristram Dalton (P)
Caleb Strong (P)

New Hampshire

John Langdon (P)
Paine Wingate (A)

New Jersey

Jonathan Elmer (P)
William Paterson (P), until November 13, 1790
Philemon Dickinson (P), November 13, 1790 – End

New York

Rufus King (P), July 16, 1789 – End
Philip Schuyler (P)

North Carolina

Benjamin Hawkins (P), November 27, 1789 – End
Samuel Johnston (P), November 27, 1789 – End

Pennsylvania

William Maclay (A)
Robert Morris (P)

Rhode Island

Theodore Foster (P), June 7, 1790 – End
Joseph Stanton, Jr. (A), June 7, 1790 – End

South Carolina

Pierce Butler (P)
Ralph Izard (P)

Virginia

William Grayson (A), until March 12, 1790
John Walker (P), March 31, 1790 – November 9, 1790
James Monroe (A), November 9, 1790 – End
Richard Henry Lee (A)

House of Representatives

Connecticut

Benjamin Huntington (P)
Roger Sherman (P)
Jonathan Sturges (P)
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. (P)
Jeremiah Wadsworth (P)

Delaware

John Vining (P)

Georgia

James Jackson (A)
Abraham Baldwin (A)
George Mathews (A)

Maryland

Michael J. Stone (A)
Joshua Seney (A)
Benjamin Contee (A)
William Smith (A)
George Gale (P)
Daniel Carroll (P)

Massachusetts

Fisher Ames (P)
Benjamin Goodhue (P)
Elbridge Gerry (A)
Theodore Sedgwick (P)
George Partridge (P), until August 14, 1790
George Thatcher (P)
George Leonard (P)
Jonathan Grout (A)

New Hampshire

Abiel Foster (P)
Nicholas Gilman (P)
Samuel Livermore (A)

New Jersey

Elias Boudinot (P)
Lambert Cadwalader (P)
James Schureman (P)
Thomas Sinnickson (P)

New York

William Floyd (A)
John Laurance (P)
Egbert Benson (P)
John Hathorn (A)
Peter Silvester (P)
Jeremiah Van Rensselaer (A)

North Carolina

John Baptista Ashe (A), March 23, 1790 – End
Hugh Williamson (A), March 19, 1790 – End
Timothy Bloodworth (A), April 6, 1790 – End
John Steele (P), April 19, 1790 – End
John Sevier (P), June 16, 1790 – End

Pennsylvania

George Clymer (P)
Thomas Fitzsimons (P)
Thomas Hartley (P)
Daniel Hiester (A)
Frederick Muhlenberg (P)
Peter Muhlenberg (A)
Thomas Scott (P)
Henry Wynkoop (P)

Rhode Island

Benjamin Bourne (P), December 17, 1790 – End

South Carolina

William L. Smith (P)
Aedanus Burke (A)
Daniel Huger (P)
Thomas Sumter (A)
Thomas Tudor Tucker (A)

Virginia

Alexander White (P)
John Brown (A)
Andrew Moore (A)
Richard Bland Lee (P)
James Madison (A)
Isaac Coles (A)
John Page (A)
Josiah Parker (A)
Theodorick Bland (A), until June 1, 1790
William B. Giles (A), December 7, 1790 – End
Samuel Griffin (P)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

That's 13 Senators and 10 Reps, plenty enough to provide leadership.

I'm sure you would have done a better job than the Founding Fathers.

[Galileo Galilei]

As for the Federal Reserve changing thanks to the 17th amendment, that is highly doubtful. It was the President who got them off of gold in both the '30s, and entirely in the '70s. The Senate had little to do with it, and Occum's Razor would still favor my argument in this instance anyway. I need only assume that, had the Articles of Confederation been in place, it could not have been manipulated in the way the Constitution is being because they tried and they couldn't back then, even for their relatively small-scale violations. You need to assume that the State Legislatures would have been dominated by Jeffersonians (or at least light Hamiltonians), who would in turn never be fooled into electing heavy Hamiltonians, and those Jeffersonians in the Senate would have never been pressured by a House and a President opposed to their policies. Three assumptions, a few of whom have already proven false, versus one assumption already relatively proven.

Jefferson supported the 2nd national bank.

In 1832, Andrew Jackson went to visit James Madison in Virginia, who was then over 80 years old. Madison was the most revered man in America at the time.

Jackson was running for re-election. Madison agreed not to oppose Jackson's plan to get rid of the bank.

That's because the bank was a temporay measure to pay off war debt. After we won the 2nd War of Independence, and freed up the Atlantic Ocean for shipping, our economy started to boom like no other economy in the history of the world.

One reason why the 2nd bank got corrupted was the unexpected and unprecedented wealth accumilation from free trade combined with the Industrial Revolution. Accumilated wealth gives great opportunity for corruption.

[nate895]

Hamilton never voted for the bank bill, the first congress did.

I have highlighted founding fathers who either signed the Declaration of Independence or attended the Constitutional Convention, who were in the 1st congress:

Senate

Connecticut

Oliver Ellsworth (P)
William S. Johnson (P)

Delaware

Richard Bassett (A)
George Read (P)

Georgia

William Few (A)
James Gunn (A)

Maryland

John Henry (P)
Charles Carroll (P)

Massachusetts

Tristram Dalton (P)
Caleb Strong (P)

New Hampshire

John Langdon (P)
Paine Wingate (A)

New Jersey

Jonathan Elmer (P)
William Paterson (P), until November 13, 1790
Philemon Dickinson (P), November 13, 1790 – End

New York

Rufus King (P), July 16, 1789 – End
Philip Schuyler (P)

North Carolina

Benjamin Hawkins (P), November 27, 1789 – End
Samuel Johnston (P), November 27, 1789 – End

Pennsylvania

William Maclay (A)
Robert Morris (P)

Rhode Island

Theodore Foster (P), June 7, 1790 – End
Joseph Stanton, Jr. (A), June 7, 1790 – End

South Carolina

Pierce Butler (P)
Ralph Izard (P)

Virginia

William Grayson (A), until March 12, 1790
John Walker (P), March 31, 1790 – November 9, 1790
James Monroe (A), November 9, 1790 – End
Richard Henry Lee (A)

House of Representatives

Connecticut

Benjamin Huntington (P)
Roger Sherman (P)
Jonathan Sturges (P)
Jonathan Trumbull, Jr. (P)
Jeremiah Wadsworth (P)

Delaware

John Vining (P)

Georgia

James Jackson (A)
Abraham Baldwin (A)
George Mathews (A)

Maryland

Michael J. Stone (A)
Joshua Seney (A)
Benjamin Contee (A)
William Smith (A)
George Gale (P)
Daniel Carroll (P)

Massachusetts

Fisher Ames (P)
Benjamin Goodhue (P)
Elbridge Gerry (A)
Theodore Sedgwick (P)
George Partridge (P), until August 14, 1790
George Thatcher (P)
George Leonard (P)
Jonathan Grout (A)

New Hampshire

Abiel Foster (P)
Nicholas Gilman (P)
Samuel Livermore (A)

New Jersey

Elias Boudinot (P)
Lambert Cadwalader (P)
James Schureman (P)
Thomas Sinnickson (P)

New York

William Floyd (A)
John Laurance (P)
Egbert Benson (P)
John Hathorn (A)
Peter Silvester (P)
Jeremiah Van Rensselaer (A)

North Carolina

John Baptista Ashe (A), March 23, 1790 – End
Hugh Williamson (A), March 19, 1790 – End
Timothy Bloodworth (A), April 6, 1790 – End
John Steele (P), April 19, 1790 – End
John Sevier (P), June 16, 1790 – End

Pennsylvania

George Clymer (P)
Thomas Fitzsimons (P)
Thomas Hartley (P)
Daniel Hiester (A)
Frederick Muhlenberg (P)
Peter Muhlenberg (A)
Thomas Scott (P)
Henry Wynkoop (P)

Rhode Island

Benjamin Bourne (P), December 17, 1790 – End

South Carolina

William L. Smith (P)
Aedanus Burke (A)
Daniel Huger (P)
Thomas Sumter (A)
Thomas Tudor Tucker (A)

Virginia

Alexander White (P)
John Brown (A)
Andrew Moore (A)
Richard Bland Lee (P)
James Madison (A)
Isaac Coles (A)
John Page (A)
Josiah Parker (A)
Theodorick Bland (A), until June 1, 1790
William B. Giles (A), December 7, 1790 – End
Samuel Griffin (P)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

That's 13 Senators and 10 Reps, plenty enough to provide leadership.

I'm sure you would have done a better job than the Founding Fathers.

I ask you this in all seriousness and with all due respect: Are you ignorant? Hamilton proposed and justified the idea Constitutionally of the First Bank. I care not who voted for it, all that says to me is that they were either inconsistent or have changed ideologies over the course of time. Why are you using a bogus appeal to authority argument? Why should we rely on the votes of famous men?

[nate895]

Jefferson supported the 2nd national bank.

In 1832, Andrew Jackson went to visit James Madison in Virginia, who was then over 80 years old. Madison was the most revered man in America at the time.

Jackson was running for re-election. Madison agreed not to oppose Jackson's plan to get rid of the bank.

That's because the bank was a temporay measure to pay off war debt. After we won the 2nd War of Independence, and freed up the Atlantic Ocean for shipping, our economy started to boom like no other economy in the history of the world.

One reason why the 2nd bank got corrupted was the unexpected and unprecedented wealth accumilation from free trade combined with the Industrial Revolution. Accumilated wealth gives great opportunity for corruption.

Where does Jefferson support the second bank? Why would I care anyway?

[Uriel999]

Yeah, knowledge is power. Glad to see more people are learning about the Federalists/anti-federalists.

Actually I will say this though, one mistake the anti-federalists made was lots of them left the convention when or refused to go because they realized what was going on. They should have gone and fought tooth and nail to water it down although some did just that.

[nate895]

Yeah, knowledge is power. Glad to see more people are learning about the Federalists/anti-federalists.

Actually I will say this though, one mistake the anti-federalists made was lots of them left the convention when or refused to go because they realized what was going on. They should have gone and fought tooth and nail to water it down although some did just that.

I agree, but that is a could've, would've, should've thing. We can't change that, but we can fight our hardest to have their legacy restored. To that end, since 1950s there has been much greater research in academia on the Anti-Federalists, and much of it is very sympathetic.

