Replies

There is no point, you don't believe in the founder's original concept of the relationship between the federal and state; it is clear you are just another "statist". It isn't your fault really, republics are hard to keep - to wit Franklins answer "a republic if you can keep it"; it takes faith,fortitude, honesty and integrity. It takes understanding of how the republic is supposed to work, these qualities are lacking in you and unfortunately most of the entire US population. The only way to settle these differences exemplified by you is on the battlefield.

We have, as a nation, totally lost our way. The founders would be appalled at you in so many ways.

IMO The original "error" of including the BOR in the USC brought the whole Federal / individual relationship into play. That was not the purpose of the document as drafted. It's original purpose was to reign in the Federal's ability to concentrate power. The BOR just being in the USC elevated the Federal and watered down the whole intent.

We have nothing to discuss.

Well Mr. Franklin, we couldn't and didn't.

IMO The original "error" of including the BOR in the USC brought the whole Federal / individual relationship into play. That was not the purpose of the document as drafted. It's original purpose was to reign in the Federal's ability to concentrate power. The BOR just being in the USC elevated the Federal and watered down the whole intent.

Before the Bill of Rights, our Constitution created another new relationship between the individual and the U.S. Government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Government could not tax individuals and could only raise money by asking for contributions from state governments. The Constitution authorized the Congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" that individuals were required to pay directly to the United States government.

As Patrick Henry warned, the "we the states" foundation for the Articles of Confederation became a "we the people of the United States" foundation for the United States Constitution. Your belief that the Bill of Rights was some sort of "original error" should not cause you to pretend that they don't exist. They do exist.

I don't know how anyone can read the Articles of Confederation, then read the United States Constitution and conclude that the Constitution's "original purpose was to reign in the Federal's ability to concentrate power." The purpose of the Constitution was to dramatically increase the power of the U.S. Government. That's why Ben Franklin supported the Constitution and that's why Patrick Henry opposed it.

Anyway, like it or not, Americans (as individuals) now have a slough of direct relationships with one another and with our national government. As American citizens, we have numerous individual rights protected by the United States Constitution. The immediate effect of what you call a "secession" by a state would be to strip American citizens in that state of their American citizenship and of all of their individual Constitutional rights. Any honest argument in favor of "secession" needs to address that reality.

Have you ever looked up "republic" in a dictionary?

IMO The original "error" of including the BOR in the USC brought the whole Federal / individual relationship into play.

An odd position, since it was the anti-federalists who insisted on the Bill of Rights. But more to the point, the entire House of Representatives is based on the people's direct relationship to the federal government, and the ratification of the Constitution was by the people in convention, not by the state legislatures.

I’m curious if you’ve ever heard of “The Virginia Plan”?