Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 77

Thread: What If the Government Followed Its Own Constitution?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ....You just validated what I said. The Articles didn't let the federal government fund wars. The new government gave itself that POWER.
    If you stop right there, and don't examine anything else, then it was a power grab.
    But you know as well as I that it does not stop with war funding.

    They may have tried to keep things contained to just the power they were grabbing in 1789, but that doesn't make what they did not a power grab.

    In my book, a Power grab and the ability to fund a war for the collective states, aren't the same thing. The term Power grab makes it sound like much more than funding a war for the collective.

    But if that's all you meant - I guess we agree.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ....You just validated what I said. The Articles didn't let the federal government fund wars. The new government gave itself that POWER.
    If you stop right there, and don't examine anything else, then it was a power grab.
    But you know as well as I that it does not stop with war funding.

    They may have tried to keep things contained to just the power they were grabbing in 1789, but that doesn't make what they did not a power grab.
    The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.
    Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.

    Great educational point

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.
    What power? The 9th and 10th amendment sure doesn't sound like a federal government power grab. The list of enumerated powers sounds as though the constitution limits federal authority and jurisdiction.

    You make a good point that some/many believed the AoC was being amended, but didn't they first talk about this and scrap it because it was easier to start fresh rather than Amend? They didn't lie about initially trying to amend the AoC, isn't that true?

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.
    Source?
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    The 1780s were a period of economic depression. US shipping was being pillaged by the Barbary pirates and insurance rates were 30% of the value of the cargo per shipment, and even at that rate insurers were going bankrupt. Efforts by cities and states to fund warships for protection of shipping failed. The problem to be solved by the Constitution was the ability to build a military that could protect American economic trade.

    so what you're saying was overseas imex was economically unreasonable way for goods to be traded because security expenses were absurd, so big government subsidized its security by charging locals; raising the cost of everything beyond what catallaxy considered affordable until imex goods were at par with the local economy. net result: the cost of everything rises for tax payers and big business shipping gains new entitlement to state funded security, marking the dawn of the American banana republic, and the beginning of imposition of big business entitlements over free market local trade.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    so what you're saying was overseas imex was economically unreasonable way for goods to be traded because security expenses were absurd, so big government subsidized its security by charging locals; raising the cost of everything beyond what catallaxy considered affordable until imex goods were at par with the local economy. net result: the cost of everything rises for tax payers and big business shipping gains new entitlement to state funded security, marking the dawn of the American banana republic, and the beginning of imposition of big business entitlements over free market local trade.

    It was a real disaster. Crop growers got paid for selling their crops. Ship owners retained their property. More ships got built to sell more goods outside of the United States. People were employed doing all of those things. And the national government stopped spending 20% of its budget on ransom payments. What fools our ancestors were to fall for that.

    Or, to put it in terms even an anarchist can understand, private security companies weren't up to the job.
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Source?
    My college US history text and prof for a few. It's also pretty common knowledge what the Convention was *supposed to be* for (at least it is for people my age and older).

    ETA https://history.state.gov/milestones...d-ratification :
    Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789

    The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relations with foreign governments. Under the reformed federal system, many of the responsibilities for foreign affairs fell under the authority of an executive branch, although important powers, such as treaty ratification, remained the responsibility of the legislative branch. After the necessary number of state ratifications, the Constitution came into effect in 1789 and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since.