[Galileo Galilei]

I ask you this in all seriousness and with all due respect: Are you ignorant? Hamilton proposed and justified the idea Constitutionally of the First Bank. I care not who voted for it, all that says to me is that they were either inconsistent or have changed ideologies over the course of time. Why are you using a bogus appeal to authority argument? Why should we rely on the votes of famous men?

Hamilton proposed it, OK.

But he didn't vote for it, like the Hosue and Senate, nor did he sign it, like George Washington.

Spending all your time dumping on Hamilton is a big waste of time.

Why not blame Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence? The war is what racked up all the war debt, which is the real reason why the bank bill was passed.

Hamilton did a lot of good things for liberty, you know.

He got Jefferson elected over Burr in 1800.

He co-wrote the federalist papers.

He helped organize the Constitutional Convention, and helped get it ratified.

He was a war hero who went to the front lines occassionally in the Revolutionary war.

Hamilton had a lot of baggage, but he was not corrupt and is a hell of a lot better than anybody we have today, save Ron Paul.

[nate895]

Hamilton proposed it, OK.

But he didn't vote for it, like the Hosue and Senate, nor did he sign it, like George Washington.

Spending all your time dumping on Hamilton is a big waste of time.

Why not blame Jefferson for writing the Declaration of Independence? The war is what racked up all the war debt, which is the real reason why the bank bill was passed.

Hamilton did a lot of good things for liberty, you know.

He got Jefferson elected over Burr in 1800.

He co-wrote the federalist papers.

He helped organize the Constitutional Convention, and helped get it ratified.

He was a war hero who went to the front lines occassionally in the Revolutionary war.

Hamilton had a lot of baggage, but he was not corrupt and is a hell of a lot better than anybody we have today, save Ron Paul.

Have you read Hamilton's Curse? Have you studied the history of our republic? What is your obsession with the war debt? Why was it necessary to establish a bank to pay for our debts? It wasn't, it was a manipulation of the new Constitution and its lack of protection for our liberties and decentralized government.

[Uriel999]

I agree, but that is a could've, would've, should've thing. We can't change that, but we can fight our hardest to have their legacy restored. To that end, since 1950s there has been much greater research in academia on the Anti-Federalists, and much of it is very sympathetic.

Yeah my professor for Jacksonian America and Constitutional Legal History to 1877 referred to himself as an anti-federalist. His class was good times.

[nate895]

Yeah my professor for Jacksonian America and Constitutional Legal History to 1877 referred to himself as an anti-federalist. His class was good times.

In Fall, I had a US History I Class, we had a mock vote on the Constitution. It was rejected, but disturbingly we later had a mock vote to organize a Congress between Republicans and Federalists, and I was one of three Republicans.

[nate895]

We are now on the second page of Google Results for Anti-Federalist Party. Keep it up and we might get hits from impressionable minds!!!

[Galileo Galilei]

Have you read Hamilton's Curse? Have you studied the history of our republic? What is your obsession with the war debt? Why was it necessary to establish a bank to pay for our debts? It wasn't, it was a manipulation of the new Constitution and its lack of protection for our liberties and decentralized government.

I read Hamilton's Curse. It's a great book.

I also read DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln; the Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The bank bills were passed because the government was in a desperate situation regarding war debt. No bank bills would have been passed had this situation of debt not been present.

The Founding Fathers, unlike today, were capabale of passing temporary laws.

I do not agree with the banks bills, but I think they are being totally overblown. I also think that Hamilton is being blamed for stuff that he never voted on, he had a lot of help.

[nate895]

I read Hamilton's Curse. It's a great book.

I also read DiLorenzo's books on Lincoln; the Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The bank bills were passed because the government was in a desperate situation regarding war debt. No bank bills would have been passed had this situation of debt not been present.

The Founding Fathers, unlike today, were capabale of passing temporary laws.

I do not agree with the banks bills, but I think they are being totally overblown. I also think that Hamilton is being blamed for stuff that he never voted on, he had a lot of help.

It was ultimately his idea, he put it forward. Few suggested there should be a national bank until Hamilton came along. Hamilton was a brainiac in his day, and the only reason he didn't take control was because Thomas Jefferson was quite a brainiac himself.

I still don't know what this has to do with the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation. The mere fact that the bank is able to exist for a long duration of time is evidence that the Constitution is an insufficient protector of our liberties. That is my primary argument: The Articles of Confederation as would be amended are better suited to provide the people of the united States of America with liberty, peace, and prosperity.

[nate895]

Any Anti-Federalists in Pennsylvania who want to run for our good friend Arlen Specter's seat?

[Galileo Galilei]

It was ultimately his idea, he put it forward. Few suggested there should be a national bank until Hamilton came along. Hamilton was a brainiac in his day, and the only reason he didn't take control was because Thomas Jefferson was quite a brainiac himself.

I still don't know what this has to do with the Constitution vs. the Articles of Confederation. The mere fact that the bank is able to exist for a long duration of time is evidence that the Constitution is an insufficient protector of our liberties. That is my primary argument: The Articles of Confederation as would be amended are better suited to provide the people of the united States of America with liberty, peace, and prosperity.

Maybe it was, but what about the rest of the Founding Fathers?

Here are notable Founding Fathers in the 1st Congress:

Oliver Ellsworth (P)

William S. Johnson (P)

Richard Bassett (A)

George Read (P)

William Few (A)

Charles Carroll (P)

Caleb Strong (P)

John Langdon (P)

William Paterson (P), until November 13, 1790

Rufus King (P), July 16, 1789 – End

Robert Morris (P)

Pierce Butler (P)

James Monroe (A), November 9, 1790 – End (future president)

Richard Henry Lee (A)

Roger Sherman (P)

James Jackson (A) (great uncle of Stonewall Jackson)

Abraham Baldwin (A)

Daniel Carroll (P)

Elbridge Gerry (A)

Nicholas Gilman (P)

William Floyd (A)

Hugh Williamson (A), March 19, 1790 – End

George Clymer (P)

Thomas Fitzsimons (P)

Thomas Sumter (A) (Fort Sumter named after him)

Richard Bland Lee (P) (great unlce of Robert E Lee, brother of 2 signers of the Declaration, and brother of Revolutionary War hero Lighthorse Harry Lee)

James Madison (A)

+ George Washington

It amazes me when people today think they know was the best thing to do at the time, over the consensus of the Founding Fathers.

[nate895]

Maybe it was, but what about the rest of the Founding Fathers?

Here are notable Founding Fathers in the 1st Congress:

Oliver Ellsworth (P)

William S. Johnson (P)

Richard Bassett (A)

George Read (P)

William Few (A)

Charles Carroll (P)

Caleb Strong (P)

John Langdon (P)

William Paterson (P), until November 13, 1790

Rufus King (P), July 16, 1789 – End

Robert Morris (P)

Pierce Butler (P)

James Monroe (A), November 9, 1790 – End (future president)

Richard Henry Lee (A)

Roger Sherman (P)

James Jackson (A) (great uncle of Stonewall Jackson)

Abraham Baldwin (A)

Daniel Carroll (P)

Elbridge Gerry (A)

Nicholas Gilman (P)

William Floyd (A)

Hugh Williamson (A), March 19, 1790 – End

George Clymer (P)

Thomas Fitzsimons (P)

Thomas Sumter (A) (Fort Sumter named after him)

Richard Bland Lee (P) (great unlce of Robert E Lee, brother of 2 signers of the Declaration, and brother of Revolutionary War hero Lighthorse Harry Lee)

James Madison (A)

+ George Washington

It amazes me when people today think they know was the best thing to do at the time, over the consensus of the Founding Fathers.

Once again, why are you using a bogus appeal to authority?

Total Logic
http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/2/6Basarisizligin_fotograflari/6.jpg

[Galileo Galilei]

Once again, why are you using a bogus appeal to authority?

Total Logic
http://galeri.milliyet.com.tr/2008/2/6Basarisizligin_fotograflari/6.jpg

citing the Founding Fathers is a bogus appeal to authority?

[nate895]

citing the Founding Fathers is a bogus appeal to authority?


Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

Your argument is the following:

Washington (or other founding father) supported the First Bank
Washington is a founding father
Therefore, you too should not be all that opposed to the First Bank

Of course, I could counter with my own fallacy

Jefferson opposed the First Bank, as against the Constitution
Jefferson is the best founding father from a libertarian perspective
Therefore, you too should be opposed to the First Bank

[Galileo Galilei]

Your argument is the following:

Washington (or other founding father) supported the First Bank
Washington is a founding father
Therefore, you too should not be all that opposed to the First Bank

Of course, I could counter with my own fallacy

Jefferson opposed the First Bank, as against the Constitution
Jefferson is the best founding father from a libertarian perspective
Therefore, you too should be opposed to the First Bank

James Madison is the best Founding Father, followed by Jefferson and then Washington. Hamilton ranks down the list, but is clearly one of the great Founding Fathers.

Most people encounter Hamilton when they read the Federalist Papers, which are the greatest extending writings on politcal theory of all time.

As far as the bank bill, George Washington signed it and set a precedent. Madison tried vainly to prevent the House from passing the bank bill and then prepared a veto message to Washington, to no avail.

[nate895]

James Madison is the best Founding Father, followed by Jefferson and then Washington. Hamilton ranks down the list, but is clearly one of the great Founding Fathers.

Most people encounter Hamilton when they read the Federalist Papers, which are the greatest extending writings on politcal theory of all time.

As far as the bank bill, George Washington signed it and set a precedent. Madison tried vainly to prevent the House from passing the bank bill and then prepared a veto message to Washington, to no avail.

Madison was author of the Virginia Plan, which stripped the states of nearly all power. He was not a shining example of liberty.

[Galileo Galilei]

Madison was author of the Virginia Plan, which stripped the states of nearly all power. He was not a shining example of liberty.

Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights, author of the Virginia Resolution, the co-author of the Federalist Papers, and the Father of the Constituiton.

As Commander-in-Chief, he also defended our liberty by leading us to victory over the evil British Empire.

At the same time, Napolean lost to the Brits.

No man in human history has done more for liberty, whether theoretical or practical, to defend, create, and preserve liberty, than JAMES MADISON.

