Flaws in the State Constitutions

[Galileo Galilei]

Flaws in the State Constitutions

The principles in the Federalist Papers apply to state Constitutions, too.

While many neo-anti-Federalists here yap about the Constitution and glorify the state governments, let's see of this holds up to scrutiny.

I am from Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a reputation as a state with lower than average corruption, lower than average crime, and lower than average poverty. It has a reputation for better than average economic opportunity and better than average level of citizen education.

Despite this, Wisconsin has a much worse Constitution than the federal Constitution.

WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf

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

* The Wisconsin Constitution is way too long, over 18,000 words. Few in Wisconsin have read it, and even fewer have a working knowledge of its contents.

* the amendment process sucks, it is way too easy to amend, it has been amended over 100 times. To amend it, the state legislature need only pass an amendment by majority vote. Then they have to wait until after the next election and members seated, and re-pass it. Then there is a statewide referendum that needs only a majority. That's it. And half the Senate would not even need to stand election between votes under this process.

* it is very tough to read because of all the amendments and deletions among the next.

* the overall language is less concise and harder to read than the federal Constitution and sounds like legalese at times.

* it prohibits gambling. Yep that's in the Constitution, an anti-liberty provision right in the Constitution.

* it did not have a protection for the right to bear arms until 1998. Even this provision is watered down because it says the possession of guns must be for a "lawful purpose". So of course, an anti-gun law could outlaw something and then the possession would be unlawful. Get it?

* the line-item veto. In general, line-item vetoes give too much power to the executive. In Wisconsin it is much worse. For most of our history, the governor could veto out single letters and make up new words. Now that is restricted and the governor can only veto out individual words. By doing this, he can make up new sentences by deleting entire paragraphs and retaining a few words. He can also veto out the word "not" in sentences that includes the language "shall not". This is a total joke.

* too much democracy. In Wisconsin, we have judicial elections. These are a total joke if you lived here you'd know.

* lack of delegated powers. In Wisconsin, like all states, the legislature has plenary power. That means the legislature can do anything that it is not specifically prohibited from doing.

* the state Senate is too federalized. For one thing, the Senate districts just chop up the state by population, rather than retaining the integrity of the individual counties. The Senate is also directly elected, so there is too much democracy. They should be elected by the county boards instead, making it analogous to the Founders Constitution.

* there is no Electoral College for the election of the Governor. Instead, it is a direct election that gives too much power to large cities and destroys the integrity of the individual counties.

* in another example of too much democracy, the Attorney general is elected directly, as is the State treasurer, Lt. Governor, and Secretary of State.

* there are no term limits for the governor.

* the governor does not get to pick his Lt. governor. Instead there is a separate primary for the Lt. governor. This is dangerous because if the governor dies, he has not picked his replacement.

* the Constitution provides for public schools, so socialism is built right into the system.

* the Constitution contains this statement;


All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited.

[regarding the first half of the sentence]

While this might sound good and I agree with it in principle, there are serious problems. First of all, few people know what allodial means. Even worse, such an absolute statement is not practical or enforceable. Hence, the provision on allodial property has been ignored from the beginning. When one part of the Constitution gets ignored or is too extreme, then that makes a good excuse to ignore other parts. The sentence on allodial property should have been written to make it a practical defense of property rights.

** Wisconsin provides for recall elections, one of the few good things in it compared to the federal Constitution.

** Wisconsin also banned slavery in the Constitution. This is good, but nothing to thump your chest over. For one thing, Wisconsin's Constitution was ratified in 1848, this is only 17 years before the federal Constitution banned slavery. And slavery was banned in the Washington DC in 1850.

Secondly, slavery was already banned in Wisconsin in 1787 by the Northwest Ordinance, and also in 1820 in the Missouri Compromise.

___

If the Wisconsin Constitution is this bad, just think of what it is like in other states, or states that had slavery ingrained into their Constitutions?

Please share your thoughts on the Constitution from your state. If you want to know one reason for the growth of federal power, it is lousy state Constitutions.

[erowe1]

While many neo-anti-Federalists here yap about the Constitution and glorify the state governments, let's see of this holds up to scrutiny.

Where in your post do you hold the views of any neo-anti-federalists up to scrutiny?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Flaws in the State Constitutions

The principles in the Federalist Papers apply to state Constitutions, too.

While many neo-anti-Federalists here yap about the Constitution and glorify the state governments, let's see of this holds up to scrutiny.

I am from Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a reputation as a state with lower than average corruption, lower than average crime, and lower than average poverty. It has a reputation for better than average economic opportunity and better than average level of citizen education.

Despite this, Wisconsin has a much worse Constitution than the federal Constitution.

WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/unannotated_wisconst.pdf

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

* The Wisconsin Constitution is way too long, over 18,000 words. Few in Wisconsin have read it, and even fewer have a working knowledge of its contents.

* the amendment process sucks, it is way too easy to amend, it has been amended over 100 times. To amend it, the state legislature need only pass an amendment by majority vote. Then they have to wait until after the next election and members seated, and re-pass it. Then there is a statewide referendum that needs only a majority. That's it. And half the Senate would not even need to stand election between votes under this process.