    Bonus:
    Upon learning that my new book on Alexander Hamilton (Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution — And What It Means for Americans Today) will be published in October, a law student from New York University emailed to say how excited he was to hear of it. He wrote of how sick and tired he was listening to one of his NYU law professors, Nadine Strossen, constantly invoking Hamilton’s judicial philosophy (and that of his political descendants) to promote bigger and bigger government, day in and day out, in class. Being schooled in the classical liberal tradition, this student understood that bigger and bigger government always means less and less individual liberty.
    Hamilton was indeed the founding father of constitutional subversion through what we now call "judicial activism." That’s why leftist law professors like Strossen lionize him in their classrooms while barely mentioning opposing viewpoints.
    Hamilton was the leading advocate of a constitutional convention to "amend" the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. He lobbied for seven years to have such a convention convened, constantly complaining to George Washington and anyone else who would listen that "we need a government of more energy." Patrick Henry opposed Hamilton by sagely pointing out that the Articles of Confederation had created a government powerful enough to raise and equip an army that defeated the British empire, and that that seemed sufficient to him.
    At the convention, which scrapped rather than amended the Articles of Confederation, as had been promised, Hamilton laid out his grand plan: A permanent president who would appoint the governors of each state, and who would, through his state-level puppets, have veto power over all state legislation. A national government with the president given essentially the powers of a king is what he advocated. It was all rejected, of course, when the convention spurned Hamilton’s nationalism and adopted a federal system of government instead, with only a few powers delegated to the central government by the sovereign states, mostly for foreign affairs. Hamilton subsequently denounced the new constitution as "a frail and worthless fabric."
    He and his political compatriots, such as Senator Rufus King of Massachusetts, and John Marshall of Virginia, then set about to sabotage the new Constitution by "reinterpreting" the document as something very different from what was clearly written in black and white. His purpose, wrote Cornell University historian Clinton Rossiter in his book, Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, was to build "the foundations of a new empire."
    Jefferson and most other founders viewed the Constitution as a set of constraints on the powers of government. Hamilton thought of it in exactly the opposite way — as a grant of powers rather than as a set of limitations — a potential rubber stamp on anything and everything the federal government ever wanted to do. He and his fellow nationalists (the Federalists) set about to use the lawyerly manipulation of words to "amend" the Constitution without utilizing the formal amendment process. "Having failed to persuade his colleagues at Philadelphia of the beauties of a truly national plan of government," Rossiter wrote, "and having thereafter recognized the futility of persuading the legislatures of three-fourths of the states to surrender even a jot of their privileges, he set out to remold the Constitution into an instrument of national supremacy."
    And how did he "remold" the Constitution? He began by inventing a number of myths (i.e., lies) about the American founding. On June 29, 1787, before the Constitution was even ratified, he said that the sovereign states were merely "artificial beings" that had nothing to do with creating the union — despite the fact that the Constitution itself (in Article 7) declared that the document would be ratified (if it was to be ratified) by the citizens of at least nine of the thirteen states. He told the New York State Assembly in that same year that the "nation," and not the states, had "full power of sovereignty," clearly contradicting the written Constitution and actual history. This lie would be repeated by nationalist politicians from Clay, Webster and Story, to Lincoln. It is still repeated to this day by various apologists for the American empire.
    When President Washington asked Hamilton his opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank, Hamilton responded with a long-winded report that argued that if one reads between the lines of the Constitution, one discovers "implied powers" that are not specifically delegated to the central government by the states. Like the creation of a central bank, for instance. Secretary of State Jefferson was also asked his opinion on the matter, and essentially said that all he saw "between the lines" of the Constitution was blank space.
    Hamilton prevailed, setting the template for the eventual destruction of the Constitution. "With the aid of the doctrine of implied powers," Rossiter wrote approvingly, Hamilton "converted the . . . powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 into firm foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate." He established the foundations for unlimited government, in other words.
    Hamilton also invented the "doctrine" of "resulting powers." If the united States ever conquered one of their neighboring countries, he wrote, "they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather the result from the whole mass of government . . . than a consequence of . . . powers specially enumerated." Thus, if government engages in an unconstitutional act, such as an undeclared war of conquest, then according to Hamilton, the fact that the conquest occurred would create a new constitutional right.
    It was Hamilton who first advocated the broadest possible interpretation of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution so that he could make his case for corporate welfare in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. "It is . . . of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare," he wrote. Naturally, the legislature would be eager to define every piece of special-interest legislation to be serving "the general welfare."
    Again celebrating the political trickery of his hero Hamilton, Rossiter wrote that "Thus with a flourish did Hamilton convert the fuzzy words about the u2018general Welfare’ from a u2018sort of caption,’ as Madison described them, into a grant of almost unlimited authority" of the federal government.
    Hamilton was also likely to be the first to twist the meaning of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gave the central government the ability to regulate interstate commerce, supposedly to promote free trade between the states. Hamilton argued that the Clause was really a license for the government to regulate all commerce, intrastate as well as interstate. For "What regulation of [interstate] commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every State?" he asked. His political compatriots were all too happy to carry this argument forward in order to give themselves the ability to regulate all commerce in America.
    Hamilton also invented the notion of special "war powers" that are not specifically delegated to the federal government by the states. He subsequently argued for a standing army, funding of the army "without limitation," and the nationalization of all industries that supplied goods to the army.
    Jefferson opposed Hamilton on this and all of his other constitutional subversions. In his first annual message to Congress as president, he said that it is neither "needful or safe that a standing army should be kept in time of peace." In a September 9, 1792 letter to President Washington, Jefferson wrote that he "utterly . . . disapproved of the system of the Secretary of the Treasury [Hamilton] . . . . His system [of a national bank, protectionist tariffs, and corporate welfare] flowed from principles averse to liberty, & was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic . . ."
    Clinton Rossiter’s book on Hamilton and the Constitution is a masterwork of scholarship, but when Rossiter editorializes he sounds quite giddy in his celebration of Hamilton’s subversion of the Constitution. "Hamilton had no equal among the men who chose to interpret the Constitution as a reservoir of national energy," he wrote. All of the nationalist politicians and jurists of early America, from John Jay to Rufus King to Joseph Story and John Marshall, owed Hamilton a debt of thanks for "having taught his friends how to read the Constitution." Senator Rufus King of Massachusetts was so impressed by Hamilton’s conniving slickness, and its potential to cause government to grow vastly larger than what the Constitution called for, that he promised him "assistance to whatever measures and maxims he would pursue."Justice Joseph Story became "the most Hamiltonian of judges," according to Rossiter, faithfully reproducing the lie that the states were never sovereign; he "construed the powers of Congress liberally"; and "even found the Alien and Sedition Acts constitutional in retrospect." (The Sedition Act outlawed criticism of the federal government, a crystal-clear repudiation of the First Amendment). Story’s book, Commentaries on the Constitution, published in 1833, was a roadmap for nationalists who wished to further destroy constitutional limitations on government. It could just as well have been entitled "Commentaries on Alexander Hamilton’s Commentaries on the Constitution," says Rossiter.
    The book was essentially a political training manual for "the legal profession’s elite — or at least among the part of it educated in the North — during the middle years of the nineteenth century." The Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution, based on actual historical reality as opposed to the lies, myths and superstitions of Hamilton, Marshall and Story, was more popular in the South. (Perhaps the best exposition of this tradition is St. George Tucker’s A View of the Constitution of the United States.)The Jeffersonian interpretation of the Constitution was all but wiped out by Lincoln’s war, after which Hamiltonian hegemony prevailed for decades. Slowly but surely, virtually all vestiges of Jefferson’s strict constructionism were swept away so that by the 1930s the "principles of nationalism and broad construction expounded by Hamilton and his disciples" finally monopolized constitutional law in America, wrote Rossiter. Between 1937 and 1995, not a single federal law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hamilton’s "rubber stamp" constitution was firmly in place. It is little wonder that a law student like our NYU correspondent, who is familiar with the Jeffersonian and classical liberal traditions, would be disgusted by his pontificating professor’s expositions of Hamilton’s subversive constitutional trickery.
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/...al-subversion/
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 11-26-2016 at 12:48 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    My college US history text and prof for a few. It's also pretty common knowledge what the Convention was *supposed to be* for (at least it is for people my age and older).