If you are not aware, the Virginia Plan was the blueprint for the U.S. Constitution.

[nate895]

Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights, author of the Virginia Resolution, the co-author of the Federalist Papers, and the Father of the Constituiton.

As Commander-in-Chief, he also defended our liberty by leading us to victory over the evil British Empire.

At the same time, Napolean lost to the Brits.

No man in human history has done more for liberty, whether theoretical or practical, to defend, create, and preserve liberty, than JAMES MADISON.

If you are not aware, the Virginia Plan was the blueprint for the U.S. Constitution.

All of this is besides the point entirely: The key point of the Anti-Federalists of then, and of this party, is that the Constitution does not adequately secure our liberties. History has proved them right in their fears of a tyrannical government emerging from the Constitution. The Federalist Papers said that we would never come into our present situation, that our liberties were adequately protected in the original Constitution, let alone with the addition of a Bill of Rights. We added a Bill of Rights, one that cannot be much clearer, and yet our Supreme Court, as the Anti-Federalists warned us, has slowly but surely eroded our rights to the point of being merely privileges granted to us by a tyrannical Leviathan headquartered in the swamp surrounding the Potomac.

[Galileo Galilei]

All of this is besides the point entirely: The key point of the Anti-Federalists of then, and of this party, is that the Constitution does not adequately secure our liberties. History has proved them right in their fears of a tyrannical government emerging from the Constitution. The Federalist Papers said that we would never come into our present situation, that our liberties were adequately protected in the original Constitution, let alone with the addition of a Bill of Rights. We added a Bill of Rights, one that cannot be much clearer, and yet our Supreme Court, as the Anti-Federalists warned us, has slowly but surely eroded our rights to the point of being merely privileges granted to us by a tyrannical Leviathan headquartered in the swamp surrounding the Potomac.

Wrong. No document in history has preserved more liberty than the Constitution.

If not for the Constitution, South Carolina would have ended up like South Africa.

Under the Constitution, all power is based in the state legislatures. At any time 38 state legislatures can amend or abolish the Constitution. They can also secede from the Union individually as well, under the Constitution.

[nate895]

Wrong. No document in history has preserved more liberty than the Constitution.

If not for the Constitution, South Carolina would have ended up like South Africa.

Under the Constitution, all power is based in the state legislatures. At any time 38 state legislatures can amend or abolish the Constitution. They can also secede from the Union individually as well, under the Constitution.

Last time I checked, the Articles of Confederation won our independence. Also, last time I checked, the Supreme Court ruled that states can't secede and a war was fought prior to that decision where the Federal government used their powers to subjugate a whole third of the population of the United States. Whether or not it was the original intent, it happened. It happened under the auspices of constitutionality too. It could never have happened under the Articles, they tried, and they failed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Last time I checked, the Articles of Confederation won our independence. Also, last time I checked, the Supreme Court ruled that states can't secede and a war was fought prior to that decision where the Federal government used their powers to subjugate a whole third of the population of the United States. Whether or not it was the original intent, it happened. It happened under the auspices of constitutionality too. It could never have happened under the Articles, they tried, and they failed.

Wrong.

The South seceded which was totally legal. But without the protection of the Constitution, the South was invaded by a ruthless dictator (Dishonest Abe Lincoln).

You also forget that the South enslaved 45% of the population.

Freedom = Slavery

[Galileo Galilei]

Last time I checked, the Articles of Confederation won our independence. Also, last time I checked, the Supreme Court ruled that states can't secede and a war was fought prior to that decision where the Federal government used their powers to subjugate a whole third of the population of the United States. Whether or not it was the original intent, it happened. It happened under the auspices of constitutionality too. It could never have happened under the Articles, they tried, and they failed.

If a state secedes, they are not part of the Constitutional Union, so the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction.

[nate895]

Galileo, why are you defending a system which has proven it is less than worthy? The Constitution has either proven to weak to be enforceable, or a document through which tyranny is nearly legalized. Either way it has proven a less the capable defender of our liberties. You need to read the Anti-Federalist Papers.

[Old Ducker]

My opinions distilled to the essentials:

a) The Articles of Confederation were destroyed because of war debts to France and Spain.
b) The US Constitution was destroyed because of slavery, especially in the manner in which former slaves were converted to "free" citizens.

[nate895]

My opinions distilled to the essentials:

a) The Articles of Confederation were destroyed because of war debts to France and Spain.
b) The US Constitution was destroyed because of slavery, especially in the manner in which former slaves were converted to "free" citizens.

The Articles of Confederation were destroyed because the states were protectionist with each other even in the era just after the revolution, destroying the economy. An amendment to have provided free trade and a small stream of revenue would have been adequate to protect liberty, peace, and prosperity.

[nate895]

BTW, this guy (http://www.denninger.net/) registered antifederalistparty.org, is he a liberty guy?

[nate895]

Oh, and there are Federalists (http://newfederalistparty.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1) out there again.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Articles of Confederation did not protect liberty in the following ways:

1)

It had a unicameral legislature, which is susceptible to corruption.

2)

Did not provide for a direct vote by the people, making it susceptible to over-taxation and oligarchy.

3)

Did not provide for free trade in America.

4)

Did not have a Bill of Rights

5)

Required unanimous vote, meaning that the body could not even handle routine, mundane business. Such bodies historically give rise to tyrannical dictators in a very short time the next time a war arises. Because the body is inert, the entire articles would get suspended or ignored during the first national emergency. Tiny Rhode Island could overrule the 99% of the country. Such an idiotic provision would soon lead to chaos. Or perhaps another colony would just gobble them up. Of course, that still leaves Delaware.

6)

Had no provision for amendment, totally idiotic.

7)

Did not divide power between national and state interests. Concentration of power always leads to tyranny in short order.

8)

Did not divide power between executive, legislative, and judicial, leading to a concentration of power, and making it easier for a dictator to sieze the levers of power.

9)

Did not provide for an executive check on the legislature.

10)

Did not provide for a judicial check on the legislature.

11)

Did not require trial by jury.

12)

Did not protect Habeas Corpus

13)

Was mostly supported by slave-owning demagoguse who liked to shout "Liberty!".

[nate895]

The Articles of Confederation did not protect liberty in the following ways:

1)

It had a unicameral legislature, which is susceptible to corruption.

2)

Did not provide for a direct vote by the people, making it susceptible to over-taxation and oligarchy.

3)

Did not provide for free trade in America.

4)

Did not have a Bill of Rights

5)

Required unanimous vote, meaning that the body could not even handle routine, mundane business. Such bodies historically give rise to tyrannical dictators in a very short time the next time a war arises. Because the body is inert, the entire articles would get suspended or ignored during the first national emergency. Tiny Rhode Island could overrule the 99% of the country. Such an idiotic provision would soon lead to chaos. Or perhaps another colony would just gobble them up. Of course, that still leaves Delaware.

6)

Had no provision for amendment, totally idiotic.

7)

Did not divide power between national and state interests. Concentration of power always leads to tyranny in short order.

8)

Did not divide power between executive, legislative, and judicial, leading to a concentration of power, and making it easier for a dictator to sieze the levers of power.

9)

Did not provide for an executive check on the legislature.

10)

Did not provide for a judicial check on the legislature.

11)

Did not require trial by jury.

12)

Did not protect Habeas Corpus

13)

Was mostly supported by slave-owning demagoguse who liked to shout "Liberty!".

1) What power they would use to be corrupt, no one knows.

2) How they would enforce taxes, no one knows. One of the primary complaints against the Confederation was that it couldn't tax people.

3) Solved by my amendments.

4) How they would have violated your rights, no one knows.

5) Bullshit, most bills required 9 of the 13 states, only amending the Articles, and on deciding between war and peace required unanimity among the states.

6) You can amend the articles with unanimous consent. That was the original purpose of the Federal Convention.

7) http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg

8, 9, and 10) They are called "States," they have full sovereignty and independence according to Article II.

11) What crime they would be tried for is beyond me.

12) see 11

13) Argumentum ad hominem=Logic
http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/royal-fail.jpg

[Galileo Galilei]

1) What power they would use to be corrupt, no one knows.



Do you actually think the rules written down in the Articles of Confederation would be followed during a national crisis?

James Madison studied the history of confederations, ancient and modern.

ALL of them deteriorated quickly into either anarchy or tyranny in short order.

For example, suppose the British wanted to invade. They could send agents to a small colony like Rhode Island or Delaware, bribe the leaders, and then use that state as a beachhead for invasion.

Or New York could set up a trade deal with the British that was lucrative to New Yorkers. Then if other colonies objected, then British could send in the troops and gobble up more land.

Or France could form alliance with Virginia.

Then the trade wars start, followed by the shooting wars. This would go on and on and on in waves for hundreds of years. Then suppose it is 1815. Andrew Jackson forms an army and conquers the rest of the country and becomes a dictator.

The history of confederations all through history is the history of wars between the individual states, conquered states, seperatist movements after conquest, and foreign powers moving in the for the kill. That is the history of Europe, the history of China, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and Russia.

Everywhere but North America, because of the Constitution.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[Galileo Galilei]

(by James Madison)

Lycian Confederacy

Vices of the Constitution.

It happened but too often that the Deputies of the strongest Cities awed and corrupted those of the weaker, and that Judgment went in favor of the most powerful party. Id. see also Plutarch’s Themistocles.

Greece was the victim of Philip. If her Confederation had been stricter, & been persevered in, she would never have yielded to Macedon, and might have proved a Barrier to the vast projects of Rome. Code de l’Hum.

Philip had two votes in the Council. Rawleigh Hist: World, lib. 4, c. 1, Sec. 7.

The execution of the Amphyctionic powers was very different from the Theory. Id.—It did not restrain the parties from warring agst each other. Athens & Sparta were members during their conflicts. Quer. whether Thucidides or Xenophon in their Histories ever allude to the Amphyctionic authority which ought to have kept the peace?

See Gillies’ Hist. Greece, particularly Vol. II. p. 345.

Achæan Confederacy

Vices of the Constitution.

The defect of subjection in the members to the general authority ruined the whole Body. The Romans seduced the members from the League by representing that it violated their sovereignty. Code de l’Human.