* it is very tough to read because of all the amendments and deletions among the next.

* the overall language is less concise and harder to read than the federal Constitution and sounds like legalese at times.

* it prohibits gambling. Yep that's in the Constitution, an anti-liberty provision right in the Constitution.

* it did not have a protection for the right to bear arms until 1998. Even this provision is watered down because it says the possession of guns must be for a "lawful purpose". So of course, an anti-gun law could outlaw something and then the possession would be unlawful. Get it?

* the line-item veto. In general, line-item vetoes give too much power to the executive. In Wisconsin it is much worse. For most of our history, the governor could veto out single letters and make up new words. Now that is restricted and the governor can only veto out individual words. By doing this, he can make up new sentences by deleting entire paragraphs and retaining a few words. He can also veto out the word "not" in sentences that includes the language "shall not". This is a total joke.

* too much democracy. In Wisconsin, we have judicial elections. These are a total joke if you lived here you'd know.

* lack of delegated powers. In Wisconsin, like all states, the legislature has plenary power. That means the legislature can do anything that it is not specifically prohibited from doing.

* the state Senate is too federalized. For one thing, the Senate districts just chop up the state by population, rather than retaining the integrity of the individual counties. The Senate is also directly elected, so there is too much democracy. They should be elected by the county boards instead, making it analogous to the Founders Constitution.

* there is no Electoral College for the election of the Governor. Instead, it is a direct election that gives too much power to large cities and destroys the integrity of the individual counties.

* in another example of too much democracy, the Attorney general is elected directly, as is the State treasurer, Lt. Governor, and Secretary of State.

* there are no term limits for the governor.

* the governor does not get to pick his Lt. governor. Instead there is a separate primary for the Lt. governor. This is dangerous because if the governor dies, he has not picked his replacement.

* the Constitution provides for public schools, so socialism is built right into the system.

* the Constitution contains this statement;



[regarding the first half of the sentence]

While this might sound good and I agree with it in principle, there are serious problems. First of all, few people know what allodial means. Even worse, such an absolute statement is not practical or enforceable. Hence, the provision on allodial property has been ignored from the beginning. When one part of the Constitution gets ignored or is too extreme, then that makes a good excuse to ignore other parts. The sentence on allodial property should have been written to make it a practical defense of property rights.

** Wisconsin provides for recall elections, one of the few good things in it compared to the federal Constitution.

** Wisconsin also banned slavery in the Constitution. This is good, but nothing to thump your chest over. For one thing, Wisconsin's Constitution was ratified in 1848, this is only 17 years before the federal Constitution banned slavery. And slavery was banned in the Washington DC in 1850.

Secondly, slavery was already banned in Wisconsin in 1787 by the Northwest Ordinance, and also in 1820 in the Missouri Compromise.

___

If the Wisconsin Constitution is this bad, just think of what it is like in other states, or states that had slavery ingrained into their Constitutions?

Please share your thoughts on the Constitution from your state. If you want to know one reason for the growth of federal power, it is lousy state Constitutions.

As I live in Texas, the greatest state (nation) in the Union, you have my sympathy. The states are supposed to have more extensive Constitutions as they are supposed to be individual nations. The Federal Constitution is supposed to restrict itself to the golden ideal of our Founders: Congress is supposed to restrict its business to it, the Administration is supposed to restrict its business to it, and the Supreme Court is supposed to restrict its business to it. As an individual nation, my state ranks well with other nations around the world. Indeed, it does have it problems. But, you know, unlike the tiny state of Rode Island, I can't climb atop just any two story building to see everything that is happening in Texas. We are actually a region of five potential states larger than the whole region of the northeast including the state of Pennsylvania.

[Galileo Galilei]

Where in your post do you hold the views of any neo-anti-federalists up to scrutiny?

I figured you'd have trouble staying on topic. The state Constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution.

[surf]

Washington may have the highest ranking libertarian in the country: Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders. he has said that the Washington State Constitution is, in many ways, better than the federal constitution at protecting individual rights.

[Galileo Galilei]

Washington may have the highest ranking libertarian in the country: Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders. he has said that the Washington State Constitution is, in many ways, better than the federal constitution at protecting individual rights.

please be more specific.

[erowe1]

I figured you'd have trouble staying on topic. The state Constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution.

But since you're the one who said the topic was a rebuttal of so-called neo-anti-federalists, and since you don't anywhere approach anything of the sort, doesn't that mean that you're the one who didn't stay on topic?

Either the topic is state constitutions being even worse than the federal one, in which case that little dig that you put at the beginning of your post was off topic, or the topic is rebutting the neo-anti-federalists, in which case the entire rest of your post was off topic, or you think those two things actually somehow have something to do with one another, in which case my question was entirely on topic and has not yet been answered.

[Galileo Galilei]

But since you're the one who said the topic was a rebuttal of so-called neo-anti-federalists, and since you don't anywhere approach anything of the sort, doesn't that mean that you're the one who didn't stay on topic?