    ETA https://history.state.gov/milestones...d-ratification :
    Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789

    The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relations with foreign governments. Under the reformed federal system, many of the responsibilities for foreign affairs fell under the authority of an executive branch, although important powers, such as treaty ratification, remained the responsibility of the legislative branch. After the necessary number of state ratifications, the Constitution came into effect in 1789 and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since.

    Bonus:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/...al-subversion/
    Now have a look at how history is done at the graduate level - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-...-constitution/
    Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.

    Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pericles View Post
    Now have a look at how history is done at the graduate level - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/economic-...-constitution/
    1) that's undergraduate level writing, style, and format 2) it doesn't offer any arguments or evidence that hasn't been dealt with in this thread and related threads in the past. Feel free to try again sometime. ~hugs~
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.
    These are your words.

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    United States Constitution that emerged from the convention established a federal government with more specific powers...
    this is what you referenced.



    As I wrote above and your reference explains(mostly), the Constitution defines specific powers the federal govement has, a good portion relating to foreign affairs. But these are specific and not general powers. They are defined and not unlimited. They are minimal and not a power grab.

    It sounds to me as though your reference contradicts you but feel free to explain.
    Last edited by TommyJeff; 11-26-2016 at 04:55 PM.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Thing is, they didn't even need to scrap the AoC to do that. In fact, the authors of the CONstitution were believed by regular folks to be amending the AoC. The CONstituiton was a power grab and coup.
    This is exactly what it was.

    The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a strong central government and it worked beautifully.
    There is no spoon.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    This is exactly what it was.

    The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to create a strong central government and it worked beautifully.
    is anyone suggesting the federal government wasn't made to be stronger or more powerful under the constitution in relation to AoC?