After the death of Alexander, this Union was dissolved by various dissentions, raised chiefly thro’ the acts of the Kings of Macedon. Every City was now engaged in a separate interest & no longer acted in concert. Polyb. lib 2, cap. 3. After in 142 Olympd, they saw their error & began to think of returning to their former State. This was the time when Pyrhus invaded Italy. Ibid.

Helvetic Confederacy.

Vices of the Constitution

1. disparity in size of Cantons

2. different principles of Governmt. in difft. Cantons

3. intolerance in Religion

4. weakness of the Union. The coon bailages wch. served as a cement, sometimes become occasions of quarrels. Dictre. de Suisse.

In a treaty in 1683 with Victor Amadœus of Savoy, it is stipulated that he shall interpose as Mediator in disputes between the Cantons, and if necessary use force agst the party refusing to submit to the sentence. Dictre. de Suisse.—a striking proof of the want of authority in the whole over its parts.

Belgic Confederacy

Vices of the Constitution.

The Union of Utrecht imports an authority in the States Genl seemingly sufficient to secure harmony; but the Jealousy in each province of its sovereignty renders the practice very different from the Theory. Code de l’Hum.

It is clear that the delay occasioned by recurring to seven independent provinces including about 52 voting Cities &c. is a vice in the Belgic Republic which exposes it to the most fatal inconveniences. Accordingly the fathers of their country have endeavored to remedy it in the extraordinary Assemblies of the States Genl. in (1584) in 1651, 1716, 1717, but unhappily without effect. This vice is notwithstanding deplorable. Id.—Among other evils it gives foreign ministers the means of arresting the most important deliberations by gaining a single province or city. This was done by France in 1726, when the Treaty of Hanover was delayed a whole year. In 1688 the States concluded a Treaty of themselves but at the risk of their heads. Id. It is the practice also in matters of contribution or subsidy to pass over this article of the Union, for where delay wd. be dangerous the consenting provinces furnish their quotas without waiting for the others, but by such means the Union is weakened and if often repeated must be dissolved—Id.

Foreign Ministers elude matters taken ad referendum by tampering with the provinces & Cities. Temple p. 116.

Treaty of Union obliges each Province to levy certain contributions. But this article never could probably never will be executed because the inland provinces who have little commerce cannot pay an equal Quota. Burrish, Bat. illustrat:

Deputations from agreeing to disagreeing provinces frequent. Temple.

It is certain that so many independent Corps & interests could not be kept together without such a center of Union as the Stadtholdership, as has been allowed & repeated in so many solemn Acts. Code de Hum.

In the intermission of the Stadtholdership Holland by her Riches & Authority which drew the others into a sort of dependence, supplied the place. Temple.

With such a Governmt. the Union never cd have subsisted, if in effect the provinces had not within themselves a spring capable of quick—ing their tardiness, and impelling them to the same way of thinking. This Spring is the Stadtholder. His prerogatives are immense—1, &c. &c.—A strange effect of human contradictions. Men too jealous to confide their liberty to their representatives who are their equals, abandoned it to a prince who might the more easily abuse it as the affairs of the Republic were important & had not them fixed themselves. Mably Etude d’Hist., 205. 6.

Grotius has sd. that the hatred of his countrymen agst the H of Austria kept them from being destroyed by the vices of their Constitution. Ibid.

The difficulty of procuring unanimity has produced a breach of fundamentals in several instances—Treaty of Westphalia was concluded without consent of Zealand &c D’Albon & Temple—These tend to alter the constitution. D’Albon.

It appears by several articles of the Union that the confederates had formed the design of establishing a Genl tax, [Impôt,] to be administered by the States Genl.. But this design so proper for bracing this happy Union has not been executed. Code de l’Hum.

Germanic Confederacy

Vices of the Constitution.

1. The Quotas are complained of & supplied very irregularly & defectively. Code de ’Hum. provision is made by decree of diet for enforcing them, but it is a delicate matter to execute it agst. the powerful members. Id.

2. The establishmt. of Imperial Chamber has not been found an efficacious remedy agst. civil wars. It has committed faults. The Ressortissans have not always been docile. Id.

3. Altho’ the establishmt. of Imperial Chambers &c give a more regular form to the police of the fiefs, it is not to be supposed they are capable of giving a certain force to the laws and maintaining the peace of the Empire if the House of Austria had not acquired power eno’ to maintain itself on the imperial Throne, to make itself respected, to give orders which it might be imprudent to despise, as the laws were therefore despised. Mabley Etude d’ hist., p. 180.

[Jealousy of the Imperial authority seems to have been a great cement of the Confederacy.]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1934&chapter=118615&layout=html&Itemid=27

To read the complete tract, click on the link.

[nate895]

Do you actually think the rules written down in the Articles of Confederation would be followed during a national crisis?

James Madison studied the history of confederations, ancient and modern.

ALL of them deteriorated quickly into either anarchy or tyranny in short order.

For example, suppose the British wanted to invade. They could send agents to a small colony like Rhode Island or Delaware, bribe the leaders, and then use that state as a beachhead for invasion.

Or New York could set up a trade deal with the British that was lucrative to New Yorkers. Then if other colonies objected, then British could send in the troops and gobble up more land.

Or France could form alliance with Virginia.

Then the trade wars start, followed by the shooting wars. This would go on and on and on in waves for hundreds of years. Then suppose it is 1815. Andrew Jackson forms an army and conquers the rest of the country and becomes a dictator.

The history of confederations all through history is the history of wars between the individual states, conquered states, seperatist movements after conquest, and foreign powers moving in the for the kill. That is the history of Europe, the history of China, Africa, the Middle East, South America, and Russia.

Everywhere but North America, because of the Constitution.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

The only example of a confederation that was similar in form to ours was the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic was the size of peanuts compared to the United States, and it was overthrown violently by the Orangeists because of the year of Rampjaar, where several nations surprise attacked the Dutch. No one was bribed. It just happened, and they were overthrown violently.

If we were invaded, it is highly unlikely anyone would be bribed. That mere idea is preposterous on its face. Besides, what of the possibility of bribing the Federal government? You would face minimal resistance to a landing if you bribed the commander of Fort Lewis here in Washington, and that is just one guy. Your invasion scenarios are preposterous on their face, and the Articles prevent trade deals already anyway.

You have to remember something about most prior confederations: most of the members are monarchies or another form of totalitarian government. Of course they are going to fail from petty power squabbling. Republican governments rarely, if ever, go to war with each other. There is absolutely no incentive to have petty power squabbling. The people won't stomach constant war, and they can vote in the proper people in republican forms of government.

[Galileo Galilei]

The only example of a confederation that was similar in form to ours was the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic was the size of peanuts compared to the United States, and it was overthrown violently by the Orangeists because of the year of Rampjaar, where several nations surprise attacked the Dutch. No one was bribed. It just happened, and they were overthrown violently.

If we were invaded, it is highly unlikely anyone would be bribed. That mere idea is preposterous on its face. Besides, what of the possibility of bribing the Federal government? You would face minimal resistance to a landing if you bribed the commander of Fort Lewis here in Washington, and that is just one guy. Your invasion scenarios are preposterous on their face, and the Articles prevent trade deals already anyway.

You have to remember something about most prior confederations: most of the members are monarchies or another form of totalitarian government. Of course they are going to fail from petty power squabbling. Republican governments rarely, if ever, go to war with each other. There is absolutely no incentive to have petty power squabbling. The people won't stomach constant war, and they can vote in the proper people in republican forms of government.

Your facts are wrong. During the Hartford Convention of 1814, the NE states almost signed a seperate pact with the British.

In fact, all great military conquerors prefered to bribe their opponents, rather than fighting them in battle. Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Napolean, Alexander, etc. Bribe the leaders and make them submit, or crush them and kill them. Many leaders take the cash and settle to be puppets.

The British were doing stuff like this all over the world in the 1800s. It didn't work in America because we had the Constitution.

[nate895]

Your facts are wrong. During the Hartford Convention of 1814, the NE states almost signed a seperate pact with the British.

In fact, all great military conquerors prefered to bribe their opponents, rather than fighting them in battle. Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Napolean, Alexander, etc. Bribe the leaders and make them submit, or crush them and kill them. Many leaders take the cash and settle to be puppets.

The British were doing stuff like this all over the world in the 1800s. It didn't work in America because we had the Constitution.

What does the Hartford Convention have to do with anything? Last I checked, that happened under the Constitution.

Edit: And, the War of 1812 would not have happened were it not for our Constitution. The War of 1812 was supported by the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States over New England because they wanted Canada and were questing for more glory. The Federalists in New England, ironically, wanted to simply trade with Britain. God forbid they should trade, you know.

[Galileo Galilei]

What does the Hartford Convention have to do with anything? Last I checked, that happened under the Constitution.

Edit: And, the War of 1812 would not have happened were it not for our Constitution. The War of 1812 was supported by the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States over New England because they wanted Canada and were questing for more glory. The Federalists in New England, ironically, wanted to simply trade with Britain. God forbid they should trade, you know.

All the 13 states wanted to trade with England and France freely. But if NE traded with England, then that violated rules laid down by France, so the South couldn't trade with France.

So there wasn't any "free trade" leading up to the War of 1812. The Atlantic ocean was totally under the control of mostly England, but also France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, etc.

Our ships were either seized or taxed, or both.

Divide and conquer is the tactic the British tried against us. It would have worked if we still had the Articles of Confederation.

Imagine that, wanting to trade freely.

Our military victories in the War of 1812 made us a soveregn nation that was never bullied again, and lead to the most tremendous economic growth in the history of the world up to that time in the 1820s, 1830s, 1840s, etc.

[nate895]

Ignore Galileo's obvious lack of sense in the this particular instance. The simple fact is that the Constitution has failed us. Its machines are in place, and yet our rights have been trampled upon to the point of near non-existence. The Constitution established the machines by which we have been oppressed, and by which more oppression is emanating at this very moment. The document needs to be radically amended or abolished entirely. At this point, amending the Constitution would produce an entirely different system of government. Where then are we to turn? The Articles of Confederation are a good example of a good governing document for a confederation, and the state constitutions of that time period ought to be reinstated with adjustments to forbid such things as slavery.