Either the topic is state constitutions being even worse than the federal one, in which case that little dig that you put at the beginning of your post was off topic, or the topic is rebutting the neo-anti-federalists, in which case the entire rest of your post was off topic, or you think those two things actually somehow have something to do with one another, in which case my question was entirely on topic and has not yet been answered.

Historically, in most confederations, one state or a block of states will go to war against other states. Then the losers will have the Constitutions of the winners imposed over them.

For example, Alexander of Macedon took over all the other Greek States. But Macedon had a lousy Constitution.

People have to live under state Constitutions. Most if not all of these are more tyrannical than the federal Constitution.

[erowe1]

People have to live under state Constitutions. Most if not all of these are more tyrannical than the federal Constitution.

And that is the case now while the federal Constitution you're ostensibly defending is in place. So how does that observation serve to rebut neo-anti-federalists as you claim it does?

[Galileo Galilei]

And that is the case now while the federal Constitution you're ostensibly defending is in place. So how does that observation serve to rebut neo-anti-federalists as you claim it does?

Do you have any substantive comments on the state Constitutions? People here already know the federal Constitution. Can you tell us about a state Constitution that has provisions better or worse than the federal Constitution? Have you ever read your state Constitution? Do you know what's in it? Did you know that the less power the federal government has, the more power the state governments have? Did you know that nature fills a vacuum?

:confused:

[Elwar]

I figured you'd have trouble staying on topic. The state Constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution.

Some state constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution. And we are allowed to move to those states that we like more. And those states are able to ammend their constitutions to mirror the good in another state.

The federal constitution doesn't allow you to find another unless you want to leave the country.

[John Taylor]

I figured you'd have trouble staying on topic. The state Constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution.

That's a vast generalization which is factually inaccurate.

SOME state constitutions are "worse" (however that is defined) than the federal constitution...

[Galileo Galilei]

Some state constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution. And we are allowed to move to those states that we like more. And those states are able to ammend their constitutions to mirror the good in another state.

The federal constitution doesn't allow you to find another unless you want to leave the country.

That's true now. But it is not true in weak confederations. In weak confederations, each state makes their own immigration laws. So if you move to another state, you might be an illegal alien. Or you might not be allowed to move at all.

You also said "some constitutions". Can you name even one state that has a better constitution than the federal constitution? If they are all worse than the federal constitution, then it does not do much good to switch states. And if only a few were better out of the 50, then your choices would be very limited.

[John Taylor]

That's true now. But it is not true in weak confederations. In weak confederations, each state makes their own immigration laws. So if you move to another state, you might be an illegal alien. Or you might not be allowed to move at all.

You also said "some constitutions". Can you name even one state that has a better constitution than the federal constitution? If they are all worse than the federal constitution, then it does not do much good to switch states. And if only a few were better out of the 50, then your choices would be very limited.

So what? AZ has a better constitution than the U.S. constitution for what it does, restrict and define the powers of government here in AZ. The U.S. constitution has completely failed to effectively limit the federal leviathan.

You should have the user-name John Marshall.

[Elwar]

That's true now. But it is not true in weak confederations. In weak confederations, each state makes their own immigration laws. So if you move to another state, you might be an illegal alien. Or you might not be allowed to move at all.

You also said "some constitutions". Can you name even one state that has a better constitution than the federal constitution? If they are all worse than the federal constitution, then it does not do much good to switch states. And if only a few were better out of the 50, then your choices would be very limited.

It's been a while since I've skimmed it but I would imagine the New Hampshire Constitution is better. The Texas one isn't so bad, at least it doesn't have an income tax.

I haven't read much of the Florida constitution yet, but it's not all that great.

[Galileo Galilei]

That's a vast generalization which is factually inaccurate.

SOME state constitutions are "worse" (however that is defined) than the federal constitution...

Can you name a state Constitution that is better than the federal Constitution? Do you even know anything about this topic? Or do you incessantly promote states with no knowledge of their Constitutions?

Let's start with your home state. Which is it and how does it stack up the the one that James Madison crafted?

[Danke]

Minnesota:

Sec 12 No person shall be imprisoned for debt in this state...


Sec 14 The military shall be subordinate to the civil power and no standing army shall be kept up in this state in time of peace.

Sec 15 All lands within this state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are prohibited. Leases and grants of Agricultural land for a longer period than twenty one years hereafter made in which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind shall be void.

[John Taylor]

Can you name a state Constitution that is better than the federal Constitution? Do you even know anything about this topic? Or do you incessantly promote states with no knowledge of their Constitutions?

Let's start with your home state. Which is it and how does it stack up the the one that James Madison crafted?

What state did James Madison "craft" again?

AZ's constitution is designed to fulfill a very different objective than the U.S. constitution. You seemingly can't get your nationalist head wrapped around that...:rolleyes:

[erowe1]

Do you have any substantive comments on the state Constitutions?


Before we get to that, could you please clarify the point of this thread. Does it have anything at all to do with so-called neo-anti-federalists or not?