    But why would a power grabbing coup offer limited and defined federal powers and include the 9th and 10th amendments? You can't suggest those things make the federal government more powerful can you?

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    is anyone suggesting the federal government wasn't made to be stronger or more powerful under the constitution in relation to AoC?


    But why would a power grabbing coup offer limited and defined federal powers and include the 9th and 10th amendments? You can't suggest those things make the federal government more powerful can you?
    Because the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES would not sign the document or become part of a united States of America w/o the Bill of Rights.

    Below is a great answer I found a while back when explaining the Federalists and the Anti-federalists to some friends:

    ~What you have to understand is something that you will never be taught in school. When Great Britain granted independence to the colonies by the Treaty of Paris, 1783, thirteen new nations were created. Those nations never attempted to, or wanted to, combine into a single nation. Each was an independent, autonomous, sovereign state (as in "nation-state"), For their common defense and economic good, the allied into a confederation, first under under the Articles of Confederation, then under the Constitution of the USA.

    At the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention in 1787, they met to revise the Articles in a effort to strengthen and make more efficient the federal - not national - government. The delegates, especially the anti-federalists - were very concerned about granting too much authority to the federal government, in fear that the member nations would be subsumed into a single whole and their unique individual independence would be lost. (Those fears were realized in 1861-1865).

    It was an understood given that any nation that joined the confederation would have the option, at its sole discretion or by the vote of the people therein, to opt out of (secede from) the confederation at any time. Amendments IX and X were included in the Bill of Rights as an additional guarantee of that right.

    Because history is written by the victors, and because the USA confederation successfully invaded, conquered and annexed the free and independent member nations of the CSA (it was not a civil war by any stretch of the imagination), you are taught that the USA was established as a single nation from the outset. That is simply not true. The Founding Fathers and Framers of the constitution had no such goal in mind and everyone - then - knew it. That is why the New England states felt justified (and rightfully so when they threatened to secede in 1803, 1812, 1814 and yet again in 1815. That is why states on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line felt justified in threatening to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821, and again over the 1852 Taney Court ruling in the Dred Scott case, and why Abe Lincoln himself stood on the floor of Congress on January 12, 1848 and argued in favor of the right.

    Given that the very core principle of the Declaration of Independence is that a state (again, nation-state) or a people have the right to change of leave a government that no longer serves, defends and protects the rights and interests of the governed, the delegates who had just shed so much blood, money time and effort in doing so were not about to so easily and simply throw the right in the garbage. Although all present agreed that the right was an implicit, if not express, given, they, and especially the anti-Federalists, wanted a written guarantee. The amendments were also intended to insure that the federal government would be limited to the expressly enumerated powers accorded to it in the Constitution and the Amendments expressly reserved onto the people and the member nations all powers, rights and authority not so expressly set forth.

    By the time the CSA was conquered and annexed, the federal government had evolved into a national government, as feared by the Framers, and the USA had evolved into a single nation, composed of subservient political subdivisions called states. Understanding this will give you a little insight into the State's Rights issues that were ultimately settled in 1861-65. Naturally, one cannot teach this because the truth tarnishes the image of the martyred, deified demigod that led the invasion, conquest and annexation (Lincoln) and it necessarily belies the bogus "justification" espoused by the victors for the invasion (ie: "preserving the union"). With the conquest and annexation complete, and after the governments of the people, by the people, for the people of the CSA had perished from the earth, Amendments IX and X lost much of their import.

    Sadly, it is more than probable that your teacher, having been raised on the myths, legends and memetic algorithms that pass themselves off as "history" is probably unaware of the "truth" and has probably never even considered it, let alone researched and studied it. Such is the way nationalist, chauvinist propaganda works. However, the facts are still extant and with nominal effort, they can be found.
    Oscar Himpflewitz · 7 years ago
    There is no spoon.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post

    Below is a great answer I found a while back when explaining the Federalists and the Anti-federalists to some friends:
    that was an informative read but I think it proved my point more than yours.

    It addresses the state as being independent except in times of war for the collective states. It mentions the amendments that gives states and citizens power to abolish the federal government or alter it. And it addresses the enumerated powers of the federal government.

    We ageee on all that, but those all sound like ways to limit the federal government and not a power grab. Can you explain any better please?

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    that was an informative read but I think it proved my point more than yours.

    It addresses the state as being independent except in times of war for the collective states. It mentions the amendments that gives states and citizens power to abolish the federal government or alter it. And it addresses the enumerated powers of the federal government.