The World was not falling apart when the Articles were the governing document of the United States. Protectionism in some states was causing a problem, yes. The lack of taxation deprived Congress of its de jure powers, sure. These points were widely taken by the Anti-Federalists, but the Articles of Confederation needed only to be amended for this to happen. My proposed amendments to the Articles will give the Congress the power its delegated powers, but nothing left to toy around with. Credit and the printing press will not be powers of this government. If they are usurped, the states would have the simple ability to institute their own currencies.

It is preposterous to think the United States would have fallen apart under the Articles. We beat the British in the War for Independence with them (and for a great majority of the time, without any legal federal government). It is hard to imagine a form of government that beat a country with three times its population in a war, with foreign aid, will magically shrivel and die when it stands up and takes over the third most populous country on Earth. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous that it would happen, or would have happened.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ignore Galileo's obvious lack of sense in the this particular instance. The simple fact is that the Constitution has failed us. Its machines are in place, and yet our rights have been trampled upon to the point of near non-existence. The Constitution established the machines by which we have been oppressed, and by which more oppression is emanating at this very moment. The document needs to be radically amended or abolished entirely. At this point, amending the Constitution would produce an entirely different system of government. Where then are we to turn? The Articles of Confederation are a good example of a good governing document for a confederation, and the state constitutions of that time period ought to be reinstated with adjustments to forbid such things as slavery.

The World was not falling apart when the Articles were the governing document of the United States. Protectionism in some states was causing a problem, yes. The lack of taxation deprived Congress of its de jure powers, sure. These points were widely taken by the Anti-Federalists, but the Articles of Confederation needed only to be amended for this to happen. My proposed amendments to the Articles will give the Congress the power its delegated powers, but nothing left to toy around with. Credit and the printing press will not be powers of this government. If they are usurped, the states would have the simple ability to institute their own currencies.

It is preposterous to think the United States would have fallen apart under the Articles. We beat the British in the War for Independence with them (and for a great majority of the time, without any legal federal government). It is hard to imagine a form of government that beat a country with three times its population in a war, with foreign aid, will magically shrivel and die when it stands up and takes over the third most populous country on Earth. Quite frankly, the idea is preposterous that it would happen, or would have happened.

What gets me is that the Articles of Confederation are very similar to the United Nations, a very weak central government that has a Twin evil, it can't do anything good, and has no way to stop corruption.

But why stop with the Articles of Confederation, you promoter of central government. Let's go back to the Articles of Association of 1774.

Naw, that's too strong, let's just go back to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765.

Heck no, we should use the Albany Plan of 1754. that is the ideal government. Ben Franklin wrote it and attended the conference.

[ChaosControl]

The ideal form of government is no government. But I am still not sure such is practical. Any state is inherently evil and anti-liberty. The best documents will be those that restrict government the most.

[Galileo Galilei]

The ideal form of government is no government. But I am still not sure such is practical. Any state is inherently evil and anti-liberty. The best documents will be those that restrict government the most.

I think we all agree with that. The real question is what is the best way to deal with the fact that theory meets reality.

[nate895]

What gets me is that the Articles of Confederation are very similar to the United Nations, a very weak central government that has a Twin evil, it can't do anything good, and has no way to stop corruption.

But why stop with the Articles of Confederation, you promoter of central government. Let's go back to the Articles of Association of 1774.

Naw, that's too strong, let's just go back to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765.

Heck no, we should use the Albany Plan of 1754. that is the ideal government. Ben Franklin wrote it and attended the conference.

The reason why the Articles of Confederation work over the UN is because the UN is a one-world organization with no power, but money to play around with. When corruption gets really bad at the UN, countries stop giving money the scandals go away. The same could happen with the states vs. the Federal gov't. i this system, and the Feds have the duty to maintain armed forces.

[cthulhufan]

Does anybody have "The Complete Anti-Federalist" edited by Herbert Storing and Murray Dry? I really want to read all of those works.

Hi Nate. I recommend this set of works published by the Library of America:
The Debate on the Constitution: Part One: September 1787 to February 1788 (http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=32)
and
The Debate on the Constitution: Part Two: January to August 1788 (http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=33)

I consider them among my most prized possessions. I give them as gifts as well. Besides having all manner of excellent information, the index is incredible. I usually manage to snag complete sets from Amazon's marketplace for ~$30 but would gladly pay full price if I had to.

[nate895]

Hi Nate. I recommend this set of works published by the Library of America:
The Debate on the Constitution: Part One: September 1787 to February 1788 (http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=32)
and
The Debate on the Constitution: Part Two: January to August 1788 (http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=33)

I consider them among my most prized possessions. I give them as gifts as well. Besides having all manner of excellent information, the index is incredible. I usually manage to snag complete sets from Amazon's marketplace for ~$30 but would gladly pay full price if I had to.

Hey, my b-day is coming up on the 22nd ;).

J/K

[cthulhufan]

Hey, my b-day is coming up on the 22nd ;).

J/K

Hey, if you run for your state house and make it or make a good showing, I will buy you a set. :)

[nate895]

I noticed this while I was reading Brutus from the Anti-Federalist papers. In what way does it distinguish from our tax system?


This power [of taxation], exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every comer of the city, and country — It will wait upon the ladies at their toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and the assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bed-chamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labour, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them, will be GIVE! GIVE!

[heavenlyboy34]

I noticed this while I was reading Brutus from the Anti-Federalist papers. In what way does it distinguish from our tax system?

I luv Brutus! Thanx for that! I'll get around to reading the AF papers again someday, I hope. :cool::):D

[heavenlyboy34]

The ideal form of government is no government. But I am still not sure such is practical. Any state is inherently evil and anti-liberty. The best documents will be those that restrict government the most.

+a zillion!! :cool::D:) I luv it when you speak such sweet words to me-it makes my heart all a-flutter! :)

[Wadesc]

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=92731

Any of you guys seen this? I dont know whats going on.

Oh and you guys might be familiar with Karl Denninger. If not, hes a really respectable blogger, market analyst. I dont know if this is just coincidence or what.

[nate895]

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=92731

Any of you guys seen this? I dont know whats going on.

Oh and you guys might be familiar with Karl Denninger. If not, hes a really respectable blogger, market analyst. I dont know if this is just coincidence or what.

Not really, but I noticed he purchased several anti-federalist related domains (the main ones I was after). If you have details on him, I'd love to know them. When I looked him up, all I found was his personal page which didn't really give me the info I desire.

[Wadesc]

Well I frequent his blogs all the time, along with his forums.

http://market-ticker.org/

I guess I would say he is an anti-statist market analyst, probably formerly Neocon.

He doesnt really feel very highly of RP, mostly because of foreign policy and the stigma attached to RP supporters etc. Not that he doesnt agree with him on almost all economic and social issues, he just sees RP as bloviating too much and not being hard enough on Ben. (yeah funny huh)

Smart guy, I dont exactly agree with everything he says, but his blog is great to read.

The forums are much more my thing, they are generally pretty accepting of RP supporters as long as you dont go tinfoil on them, as they have much in common, but they tend to have a chip on their shoulder over foreign policy stances. (Dont worry its very anti-partisan, they hate almost all politicians) Its accepting of most viewpoints.

Theres a good mix of people there, all liberty minded for the most part. Keep in mind its an investment forum, so theres a lot of technical discussion going on, and he can be quite draconian of a moderator.

I dont know if the Anti-Federalist Party thing is just a weird coincidence or what.

(oh and he is a Deflationist like Mike Shedlock, they seem to have a lot in common)

[nate895]

Well I frequent his blogs all the time, along with his forums.

http://market-ticker.org/

I guess I would say he is an anti-statist market analyst, probably formerly Neocon.

He doesnt really feel very highly of RP, mostly because of foreign policy and the stigma attached to RP supporters etc. Not that he doesnt agree with him on almost all economic and social issues, he just sees RP as bloviating too much and not being hard enough on Ben. (yeah funny huh)

Smart guy, I dont exactly agree with everything he says, but his blog is great to read.

The forums are much more my thing, they are generally pretty accepting of RP supporters as long as you dont go tinfoil on them, as they have much in common, but they tend to have a chip on their shoulder over foreign policy stances. (Dont worry its very anti-partisan, they hate almost all politicians) Its accepting of most viewpoints.

Theres a good mix of people there, all liberty minded for the most part. Keep in mind its an investment forum, so theres a lot of technical discussion going on, and he can be quite draconian of a moderator.

I dont know if the Anti-Federalist Party thing is just a weird coincidence or what.

(oh and he is a Deflationist like Mike Shedlock, they seem to have a lot in common)

Good to know their positions, that really helps on moving forward with purchasing my own Anti-Federalist domain.

[Sufferer of the Mazzaroth]

First, let me say that the Anti-Federalists were not really against federalism at all. In fact, they were the real Federalists, just like today’s so-called conservatives are not, in essence, real conservatives. The ones who claimed to be Federalists were actually Nationalists. To restate one teacher’s words…
A federal government is set on the good faith of the states, while a national government is compulsive of the states.
FEDERALISM is a bottom-up hierarchy with supreme power emanating from below: the People, who give some powers to the States, who give even fewer powers to the federal government. This means local governments have the most power, seen as essential to liberty since it’s easier to deal with an oppressive local government. People have much more power and influence locally than federally. Not to mention that moving is easier when one only needs to move to the next town than another state and much easier to move to another state than another country. This brings competition between different governments.
NATIONALISM is a top-down hierarchy, with a large government divided into states. The national government gives powers to the states and the latter to local governments.
Because the people were wary of nationalism, having just gone through the trouble to overthrow one, Hamilton and his bunch, in concern for their political future, took the name of “Federalists” to make their views easier for the people to swallow.
While the Constitution is basically federal, it is not purely and certainly less than the Articles of Confederation…
The only advantages it really had, in turning the misnamed Anti-Federalists into allowing it passage, were amendments—though the Articles had the same ability—and that the discussions between Nationalists (“Federalists”) and Federalists (“Anti-Federalists”), called the Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, education’s downward spiral—thanks to our central government—has helped to dumb down the population. They basically read ABOUT the Constitution rather than the document itself, so it’s unlikely that they would read the definitive writings of our founding fathers.
After all that, I think it would be more beneficial to name the party carefully. It should not after “Federalists” because it would cause confusion thanks to the name game above. It should not be after “Anti-Federalists,” since it would help to continue the lie that the Nationalists were “Federalists” . I would say the Confederate Party, but that again has bad connotations thanks to people thinking the Civil War was over slavery.
The only one I can think up would be the Articles Party much the same way there is a Constitution Party. I also cannot think of a way to label one's self as a party member (Articlist? Silly, right?) other than to say directly, "I am a part of the Articles Party." I'm hoping that way they identify that the party is to support their principles, not the members supporting the party's principles.
It's always bothered me how someone can label themself a Costitutionalist or Libertarian when they are only referring to the parties in that sense, confusing people who take it as the original meaning.
I’m open to better suggestions as long as they would be less likely to cause confusion, and not perpetuate deceit of and/or from the past.