Yes, I've read my state constitution. I just don't see the point of comparing state constitutions with the federal constitution. In your mind you seem to think that you have some logical reason for wanting to do that, but you haven't been able to articulate whatever that is in a way that makes any sense to me.

Also, I did make a substantive comment. I pointed out that all these problems that we have with our state constitutions are problems that exist while the federal constitution that we now have is in effect. That still seems to me to be a pretty important point.

[Anti Federalist]

Flaws in the State Constitutions

The principles in the Federalist Papers apply to state Constitutions, too.

While many neo-anti-Federalists here yap about the Constitution and glorify the state governments, let's see of this holds up to scrutiny.

I am from Wisconsin.

NH's state constitution is great, I think.

Especially this part:


[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Moving on:


As I live in Texas, the greatest state (nation) in the Union

FFS :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Now, that explains a lot...

[Galileo Galilei]

It's been a while since I've skimmed it but I would imagine the New Hampshire Constitution is better. The Texas one isn't so bad, at least it doesn't have an income tax.

I haven't read much of the Florida constitution yet, but it's not all that great.

I want some actual details. I gave a detailed report on Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the Constitution of the state where you live?

[John Taylor]

I want some actual details. I gave a detailed report on Wisconsin. Do you know anything about the Constitution of the state where you live?

Yeah, a good deal, I had to swear to uphold and defend it when I was admitted to the bar here.

Why cannot you comprehend that state constitutions are designed to serve a very different purpose than the federal constitution?

[Galileo Galilei]

Yeah, a good deal, I had to swear to uphold and defend it when I was admitted to the bar here.

Why cannot you comprehend that state constitutions are designed to serve a very different purpose than the federal constitution?

You don't know anything about your state Constitution, do you?

[John Taylor]

You don't know anything about your state Constitution, do you?

I just said I know a good deal about it. You must have poor vision and even poorer reading comprehension skills.

I think the AZ Constitution is an excellent document which does not allow for the constitutional construction you champion for the federal government. ;)

[Golding]

You should see California's constitution. It's a joke edited into an even bigger joke.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why cannot you comprehend that state constitutions are designed to serve a very different purpose than the federal constitution?

This is totally wrong. The 13 original states were independent countries before joining the Union. So was Texas.

Outside of foreign policy, the state Constitutions do much the same as the federal; they regulate business, tax, and spend, run the courts, etc.

And if the federal Constitution is scaled back, then the latent powers of the state Constitutions will begin to manifest themselves. Since you advocate that, you outta know all 50 state Constitutions.

[John Taylor]

You should see California's constitution. It's a joke edited into an even bigger joke.

No doubt it is, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily less effective at doing what it is designed to do than the completely ineffective and precedent-emasculated federal constitution.

[John Taylor]

This is totally wrong. The 13 original states were independent countries before joining the Union. So was Texas.
Outside of foreign policy, the state Constitutions do much the same as the federal; they regulate business, tax, and spend, run the courts, etc.

And if the federal Constitution is scaled back, then the latent powers of the state Constitutions will begin to manifest themselves. Since you advocate that, you outta know all 50 state Constitutions.

No shit Sherlock, you discover that all by yourself?

The states created the federal union, and delegated a few, enumerated powers to their new agent, the federal government, and they, the states, as principles, retained all other powers.

"Outside of federal policy, the state constitutions do the same..."

That is because the federal government, through your constitutional construction, has over-stepped the constitutional limitations put in place by the framers... evidently, they didn't errect a high enough bar.

Why should I be concerned with all 50 state constitutions again? The federal constitution doesn't need to be scaled back all that much, we just need to adopt the correct constitutional construction.

Have you read that book yet, or don't you like original sources???

[Galileo Galilei]

You should see California's constitution. It's a joke edited into an even bigger joke.

Just think if California invaded and conquered the American West?

What is in it specifically?

[John Taylor]

Just think if California invaded and conquered the American West?

What is in it specifically?

Where exactly in the federal constitution is the federal government given any police powers whatsoever?

[Galileo Galilei]

No shit Sherlock, you discover that all by yourself?

The states created the federal union, and delegated a few, enumerated powers to their new agent, the federal government, and they, the states, as principles, retained all other powers.

"Outside of federal policy, the state constitutions do the same..."

That is because the federal government, through your constitutional construction, has over-stepped the constitutional limitations put in place by the framers... evidently, they didn't errect a high enough bar.

Why should I be concerned with all 50 state constitutions again? The federal constitution doesn't need to be scaled back all that much, we just need to adopt the correct constitutional construction.

Have you read that book yet, or don't you like original sources???

You want us to be ruled by the States, but know nothing of their Constitutions. Seriously, dude.

[John Taylor]

You want us to be ruled by the States, but know nothing of their Constitutions. Seriously, dude.

Again, you don't read so good do ya??? I know about my state's constitution, and that of the state of Ohio, and the state of Michigan, and the state of Minnesota. I do know a good deal about what is contained in the several state's constitutions, even though that is completely beside the point here...