    We ageee on all that, but those all sound like ways to limit the federal government and not a power grab. Can you explain any better please?
    The major difference is that the "states" were actually separate countries. They were afraid that a strong central government, which was originally put together to help the 13 colonies in defense and trade ONLY, would have too much power and the individual "countries" would lose their freedom.

    They were right.

    The "Civil" War ended any "states" rights that were left and made everyone a slave, contrary to popular history.
    There is no spoon.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The major difference is that the "states" were actually separate countries. They were afraid that a strong central government, which was originally put together to help the 13 colonies in defense and trade ONLY, would have too much power and the individual "countries" would lose their freedom.

    They were right.

    The "Civil" War ended any "states" rights that were left and made everyone a slave, contrary to popular history.
    we still agree.

    However the point made earlier is that the constitution originally written was a coup to grab much federal government power.

    Because Lincoln and others unconstitutionally seized power is not the same thing as the constitution authorizing it as a founders intent.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    The Anti-Federalist POV:

    The three core issues:

    1. The omission of a bill of rights

    The absence of a bill of rights was an often-repeated criticism of the Constitution. Antifederalists not only believed that the inclusion of a bill of rights was essential to the preservation of liberty, but they also believed that a fundamental statement of political and legal principle would educate citizens about the ideals of republicanism and make them more effective guardians of their own liberty.

    2. The centralizing tendencies of the new government

    The new powerful central government created by the Constitution would slowly absorb all power within its orbit and effectively reduce the states to insignificant players in a powerful new centralized nation state. Antifederalists feared that the new Constitution would create a central state similar to Great Britain’s fiscal/military model. The extensive powers to tax, the provision for a standing army, and the weakening of the state militias would allow this new powerful government to become tyrannical. (This has pretty much been the result)

    3. The aristocratic character of the new government

    The charge of aristocracy frequently voiced by Antifederalists could be framed in either democratic terms or in a more traditional republican idiom. Thus, for middling democrats or plebeian populists, the charge of aristocracy was in essence a democratic critique of the Constitution. According to this view, the Constitution favored the interests of the wealthy over those of common people. For elite Antifederalists, by contrast, the charge of aristocracy echoed the traditional republican concern that any government with too much power would inevitably become corrupt and would place the interests of those in power over the common good.
    There is no spoon.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The Anti-Federalist POV:

    The three core issues:

    1. The omission of a bill of rights

    2. The centralizing tendencies of the new government

    3. The aristocratic character of the new government
    1. This has always fascinated me. If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater. However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.
    I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab. Please explain


    2. The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point. States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?

    3. Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.

    i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government. I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.
    Last edited by TommyJeff; 12-01-2016 at 11:07 PM.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    1. This has always fascinated me. If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater. However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.
    I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab. Please explain


    2. The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point. States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?

    3. Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.

    i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government. I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.
    Sorry- didn't mean to imply that the B of A was a power grab concern. These 3 points were the main concerns of the Anti-Federalists. The B of A was the major factor for most of the states to finally accept the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, the other 2 concerns took over rather quickly and today we can see the consequences.
    There is no spoon.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally.
    This is incorrect. One of the main reasons the Constitution was adopted was that the Articles of Confederation didn't grant the central government the power to tax; it could only request requisitions from the States, many of which ignored the requests and refused to pony up. This failure was pointed out in Federalist 15:

    The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confederation is in the principle of LEGISLATION for STATES or GOVERNMENTS, in their CORPORATE or COLLECTIVE CAPACITIES, and as contradistinguished from the INDIVIDUALS of which they consist. Though this principle does not run through all the powers delegated to the Union, yet it pervades and governs those on which the efficacy of the rest depends. Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States has an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either, by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America. The consequence of this is, that though in theory their resolutions concerning those objects are laws, constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they are mere recommendations which the States observe or disregard at their option.
    As a result, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gave Congress a broad taxing power, which could indeed reach individual citizens. Indeed, the only thing the Constitution says Congress can't tax is exports from a State to a foreign country.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    1. This has always fascinated me. If the bill of rights wasn't included, the current perversion of federal power would be much greater. However by listing just 10 items, it goes contrary to the enumerated powers throughout the constitution.
    I don't understand how the bill of rights is your first example of a coup power grab. Please explain


    2. The constitution did not let the federal government tax citizens, it could only tax the states equally. The states had power to form together and say no. Citizens cannot at this point. States also basically held the seats in the senate, how does that position equate to increasing federal power and not state power?