After reading some Anti-Federalist writings, and realizing the leaders of those who supported the Constitution in the Constitutional Convention itself were a collection of people opposed to the general principles of liberty, at least at the time of writing and/or ratification of the Constitution, it has become evident that our current constitution was designed to usurp the liberty of the people.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=federalists+nationalists&source=bl&ots=8QVpc-Ox-Q&sig=X4-DzPnN0p1BBTyoCbjULbdkYJg&hl=en&ei=St8GSob0EN6rtgf6y4WPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA171,M1
Check on “Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists”. It should be showing, though you might have to scroll either two pages up or two pages down, depending on where it landed you.
Here are some quotes from another website to help out.
“The states sent representatives to Philadelphia under the Continental Congress' dictum that they were only to gather there to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Congress, on the eve of the convention, declared that it only had the authority to propose changes to the Articles, and even then a unanimous vote of the states was necessary for any amendment to be approved. Congress said the convention could meet, but then any suggestions to come out of it would not have the force of law. The delegates at Philadelphia were aware of this, but they pushed ahead anyway with their design to replace the Articles of Confederation with a completely new constitution [behind closed doors]. They even changed the rules of the game for ratification by declaring that the new constitution would take effect when only nine of the states gave their approval rather than all thirteeen. Constitutional scholars generally agree that this proviso was actually illegal, even though the Continental Congress finally agreed to abide by it. In fact the Congress did not have the authority under the Articles of Confederation to do so.”

“…When the convention was held at Philadelphia in 1787 it was under strict instructions from the Continental Congress only to prepare a list of amendments to the Articles of Confederation; the convention was not authorized to draw up a whole new Constitution, but only to advise the Continental Congress about what it should do to meet the needs of the Union. Therefore the delegates had exceeded their instructions and were acting illegally.
…The delegates at Philadelphia wrote a document which was in their direct economic and political interests; the new government would be in their hands and its fiscal policy helped directly to enrich the personal fortunes of the original Philadelphia delegates.
…The delegates at Philadelphia met in secrecy and not in an open forum which was subject to public scrutiny. Moreover they never wanted publication of their debates or even the minutes of the convention. All the records were given to George Washington to take home with him at the end of the meeting in the belief that the great patriot of the Revolution would never be challenged for them. Conspiracy historians point out that by getting Washington into their camp, the pro-Constitution forces went a long way in fending off critical opposition. In fact Washington is portrayed as a pawn in the hands of those organizing the drive for holding a convention in Philadelphia.
…The ratification procedure was patently illegal: According to the Articles of Confederation, which was the fundamental law of the land at the Constitutional convention, any change in the powers of the central government had to have the unanimous approval of all thirteen states as represented in the Continental Congress. The founding fathers changed this because they knew they could not get ratification under this procedure, so they said that the new Constitution would take effect for all the states when nine of them had registered their approval. The Continental Congress was completely sidestepped, it being asked to send the proposed Constitution along to the states immediately and without any debate or discussion.”


The platform of our party is the adoption as the governing document of the United States of America to be the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between The States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, with the Following Amendments:
Awesome.


First Article of Amendment:

No state shall post any duties, nor regulate interstate or international commerce except with the permission of Congress for the purposes of preventing the spread of plagues of infectious diseases or crop destroying insects not already existing within the boundaries within the state in question.
To keep state rights, you must recognize them as sovereign. How they deal with each other is up to them. For instance, if one state has broken a law of the Articles of Confederation or holds policies that other states don’t agree with, the other states can refuse trade. The United States does the same thing to discourage certain actions in other countries, such as communism.


Second Article of Amendment:

The Congress, shall be responsible for the organization of the Armed Forces of the United States. It shall be able to maintain, in times of peace, an army not in excess of .1% of the population according to the latest census and to maintain reserves for the army not in excess of 1% of the population, in times of war the Congress has the authority to voluntarily recruit as many men as necessary. A navy shall be organized during times of peace, but shall not exceed the size of 200 ships and enough men to maintain those ships. An air force shall be organized, but shall not exceed 6,000 aircraft and enough men to maintain those aircraft.
Here, I’m more hesitant than disagreeable. Standing armies have been used by tyrants, and it might be more efficient to have militias and certainly safer against a centralized government. Such militias would have an instructor that would be more focused on the men’s welfare, than sacrificing them in hopes of numbers defeating the enemy, and allow for playful competition between states to encourage advancements.


Third Article Amendment:

The Congress may generate revenue through a tax on corporations, but such a tax may not exceed 10% in peacetime, nor 30% in wartime.
This I cannot agree with. Instead of targeting corporations, which make investments that further provide more jobs and thus more consumption, maintain that each state pay its own representatives to be in Congress AND provide an amendment that will divide equally among the states debts owed to other countries.
During the times of the Founding Fathers, the only ones that could vote were landowners, because they paid the property taxes needed for the government to protect their land. In a sense, this is what dividing the debt could be seen as, with no regard to how much land each state has because each state only gets one vote under the Articles.
It will be the states’ job to figure out how they will gather the funds. To bring up the subject of states refusing to pay, they could either lose their voice in Congress (though this idea is scary) and/or have the other states refuse trade.

Love the idea of a party, but maybe you should check out the Boston Tea Party as well. http://www.bostontea.us/platform
Hope to hear back soon.

[nate895]

First, let me say that the Anti-Federalists were not really against federalism at all. In fact, they were the real Federalists, just like today’s so-called conservatives are not, in essence, real conservatives. The ones who claimed to be Federalists were actually Nationalists. To restate one teacher’s words…
A federal government is set on the good faith of the states, while a national government is compulsive of the states.
FEDERALISM is a bottom-up hierarchy with supreme power emanating from below: the People, who give some powers to the States, who give even fewer powers to the federal government. This means local governments have the most power, seen as essential to liberty since it’s easier to deal with an oppressive local government. People have much more power and influence locally than federally. Not to mention that moving is easier when one only needs to move to the next town than another state and much easier to move to another state than another country. This brings competition between different governments.
NATIONALISM is a top-down hierarchy, with a large government divided into states. The national government gives powers to the states and the latter to local governments.
Because the people were wary of nationalism, having just gone through the trouble to overthrow one, Hamilton and his bunch, in concern for their political future, took the name of “Federalists” to make their views easier for the people to swallow.
While the Constitution is basically federal, it is not purely and certainly less than the Articles of Confederation…
The only advantages it really had, in turning the misnamed Anti-Federalists into allowing it passage, were amendments—though the Articles had the same ability—and that the discussions between Nationalists (“Federalists”) and Federalists (“Anti-Federalists”), called the Federalist Papers. Unfortunately, education’s downward spiral—thanks to our central government—has helped to dumb down the population. They basically read ABOUT the Constitution rather than the document itself, so it’s unlikely that they would read the definitive writings of our founding fathers.
After all that, I think it would be more beneficial to name the party carefully. It should not after “Federalists” because it would cause confusion thanks to the name game above. It should not be after “Anti-Federalists,” since it would help to continue the lie that the Nationalists were “Federalists” . I would say the Confederate Party, but that again has bad connotations thanks to people thinking the Civil War was over slavery.
The only one I can think up would be the Articles Party much the same way there is a Constitution Party. I also cannot think of a way to label one's self as a party member (Articlist? Silly, right?) other than to say directly, "I am a part of the Articles Party." I'm hoping that way they identify that the party is to support their principles, not the members supporting the party's principles.
It's always bothered me how someone can label themself a Costitutionalist or Libertarian when they are only referring to the parties in that sense, confusing people who take it as the original meaning.
I’m open to better suggestions as long as they would be less likely to cause confusion, and not perpetuate deceit of and/or from the past.


http://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=federalists+nationalists&source=bl&ots=8QVpc-Ox-Q&sig=X4-DzPnN0p1BBTyoCbjULbdkYJg&hl=en&ei=St8GSob0EN6rtgf6y4WPBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA171,M1
Check on “Federalists Versus Anti-Federalists”. It should be showing, though you might have to scroll either two pages up or two pages down, depending on where it landed you.
Here are some quotes from another website to help out.
“The states sent representatives to Philadelphia under the Continental Congress' dictum that they were only to gather there to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Congress, on the eve of the convention, declared that it only had the authority to propose changes to the Articles, and even then a unanimous vote of the states was necessary for any amendment to be approved. Congress said the convention could meet, but then any suggestions to come out of it would not have the force of law. The delegates at Philadelphia were aware of this, but they pushed ahead anyway with their design to replace the Articles of Confederation with a completely new constitution [behind closed doors]. They even changed the rules of the game for ratification by declaring that the new constitution would take effect when only nine of the states gave their approval rather than all thirteeen. Constitutional scholars generally agree that this proviso was actually illegal, even though the Continental Congress finally agreed to abide by it. In fact the Congress did not have the authority under the Articles of Confederation to do so.”

“…When the convention was held at Philadelphia in 1787 it was under strict instructions from the Continental Congress only to prepare a list of amendments to the Articles of Confederation; the convention was not authorized to draw up a whole new Constitution, but only to advise the Continental Congress about what it should do to meet the needs of the Union. Therefore the delegates had exceeded their instructions and were acting illegally.
…The delegates at Philadelphia wrote a document which was in their direct economic and political interests; the new government would be in their hands and its fiscal policy helped directly to enrich the personal fortunes of the original Philadelphia delegates.
…The delegates at Philadelphia met in secrecy and not in an open forum which was subject to public scrutiny. Moreover they never wanted publication of their debates or even the minutes of the convention. All the records were given to George Washington to take home with him at the end of the meeting in the belief that the great patriot of the Revolution would never be challenged for them. Conspiracy historians point out that by getting Washington into their camp, the pro-Constitution forces went a long way in fending off critical opposition. In fact Washington is portrayed as a pawn in the hands of those organizing the drive for holding a convention in Philadelphia.
…The ratification procedure was patently illegal: According to the Articles of Confederation, which was the fundamental law of the land at the Constitutional convention, any change in the powers of the central government had to have the unanimous approval of all thirteen states as represented in the Continental Congress. The founding fathers changed this because they knew they could not get ratification under this procedure, so they said that the new Constitution would take effect for all the states when nine of them had registered their approval. The Continental Congress was completely sidestepped, it being asked to send the proposed Constitution along to the states immediately and without any debate or discussion.”


Awesome.


To keep state rights, you must recognize them as sovereign. How they deal with each other is up to them. For instance, if one state has broken a law of the Articles of Confederation or holds policies that other states don’t agree with, the other states can refuse trade. The United States does the same thing to discourage certain actions in other countries, such as communism.


Here, I’m more hesitant than disagreeable. Standing armies have been used by tyrants, and it might be more efficient to have militias and certainly safer against a centralized government. Such militias would have an instructor that would be more focused on the men’s welfare, than sacrificing them in hopes of numbers defeating the enemy, and allow for playful competition between states to encourage advancements.


This I cannot agree with. Instead of targeting corporations, which make investments that further provide more jobs and thus more consumption, maintain that each state pay its own representatives to be in Congress AND provide an amendment that will divide equally among the states debts owed to other countries.
During the times of the Founding Fathers, the only ones that could vote were landowners, because they paid the property taxes needed for the government to protect their land. In a sense, this is what dividing the debt could be seen as, with no regard to how much land each state has because each state only gets one vote under the Articles.
It will be the states’ job to figure out how they will gather the funds. To bring up the subject of states refusing to pay, they could either lose their voice in Congress (though this idea is scary) and/or have the other states refuse trade.

Love the idea of a party, but maybe you should check out the Boston Tea Party as well. http://www.bostontea.us/platform
Hope to hear back soon.

Anti-Federalist is a very broad term, and it could be applied to anyone who believes in anything but the system of government known as a federation. I support a confederate system, which would still make me an "anti-federalist." A federation is a bottom up system of government, but more power is concentrated in the hands of the Federal government than the states. A confederation is a bottom up system with more power in the hands of the states than the confederation government.

First Amendment:

The sovereignty of the states has already been recognized in the second article. One of the problems in the original articles was that the industrial states became protectionist and destroyed the economy, and furthermore we could not enter into free trade agreements with other countries because states couldn't enter into a treaty and the Congress couldn't pass free trade treaties. That is why I support a free trade amendment.

Second Amendment:

Yes, standing armies have been used for the purposes of implementing tyranny. However, navies have always been considered necessary because you can't just create a navy overnight. Ships take a long time to build, especially warships. Standing armies weren't needed back then because the only equipment that was needed could be obtained in minutes for most people. Today, we need tanks, helicopters, rapid transport vehicles, and other equipment. We also need people who know how to use them, and so therefore we need a standing army to maintain the equipment for war time like they needed a navy. Also, an air force is needed for similar reasons. It would really suck if we didn't have an air force and their air force decided to target Boeing on their first air strike.

Third Amendment:

I am already rethinking this one.

[literatim]

The ideal form of government is no government. But I am still not sure such is practical. Any state is inherently evil and anti-liberty. The best documents will be those that restrict government the most.

A state is neither evil nor good, but a tool that can be used for either. A state that protects life, liberty, and property is not evil nor is it anti-liberty.

[Sufferer of the Mazzaroth]

Anti-Federalist is a very broad term, and it could be applied to anyone who believes in anything but the system of government known as a federation. I support a confederate system, which would still make me an "anti-federalist." A federation is a bottom up system of government, but more power is concentrated in the hands of the Federal government than the states. A confederation is a bottom up system with more power in the hands of the states than the confederation government.
The one difference I firmly know as a difference between the two is that a confederation requires unamity. Another possible difference is that a confederation allows for no direct powers, which you support by wanting a standing army for them. Not trying to be rude with that last part, just pointing out the differences.


First Amendment:

The sovereignty of the states has already been recognized in the second article. One of the problems in the original articles was that the industrial states became protectionist and destroyed the economy, and furthermore we could not enter into free trade agreements with other countries because states couldn't enter into a treaty and the Congress couldn't pass free trade treaties. That is why I support a free trade amendment.
I do think that the international part should still be removed.


Second Amendment:

Yes, standing armies have been used for the purposes of implementing tyranny. However, navies have always been considered necessary because you can't just create a navy overnight. Ships take a long time to build, especially warships. Standing armies weren't needed back then because the only equipment that was needed could be obtained in minutes for most people. Today, we need tanks, helicopters, rapid transport vehicles, and other equipment. We also need people who know how to use them, and so therefore we need a standing army to maintain the equipment for war time like they needed a navy. Also, an air force is needed for similar reasons. It would really suck if we didn't have an air force and their air force decided to target Boeing on their first air strike.
Understood, but I do think that such equipment should remain with the states or at least the people. There are people who own their own tanks and there is always a constant threat of pirates, so navies should be permitted. However, I do not think the federal government should own them.

I hope you checked out the Boston Tea Party's platform, since they would be a good place to gather support. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

A state is neither evil nor good, but a tool that can be used for either. A state that protects life, liberty, and property is not evil nor is it anti-liberty.

The State Is an Evil Vine (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff137.html)

The state brings forth bitter and poisonous fruit. Mankind has planted and cultivated this evil vine. The state is an evil vine whose growing branches reach further and further into society, spreading its more and more deadly yield.
What is this vine? It is an organization of men. From whence arises this vine? From groups within society that planted its seed. From whence comes the continual enlargement of this vine? From the continuous watering and fertilization by groups within society. How is the vine’s life maintained? Why do not those being poisoned tear this plant out by its roots? Society’s vintners use power and taxes to protect the vine; they skillfully pay off selected groups in society to defuse rebellion. They use persuasion, education, and sundry appeals to attract support to this vine of evil. What constitutes the enlargement of the vine and its branches? The growth of its powers, taxes, invasions, aggressions, and dominance; the growth and spread of these among more and more people in society.
The evil vine beckons: "Come, tend to me, and I shall give thee life and increase. Come, and do my bidding, and I shall set thee free from worry and care. Ye shall eat of my fruit and ye shall have no thought of tomorrow. Tend to me, and I shall see thee made skillful and educated. I shall see thee in good health and cared for in thine old age when thou art infirm. I shall see that thy children and their children are cared for. I will relieve thee of thy greatest cares and concerns, asking only that thy cultivate and feed me. Ye shall not lack for work. Every enemy will I destroy on thy behalf. I am the vine of thy life. Recognize me as thy source and I shall reward thee with everlasting fruit."
The evil vine of state never lacks for willing vintners.
Society cannot function without justice and its conjoined order. If these were the state’s fruits, it would be sweet indeed. No one could properly complain. To produce justice and order, however, society will have to look elsewhere than the state; for the state is a vine that grows injustice and disorder.
Society can live without the vine of state. Eventually, it will learn how; because any society that uproots this poisonous vine will outpace the ones that do not. Any people that uproots this vine will thrive compared to those who do not.
Planting the evil vine of state will eventually be viewed as error. It will be seen as a wrong step in mankind’s social evolution. At some point in the future, with the grace of God, mankind will look back and marvel at the folly of those primitive peoples who, thinking themselves modern, relied upon states to bring them life, health, and abundance. Future people will marvel at the stupidity of people who planted an evil vine in their midst, especially a vine with such tough roots that it could not readily be removed once planted. They will wonder: How is it people in those days saw the poison fruit produced by their states and kept eating it? Why did they cultivate the plant further? They will shake their heads in disbelief at peoples the world over ruled by the strength and tenaciousness of such evil plants.
Cultivating the vine
A common metaphor among those who decry the state is that it is a parasite. It is an organism that fastens itself upon society and lives off of society. This metaphor has limited usefulness. It does not bring out key facts about the vine of state. Once the vine is planted, it is almost never uprooted; and the reason why is that anyone and any group in society can try to cultivate the plant. It sits there as a constant temptation, promising power, psychic benefits, and/or revenue to any body that succeeds in using it. And every time that it is used, the plant strengthens and society harvests more poisonous fruit.
If we examine the history of any act of state that enlarged it, we will often have great difficulty in tracing the causes back to their origins. Historians will typically disagree about causes and their relative importance. We will often not know either the aims of a law or the motives of those behind its passage. It will typically be easier to analyze who is harmed and who is helped by a law.
And even if we identify the aims and motives of those who have fed the vine of state, where does that get us? There is an infinite number of potential groups who for an infinite number of reasons wish to get something for nothing. They constitute an infinite reservation demand for access to the vine. Their use of it will be rationed by a political competition in which the costs of accessing and using the vine will also play a part.
The case of education
The history of the state’s control over education of children and over higher education in the U.S. provides an example of multiple groups and multiple causes working over a long period of time to assure state control. Rothbard traces the notion of state schools back to the Reformation and then forward to Prussia. But of course the idea goes back even further to Plato and perhaps earlier.
Over the 200-year course of centralizing lower education in state public schools and introducing a very heavy national influence over higher education, we invariably find pious promises of sweet fruit that are secularly religious in nature. The measures to be taken are said to be for the good of society, children, and mankind. They are said to strengthen the country and bring greater prosperity. If economists are promoting these laws, they speak of external benefits to society or remedying educational underinvestment. If educators are promoting these laws, they speak of bringing education to all, promoting equality, and doing a job that parents either fail to do or cannot do as well as professionals. Others speak of promoting the socialization of children brought about by mixing all types and classes or of promoting equality or of strengthening the foundations of democracy. Many speak of producing homogeneous citizens who will support the state, or of training workers to meet the demands of modern industry. Politicians may tell us that state education will be costless, and that its costs will be recovered in future tax revenues. They may say that we need education to produce engineers or scientists for the sake of the country’s national security. They may say that we need central control so that no child may be left behind.
There is never a shortage of temptations to grow the vine of state. Still less is there a shortage of rationales to justify this growth. Vine cultivators are highly adept at manufacturing justifications for what they want to do anyway for their own reasons. Looking at the collection of people promoting state control of education, it is extraordinary that they are able to discover whole branches of hitherto unseen beneficial fruits. It is remarkable that we have so many of these socially-minded and unselfish people in our midst who seem to gain no personal benefit from their manifold recommendations to cultivate the evil vine of state.
Nevertheless, when they get their way, the poisonous fruits of state-run education arise in the form of miseducated, undereducated, and uneducated sons and daughters. We should not wonder at such a result since state control circumvents a competitive private market for educational services in favor of a more cartel-like environment in which each local public school system has a degree of monopoly that it would never have in a free market, as well as a mandated source of demand from students and a tax-based source of revenue.
It is quite easy to spot a number of less altruistic motives for state control of education.
In an environment of reduced competition, both administrators and teachers gain at the expense of students and taxpayers. This occurs both in lower and higher education.
The Morrill Act of 1862 that established land grant colleges said that "the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and mechanic arts..." The emphasis on military education was intentional. Coming as it did during the War Between the States, one aim of this legislation was to increase the supply of military officers for the U.S. Army. According to the Office of Military Science at Siena College: "Many unskilled volunteer and militia officers experienced problems in learning to become effective military leaders virtually overnight. To remedy this situation, the Land-Grant Act of 1862 (also known at the Morrell [sic] Act) gave states federal land to raise capital and establish colleges that would teach agriculture, science, and military tactics. This program was intended to produce a large pool of reserve officers for the United States Army." Land grant colleges instituted mandatory military training programs as a predecessor to the later ROTC (Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.) Supporters easily found euphemisms of phrase such as the notion that this embodied a citizen military.
Another aim of the Morrill Act was politically to bring western states, who would establish such schools, under the fold of the North. Yet another aim was to subsidize agriculture indirectly by state support of agricultural education. This subsidy was enhanced in the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 that created added agricultural extension services.
The branch created by the Morrill Act grew into a limb when The National Defense Act of 1916 created ROTC, making it compulsory for land grant colleges. This was the act that federalized the state militias and turned them into army reserves. ROTC programs soon spread to hundreds of other colleges because the Act provided for money, equipment, and instructors going to colleges with such programs. In 1964, ROTC added scholarships, just in time to expand the training for the Vietnam War.
All federal education acts had the effect of centralizing education at the national level. Similarly, individual states, in the name of equality and other high-sounding aims, have centralized education at the state as opposed to the local levels.
Politicians are not unaware that state-controlled education produces a "standardized brand" of person, far more compliant and willing to support the vine of state. Disraeli thought the standard brand would tend toward science and business and away from moral, political, legal, and historical issues. The state-educated would be less capable of questioning the state.
Destruction of private education is a key plank in destroying the civil order in favor of the state order.
At times, other aims and motives played into use of the state to control education. Historians have mentioned such factors as controlling the black vote in the South after 1865 and controlling the immigrant populations flooding into the Northeast.
The fact that state subsidies go directly to institutions of higher education, more so than to students, is a telling fact. This has caused hundreds of private colleges to close their doors. The recipient state institutions obviously heavily fertilize the evil vine. The sponsoring politicians make hay out of the pork barrel.
Huge national subsidies to universities, public and private, from agencies like NSF, NIH, NASA, EPA, and others now effectively have most large universities firmly in the grip of the federal government. While they currently like federal support, in years to come, the vine will entangle these institutions in new directions.
The state’s existence is the message
This brief review of education shows what is typical of the state’s growth: multiple motivations and multiple directions occurring over long periods, but adding up to the spread of the evil vine and the deepening of its roots.
The root fact supporting this growth is that once the vine has been planted in our midst, it beckons all to its use. The incentive to use it cannot be turned off once the vine has been firmly planted. And every use of the vine strengthens its roots.
I am as curious as the next man as to why we have a particular state law. But when we examine a broad range of states across the entire world, we shall have quite a lot of difficulty explaining the pastiche of laws that one state has as compared with that of another. The precise course of a state’s growth will often be hard to understand in terms of who did what and why. Tracing growth back to basic causes will not be easy. And if we focus too much attention on that question, we miss seeing the biggest cause of all.
The biggest cause of a state’s growth is that there is a state in a country. Once it is there, it will be used. Its use will make it grow. Removing it will become increasingly difficult, until perhaps the vine exudes so much poison or becomes so tangled up in its own excesses that it collapses.
Ending states
Justice within society, yes. The state, no.
States are planted because people demand that they be planted, as exemplified by 1 Samuel 8:5–7: "5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."
Only by a people’s change of heart can the evil vine be uprooted and the people turn away from its promises of sweet and free fruits which in actuality turn out to be poisonous and costly. To remove a state is both the easiest and the hardest thing in the world. People need only learn what Moses taught the Israelites in Deuteronomy 8:3: "3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." People need only not give in to the temptation of the evil vine. Matthew 4: 1–4: "1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

[literatim]

All those within the confederacy should be under free trade, but States should be able to designate tariffs for international trade.

There should never be a standing army and only an air force, navy, and well trained militia. You do not need a standing army to maintain military equipment.

[nate895]

The one difference I firmly know as a difference between the two is that a confederation requires unamity. Another possible difference is that a confederation allows for no direct powers, which you support by wanting a standing army for them. Not trying to be rude with that last part, just pointing out the differences.


I do think that the international part should still be removed.


Understood, but I do think that such equipment should remain with the states or at least the people. There are people who own their own tanks and there is always a constant threat of pirates, so navies should be permitted. However, I do not think the federal government should own them.

I hope you checked out the Boston Tea Party's platform, since they would be a good place to gather support. :)

The international part should be maintained because we need to be able to trade freely. The primary purposes of a confederation are unified trade, military, and foreign policies. That is also why I support a small Federal military. The states are still free to enact laws in every other case they have the power to, according to their constitution.

More on difference between federation and confederation (Wikipedia):


By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.[citation needed] A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:

* (1) No real direct powers: many confederal decisions are externalised by member-state legislation.
* (2) Decisions on day-to-day-matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities or even by consensus or unanimity (veto for every member).
* (3) Changes of the constitution, usually a treaty, require unanimity.

[Sufferer of the Mazzaroth]

All those within the confederacy should be under free trade, but States should be able to designate tariffs for international trade.
My point and thank you.

There should never be a standing army and only an air force, navy, and well trained militia. You do not need a standing army to maintain military equipment.
That works. ;)

[nate895]

All those within the confederacy should be under free trade, but States should be able to designate tariffs for international trade.

There should never be a standing army and only an air force, navy, and well trained militia. You do not need a standing army to maintain military equipment.

In today's time, you need a standing army to have a large corps of armor, vehicles, missile delivery systems, etc. A well trained militia is a great idea, but you just can't get together an armored division to repel a surprise invasion the way you can get together a crack infantry regiment.

[Sufferer of the Mazzaroth]

The international part should be maintained because we need to be able to trade freely.
There is nothing to stop states from trading with other nations except if the other nation does not wish to trade. To protect American jobs and the sovereignty of the states, it's better to vote for free trade only between the states.

The primary purposes of a confederation are unified trade, military, and foreign policies.
I can't help but feel the need to disagree here. The primary purpose of a confederation is to protect the people.

That is also why I support a small Federal military.
That would not be a complete confederation then. Just look at the wikipedia quote you have, but I warn against using it. Wikipedia and Conservapedia are biased.

[Sufferer of the Mazzaroth]

There were several proposed Amendments to the Articles. Can anyone tell me any possible reasons why this was not liked by some of the states?

"The United States in Congress Assembled shall have the sole and exclusive power of declaring what offences against the United States shall be deemed treason, and what Offences against the same Mis-prison of treason, and what Offences shall be deemed piracy or felony on the high Seas and to annex suitable punishments to all the Offences aforesaid respectively, and power to institute a federal Judicial Court for trying and punishing all officers appointed by Congress for all crimes, offences, and misbehaviour in their Offices and to which Court an Appeal shall be allowed from the Judicial Courts of the several States in all Causes wherein questions shall arise on the meaning and construction of Treaties entered into by the United States with any foreign power, or on the Law of Nations, or wherein any question shall arise respecting any regulations that may hereafter be made by Congress relative to trade and Commerce, or the Collection of federal Revenues pursuant to powers that shall be vested in that body or wherein questions of importance may arise and the United States shall be a party provided that the trial of the fact by Jury shall ever be held sacred, and also the benefits of the writ of Habeas Corpus; provided also that no member of Congress or officer holding any other office under the United States shall be a Judge of said Court, and the said Court shall consist of Seven Judges, to be appointed from the different parts of the Union to wit, one from New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, one from Massachusetts, one from New York and New Jersey, one from Pennsylvania, one from Delaware and Maryland, one from Virginia, and one from North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, and four of whom shall be a quorum to do business."

[Intuition]

The Anti-Federalist Party's website has been launched and can be found at: http://anti-federalist.org/


We do not pretend, nor claim, that we have reached the point in our Republic where the actions undertaken by the brave Founders of this nation must, or should, be repeated. Indeed, it is the sincere hope of all who claim to be Anti-Federalists that such circumstances will never again arise in America.

We do, however, believe in the essence of 1776, and the promise of America, as expressed in The Declaration:

*That all men (and women) are created equal.
*That rights are not endowed or granted by government, but are unalienable and vested as a consequence of personhood, and thus can only be protected (or abrogated) by government.
*That government exists as a lawful and just enterprise only so long as it acts with the consent of the governed.
*That our Constitution is black letter law, not a list of suggestions.
*That The Constitution sets forth a limited form of Federal Government, reserving most functions to The States and The People.
* That we must return to this form of limited Federal Government in order to preserve our liberties, our economy, and our national sovereignty.

Many people have asked why we would use the word "anti" in a political party name, as a negative.

The reasons are both historical and contemporary. There was, at the time of ratification of The Constitution, a body of people who believed that The Constitution was inadequate to protect against tyranny and the ultimate failure of our nascent government. These people, along with those on the other side of the debate ("The Federalists") wrote many essays and letters, and were largely responsible for The Bill of Rights being included in The Constitution.

But they argued that even The Bill of Rights did not go far enough, and many of their warnings of usurpations and violations of the rights of man have, sadly, come to pass.

We therefore honor those fine patriots in the name of our party, in the hope of being able to restore America to its Constitutional roots.
http://anti-federalist.org/

On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82352532321