Where again in the federal constitution is the federal government granted any police power whatsoever?

The states have police powers, the federal government does not. It's a simple matter.

[Galileo Galilei]

Where exactly in the federal constitution is the federal government given any police powers whatsoever?

This is a thread about comparing the State Constitutions to the federal Constitution. Since you don't seem to know anything about even a single State Constitution, you are just trying to derail my thread.

[John Taylor]

This is a thread about comparing the State Constitutions to the federal Constitution. Since you don't seem to know anything about even a single State Constitution, you are just trying to derail my thread.

As I've mentioned ad nauseum, I know a good amount about the AZ state constitution, a good amount about the MN state constitution, a good amount about the OH constitution, and a good amount about the MI state constitution.

Again, where in the federal constitution is there granted to the federal government any of the police powers you are championing?

You obviously don't know anything about the United States constitution. Pitiful.

[Galileo Galilei]

Again, you don't read so good do ya??? I know about my state's constitution, and that of the state of Ohio, and the state of Michigan, and the state of Minnesota. I do know a good deal about what is contained in the several state's constitutions, even though that is completely beside the point here...

Where again in the federal constitution is the federal government granted any police power whatsoever?

The states have police powers, the federal government does not. It's a simple matter.

OK, I made a detailed analysis of Wisconsin's Constitution compared to the federal Constitution. Can you do the same for Ohio, Michigan, or Minnesota?

I doubt many people here know much about these state Constitutions. I sure don't. I do know that Michign has a really F'd up justice system that is even more tyrannical than the federal system. I personally know innocent people there who were convicted of serious crimes and the legal system and no mechanism to save them. They also put people in prison for life without parole for 650 grams of cocaine, I don't know if this is an outgrowth of their Constitution or not. They also hosed Dr. Kevorkian as well in Michigan.

[nobody's_hero]

In how many states have the people thrown out their constitution after it has become cluttered and started over fresh?

I'm tired of people whining about Constitutions being flawed as if there's nothing we can do about it except suffer under the governments that do not believe that the people are their masters.

Change them.

[John Taylor]

OK, I made a detailed analysis of Wisconsin's Constitution compared to the federal Constitution. Can you do the same for Ohio, Michigan, or Minnesota?

Sure. I didn't see you do any such thing regarding Wisconsin, so I'm not sure what you're looking for...


I doubt many people here know much about these state Constitutions. I sure don't. I do know that Michign has a really F'd up justice system that is even more tyrannical than the federal system. I personally know innocent people there who were convicted of serious crimes and the legal system and no mechanism to save them. They also put people in prison for life without parole for 650 grams of cocaine, I don't know if this is an outgrowth of their Constitution or not. They also hosed Dr. Kevorkian as well in Michigan.

Michigan has an excellent judicial system by and large, with several classical liberals on the state's supreme court. It isn't the state constitution which determines penalties for euthenasia (manslaughter and 2nd degree murder), or for drug possession... those are STATUTES!

[Galileo Galilei]

Where exactly in the federal constitution is the federal government given any police powers whatsoever?

Well, let's start with the power to supress rebellions. Or go after pirates, counterfeiters, or traitors.

Can you compare the police powers in the federal Constitution to those in your state Constitution?

[John Taylor]

Well, let's start with the power to supress rebellions. Or go after pirates, counterfeiters, or traitors.

Can you compare the police powers in the federal Constitution to those in your state Constitution?

There are no general police powers granted to the federal government, as such a grant would nullify the essence of federalism, imperium in imperio...

Sure, the federal government is not granted general police powers by the state of Arizona. Rather, Arizona retains and excercises those reserved police powers through her own statutory system, the Arizona Revised Statutes.

[Galileo Galilei]

There are no general police powers granted to the federal government, as such a grant would nullify the essence of federalism, imperium in imperio...

Sure, the federal government is not granted general police powers by the state of Arizona. Rather, Arizona retains and excercises those reserved police powers through her own statutory system, the Arizona Revised Statutes.

How can you supress a rebellion without police power? Another thing, Arizona was created by the federal government under the rules of the federal Constitution. If it wasn't for the federal government, it would be a province.

[John Taylor]

How can you supress a rebellion without police power? Another thing, Arizona was created by the federal government under the rules of the federal Constitution. If it wasn't for the federal government, it would be a province.

Arizona was not created by the federal government, it was admitted to the union of the several states, by the representatives of the several states. If it wasn't for the federal government, Arizona would likely be a fully independent country, or a state allied with the republic of Texas.

[heavenlyboy34]

Arizona was not created by the federal government, it was admitted to the union of the several states, by the representatives of the several states. If it wasn't for the federal government, Arizona would likely be a fully independent country, or a state allied with the republic of Texas.

This is true. The year of admission was 1849, if I recall correctly. Now we just need to get back out! :D

[John Taylor]

This is true. The year of admission was 1849, if I recall correctly. Now we just need to get back out! :D

I'm with you.

[erowe1]

Arizona was created by the federal government under the rules of the federal Constitution. If it wasn't for the federal government, it would be a province.

It would be a province of what country?

[Galileo Galilei]

Arizona was not created by the federal government, it was admitted to the union of the several states, by the representatives of the several states. If it wasn't for the federal government, Arizona would likely be a fully independent country, or a state allied with the republic of Texas.

If it wasn't for the US, Arizona would still be part of Mexico. Have you ever read about the Mexican Constitution and how it operated? They had a dictator within a few years of independence. Then they opposed the secession of Texas. Then they invaded Texas and lost the war. Then they refused to acknowledge the independence of Texas. Then they refused an offer from Polk to sell the New Mexico territory. Then they lost a war to the US despite the fact that they had an equal population at the time. Then the US, instead of making Mexicao a province and charging tribute, actually gave them back a majority of their land and paid them $15 million (plus another $10 million for the Gadsen purchase a few years later).

Then they let France invade and conquer them in the 1860s.

Can you tell us any details of the Arizona Constitution?

[John Taylor]

If it wasn't for the US, Arizona would still be part of Mexico. Have you ever read about the Mexican Constitution and how it operated? They had a dictator within a few years of independence. Then they opposed the secession of Texas. Then they invaded Texas and lost the war. Then they refused to acknowledge the independence of Texas. Then they refused an offer from Polk to sell the New Mexico territory. Then they lost a war to the US despite the fact that they had an equal population at the time. Then the US, instead of making Mexicao a province and charging tribute, actually gave them back a majority of their land and paid them $15 million (plus another $10 million for the Gadsen purchase a few years later).

Then they let France invade and conquer them in the 1860s.

Can you tell us any details of the Arizona Constitution?

Sure.

How do you KNOW that Arizona would still be part of Mexico? California was able to shake of Mexico without the U.S. government... like Texas had done years before.

[Galileo Galilei]

Sure.

How do you KNOW that Arizona would still be part of Mexico? California was able to shake of Mexico without the U.S. government... like Texas had done years before.

The same way you know that the 13 states would all be in idyllic bliss had they stuck with the AoC?

Well, let's see.

Without the Monroe Doctrine, maybe the British would have occupied Mexico? Or maybe France would have stayed there had we not kicked them out after the Civil War? Or maybe had Texas not joined the Union, they would have invaded Arizona? Maybe California would have invaded the New Mexico territory? What's your point? Do you know anything about any of the State Constitutions, or you just on a derail mission? If people are going to go with more states rights. Don't you think they ought to know what rights amd powers the states have?

[John Taylor]

The same way you know that the 13 states would all be in idyllic bliss had they stuck with the AoC?

Well, let's see.

Without the Monroe Doctrine, maybe the British would have occupied Mexico? Or maybe France would have stayed there had we not kicked them out after the Civil War? Or maybe had Texas not joined the Union, they would have invaded Arizona? Maybe California would have invaded the New Mexico territory? What's your point? Do you know anything about any of the State Constitutions, or you just on a derail mission? If people are going to go with more states rights. Don't you think they ought to know what rights amd powers the states have?

Yes, for the 5th time. What do you want to know?

[Anti Federalist]

Or this part of the NH constitution.


[Art.] 12-a. [Power to Take Property Limited.] No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property

I played a role in getting that passed, in the wake of the outrageous Kelo v. New London case.

Try that at a federal level.

[Galileo Galilei]

Or this part of the NH constitution.



I played a role in getting that passed, in the wake of the outrageous Kelo v. New London case.

Try that at a federal level.

That's awesome! Good job. Thank you for your service, and thank you for sharing some details on the NH Constitution.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, for the 5th time. What do you want to know?

How does your state measure up to the federal Constitution in regards to the length of the Constitution, readability, mechanisms for amendments, gambling, guns rights, veto power, mode of selecting judiciary, method of delegation of legislative powers, the Senate, mode of electing governor, slavery, mode of selecting other members of executive like attorney general, recalls, term limits, public schools, etc?

That's what I want to know.

[Number19]

...People have to live under state Constitutions. Most if not all of these are more tyrannical than the federal Constitution.But you do have a choice between 50 states and you do have freedom of movement. So if you choose to live in Wisconsin.......

[Number19]

...Outside of foreign policy, the state Constitutions do much the same as the federal; they regulate business, tax, and spend, run the courts, etc.

And if the federal Constitution is scaled back, then the latent powers of the state Constitutions will begin to manifest themselves...For a Republic, this is a fair assessment. However, the citizens of the states have greater representation and therefore greater control over their state government. If supporters of freedom can't manage to control at least one state........

[heavenlyboy34]

You want us to be ruled by the States, but know nothing of their Constitutions. Seriously, dude.

Misrepresentation of the anti-federalist position. :p The States would only "rule"(a misnomer, a more accurate word would be "serve") the people who live in them.

[heavenlyboy34]

FYI, OP, my State Constitution says "Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." The closet thing you'll find to such a severe check on the military in the Federal Constitution is where the President is named Commander in Chief. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;) (Plus, unlike the Feds, citizens are more able to control what goes on here. Competing with the Federal Leviathan is nearly impossible)

[jmdrake]

I think the thesis of the original thread misses the point. The federal government needs to be restricted more than a state government because it has more potential for abuse of power. I don't stay up at night worrying about what country Tennessee is going to invade next. That said, I'm not a "states rights" absolutist.

[Galileo Galilei]

FYI, OP, my State Constitution says "Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." The closet thing you'll find to such a severe check on the military in the Federal Constitution is where the President is named Commander in Chief. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;) (Plus, unlike the Feds, citizens are more able to control what goes on here. Competing with the Federal Leviathan is nearly impossible)

OK, that's a good find. What about the rest of your state constitution? What state is it?

Now just to be clear, does your state make the governor the commander-in-chief? Because if it doesn't, a vague claim doesn't mean it will work in practice. Or if there is a military by committee, that 's not good either. The correct principle is that war be declared by committee (legislature), but once it is declared, you need one person in charge.

Who has the power to declare war in you state?

[Galileo Galilei]

But you do have a choice between 50 states and you do have freedom of movement. So if you choose to live in Wisconsin.......

This sounds good, but there are two problems;

* all of my family and most of my friends live in Wisconsin, and my job is in Wisconsin.

* in a loose confederation, free travel between states is not a guarantee. Each state can set their own rules. So I could be an illegal alien if I went to another state. I might not be allowed to vote of run for office. I might not even have basic natural rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

OK, that's a good find. What about the rest of your state constitution? What state is it?

Now just to be clear, does your state make the governor the commander-in-chief? Because if it doesn't, a vague claim doesn't mean it will work in practice. Or if there is a military by committee, that 's not good either. The correct principle is that war be declared by committee (legislature), but once it is declared, you need one person in charge.

Who has the power to declare war in you state?

The Arizona Constitution can be read here-http://www.azleg.state.az.us/constitution.asp

I'll look up your other questions when I get a chance. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

This sounds good, but there are two problems;

* all of my family and most of my friends live in Wisconsin, and my job is in Wisconsin.

* in a loose confederation, free travel between states is not a guarantee. Each state can set their own rules. So I could be an illegal alien if I went to another state. I might not be allowed to vote of run for office. I might not even have basic natural rights.

These "problems" exist in the current system already. Try transporting goods by truck and you'll learn this the hard way. ;)

[Galileo Galilei]

These "problems" exist in the current system already. Try transporting goods by truck and you'll learn this the hard way. ;)

No, they don't. I can go to any state and vote and be a full citizen now.

And we have no internal tariffs.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, they don't. I can go to any state and vote and be a full citizen now.

And we have no internal tariffs.

Not so. Each state has requirements for State citizenship and voting, last I checked. (in AZ, you have to present 3 forms of ID to become a legal voter) We don't have internal tariffs per se, but every State has a system of regulations on domestic imports and the vehicles used to transport.

[Galileo Galilei]

Not so. Each state has requirements for State citizenship and voting, last I checked. (in AZ, you have to present 3 forms of ID to become a legal voter) We don't have internal tariffs per se, but every State has a system of regulations on domestic imports and the vehicles used to transport.

Arizona can't prevent me from being a citizen. In a loose confederation, they can.

I'd like you to go through each of the items of my initial post for Arizona.

[Number19]

This sounds good, but there are two problems;

* all of my family and most of my friends live in Wisconsin, and my job is in Wisconsin.It may be difficult to leave family and roots to seek a better life - but you do have the choice.


* in a loose confederation, free travel between states is not a guarantee. Each state can set their own rules. So I could be an illegal alien if I went to another state. I might not be allowed to vote of run for office. I might not even have basic natural rights.I was directing my response to the United States. Americans have always recognized the right of movement and I can't fathom a libertarian state keeping people out. Perhaps a less free state might not allow you to leave, but such guarantees could be written into the federal Constitution.

As far as I know, all states pretty much recognizes fundamental rights, but why would you move to a state that didn't?

As far as voting or running for office, this is likely true, until you become a citizen of that state. So I don't see the problem.

To repeat, my answers are directed to a Republic of the United States and given our history, I don't see Americans preventing freedom of movement.

[heavenlyboy34]

Arizona can't prevent me from being a citizen. In a loose confederation, they can.

I'd like you to go through each of the items of my initial post for Arizona.

You can be prevented from becoming a citizen of AZ, but not a US citizen. You're part right.

[Galileo Galilei]

It may be difficult to leave family and roots to seek a better life - but you do have the choice.

Things seem pretty screwed up in Arizona, I'd rather stay here in Wisconsin.


I was directing my response to the United States. Americans have always recognized the right of movement and I can't fathom a libertarian state keeping people out. Perhaps a less free state might not allow you to leave, but such guarantees could be written into the federal Constitution.

As far as I know, all states pretty much recognizes fundamental rights, but why would you move to a state that didn't?

As far as voting or running for office, this is likely true, until you become a citizen of that state. So I don't see the problem.

To repeat, my answers are directed to a Republic of the United States and given our history, I don't see Americans preventing freedom of movement.

You seem to have missed the point. In a loose confederation everything is on the table. Any state can keep people from other states out. They can block free trade or stop trade altogether. None of the protections in the Bill-of-Rights would apply, or other rights in later amendments. Things like poll taxes and segregated schools are possible, depending on what is in the state Constitution. Nobody here seems to know much about their state constitutions.

[Galileo Galilei]

You can be prevented from becoming a citizen of AZ, but not a US citizen. You're part right.

Ya, but in a loose confederation being a US citizen doesn't mean too much.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ya, but in a loose confederation being a US citizen doesn't mean too much.

As it turns out, the same applies in a "strong" confederation. (otherwise, there would be no need for a liberty movement to begin with) ;) Don't you recall the incidences of Extraordinary Rendition and other criminal acts committed against citizens just in the last decade? :confused::eek:

[Akus]

... it prohibits gambling. Yep that's in the Constitution, an anti-liberty provision right in the Constitution... As a Libertarian, and this may raise an eyebrow or two, I have no problem with a state legal body deciding to ban gambling. The tenth amendment of the US constitution allows them to do that and if people of Wisconsin want a gamble free state, they should have a right to live in one.

Remember, the states are like countries in a country and they can live however they see fit as long as they don't (see amendments 1 through 9 of the US Constitution)/

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I figured you'd have trouble staying on topic. The state Constitutions are worse than the federal Constitution.

Well, as my State's Constitution was rammed down my ancestors' throats for having the audacity to stand up to the Federal Government.............

[Galileo Galilei]

As it turns out, the same applies in a "strong" confederation. (otherwise, there would be no need for a liberty movement to begin with) ;) Don't you recall the incidences of Extraordinary Rendition and other criminal acts committed against citizens just in the last decade? :confused::eek:

I'm in favor a weak, but not loose confederation, like the Constitution installed, which remained in force until 1912. In 1912, the federal government only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP per the Mises Institute. In 1913, the states of the weak confederation changed it to a strong confederation.

In a weak confederation such as the Founders Constitution, being a citizen means quite a bit.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm in favor a weak, but not loose confederation, like the Constitution installed, which remained in force until 1912. In 1912, the federal government only accounted for 1.75% of the GNP per the Mises Institute. In 1913, the states of the weak confederation changed it to a strong confederation.

In a weak confederation such as the Founders Constitution, being a citizen means quite a bit.

True, but one could not move away if one disagreed the Constitution as before (aka "voting with one's feet). The post-AoC world leaves the individual with no place to hide, so to speak.

[Galileo Galilei]

As a Libertarian, and this may raise an eyebrow or two, I have no problem with a state legal body deciding to ban gambling. The tenth amendment of the US constitution allows them to do that and if people of Wisconsin want a gamble free state, they should have a right to live in one.

Remember, the states are like countries in a country and they can live however they see fit as long as they don't (see amendments 1 through 9 of the US Constitution)/

I understand that Wisconsin is "allowed" to do it. The federal government "allowed" Wisconsin to be a state in 1848 after all.

But that's not the point. The anti-gambling provision in the Wisconsin Constitution is anti-Libertarian, and is a weakness in the Wisconsin Constitution in comparison to the federal Constitution. The right to gamble is arguably a natural right under the penumbra of the Constitution, the Bill-of-Rights, and Declaration of Independence, including the 9th Amendment, 14th Amendment, and the right of pursuit of happiness, in conjunction with property rights and the right to contract. No state has the right to deprive anyone of their natural rights. They might have the power to get away with it, but that does not make it right.

Furthermore, an anti-gambling provision is an example of Constitutional micro-managing. Constitutional micro-managing is the leading contributor to overly long constitutions. Just leaving the gambling provision out makes the Wisconsin Constitution shorter and more likely to be read.

Leaving gambling up to the legislature is far preferable to enshrining an anti-gambling provision in the Constitution.

And one last proviso; I also believe in individual nullification. That means an individual can nullify an unjust or unconstitutional law. How do you do it? One simple way to do it in Wisconsin is to wager some coin on a few ballgames. That simple act of defiance nullifies tyranny.

[Galileo Galilei]

Well, as my State's Constitution was rammed down my ancestors' throats for having the audacity to stand up to the Federal Government.............

That's still off topic. How do the specific provisions of your state Constitution compare to the federal constitution?

[Galileo Galilei]

True, but one could not move away if one disagreed the Constitution as before (aka "voting with one's feet). The post-AoC world leaves the individual with no place to hide, so to speak.

Actually, the federal congress under the direction of James Madison passed an immigration law in 1789 that opened up citizenship to Jews and Catholics. In Europe at the time, Jews were ususally denied citizenship and either Protestants of Catholics were denied depending on which country you were in.

The Constitution therefore, opened up the whole nation to freedom of movement for Jews, Catholics, and Protestants.

Under the AoC, any state could prohibit Jews or Catholics form becoming citizens.