    3. Of course there were critiques, there was debate on many sides of many issues for quite some time. You're still not explaining how there was a coup to give the federal government all this power as a direct result of the constitution.

    i feel it important to say, again, that I agree with you on the current lopsided power favoring the federal government. I'm just failing to see your point that this is a direct result of the constitution.
    Correct.
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    This is incorrect. One of the main reasons the Constitution was adopted was that the Articles of Confederation didn't grant the central government the power to tax; it could only request requisitions from the States, many of which ignored the requests and refused to pony up. This failure was pointed out in Federalist 15:



    As a result, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution gave Congress a broad taxing power, which could indeed reach individual citizens. Indeed, the only thing the Constitution says Congress can't tax is exports from a State to a foreign country.
    That's not a "failure" (preventing the Fedcoats from stealing from people is a success), but you are otherwise correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Aren't legislative powers the ability to write laws? Discuss.
    Only to the degree of the grant.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  30. #56
    Oh, and BTW, I think the Constitution represents a colossal failure of imagination in the case where we assume there was no conspiracy afoot to scuttle real liberty.

    All the states had to do was make a coalition force for the common defense. Everyone contributes what they feel they need for defense of their respective territories on the understanding that some or all of those forces may be called upon to defend the other states. Problem solved from a federal standpoint. The funding becomes a state issue.

    The establishment of Congress and the central taxing power are the biggest nails in the coffin's lid. If we think of it carefully, there is absolutely no need for either and in fact neither of them makes a whit of sense from the standpoint of freedom.

    The first nine Amendments should have been the long and the short of the Constitution, the understanding being that if you want to be in the club called "America", you play by these rules. PERIOD. The Tenth Amendment is feces as far as I am concerned. Remove "the States" and I become less belligerent toward it. But as worded, it is complete shyte.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    That's not a "failure" (preventing the Fedcoats from stealing from people is a success), but you are otherwise correct.
    Was it OK for the States to steal from people? In other words, if a State wanted to honor a requisition under the AoC, was it OK for it to tax its citizens? And if it wasn't, then the AoC's procedure for requisitions was meaningless.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    All the states had to do was make a coalition force for the common defense. Everyone contributes what they feel they need for defense of their respective territories on the understanding that some or all of those forces may be called upon to defend the other states. Problem solved from a federal standpoint. The funding becomes a state issue.
    This overlooks the fact that (a) the central government under the Articles of Confederation had other expenses besides common defense -- for example, it had to conduct foreign affairs (which costs money) and it had a boatload of foreign debt. On top of that, some States refused to pay their requisitions, so that state funding didn't work.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Was it OK for the States to steal from people? In other words, if a State wanted to honor a requisition under the AoC, was it OK for it to tax its citizens? And if it wasn't, then the AoC's procedure for requisitions was meaningless.
    Of course not. But the thing is, when a state gets intolerable, you just move to another state. When the CONstitution's cartelized power decides to $#@! you over, there's nowhere to go(unless you're one of those lucky enough to have the means to move overseas to a tax haven).
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-02-2016 at 10:59 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    I agree that this is it's biggest weakness. I say that the Constitution should have proscribed some kind of harsh penalty for the violation of the oath of office. The oath swears or affirms to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would that a mechanism were provided for the people to prosecute an official for a violation of their oath.

    Say a really high bar like 25% of a district signatures sets a public referendum of "should this person be tried?" A majority "Yes" opens up a trial by grand jury. Twelve juries of 12 persons, each 12 person jury sequestered unto itself apart from the other 12 person juries. Individual 12-person juries must be unanimous to render a guilty verdict, but only a majority of the 12 juries finding guilty are necessary to render a guilty verdict. In the event of a 6 jury to 6 jury tie, then the question of guilt yes or no goes again to public referendum. If a finding of guilt is returned, then a series of types of crimes against the Constitution is defined, and a spectrum of punishment is laid out for each. They can range from high treason to middlin graft to incidental misuse of office. Array the fines and severity of imprisonment on a spectrum and let the people vote on the punishment. Center the average and the mean and then impose that punishment on the faithless elected.

    If a Congressman could potentially get 25 to life, or even the death penalty for failing to obey the Constitution, then it might change his perspective a little bit.
    I recall Molyneux lamenting something to the effect that his cell phone agreement was far more specific and detailed than the U.S. Constitution.
    Last edited by anaconda; 12-02-2016 at 11:44 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •