Posted on 04/20/2004 6:37:42 AM PDT by sheltonmac
No, sir. That would be a nationalist government, which was clearly rejected in the Federalist Papers in favor of a republican form of government, and finally embodied in the Constitution in Article IV Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Also, in order for there to be a national government, the state governments would have to be dissolved or rendered to being nothing more than mere local tax-collecting and election-conducting administrative units. However, the Madisonian concept of mixed sovereignty states that the federal government is to be supreme only in the powers explicitly granted to it (by the creating states) and all other powers not granted were to be retained by the states.
However, if we skip ahead to 1865, then your contention becomes correct in the realpolitik of post-Civil War governance. The main effect of the war's outcome (besides the hastening of the end of slavery, obviously) was that the United States went from being plural ("the United States are") to singular ("the United States is") in the sense that the federal government has been taking over many powers that the states once held.
I believe it's instructive to understand the thinking of Madison, Hamilton and Jay at the time in order to understand those aspects of the US Constitution. The founders studied the various republics in history as well in Federalist 6. My point being, our republic was different than previous republics because we addressed problems inherent to being a republic.
From Federalist 6:
"Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a well regulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.
"Carthage, though a commercial republic, was the aggressor in the very war that ended in her destruction. Hannibal had carried her arms into the heart of Italy and to the gates of Rome, before Scipio, in turn, gave him an overthrow in the territories of Carthage, and made a conquest of the commonwealth.
"Venice, in later times, figured more than once in wars of ambition, till, becoming an object to the other Italian states, Pope Julius II. found means to accomplish that formidable league,9 which gave a deadly blow to the power and pride of this haughty republic."
Our constitution does not give powers to the states, as I'm sure you already know. The constitution is specifically written as an instrument to limit federal powers. The abuses of the constitution, or should I say judicial interpretations and usurpation of state powers, have been around since the Civil War but worse over the past thirty years, which you also pointed out.
Perfectly clear this time ;o)
No, sir, again I have to respectfully disagree. Any discussion of several confederacies never got to a formal level, but remained more in the realm of gentlemen's parlour talk. The debate was in part federalism versus nationalism, but it also had more to do with whether a federal government could be constructed in such a way that the rights and powers of the then-sovereign states would not be diminished beyond those explicitly granted to the new government.
Our constitution does not give powers to the states, as I'm sure you already know. The constitution is specifically written as an instrument to limit federal powers. The abuses of the constitution, or should I say judicial interpretations and usurpation of state powers, have been around since the Civil War but worse over the past thirty years, which you also pointed out.
Exactly. The states were already sovereign, autonomous entities, with obligations under the Articles of Confederation that were obeyed or ignored at their whim. Although some on this forum will never accept the obvious, the states existed prior to the federal government and created it by granting certain explicit powers, and nothing more (I'm not lumping you in that category).
We have a winner!!! Ding ding ding!!! Give than man a ceegar!!!!!! (or a plug o' terbaky ;0)
True, but with all due respect that is not what you had said. And North Carolina and Rhode Island were not the only states to propose amendments similar to what became the Bill of Rights in their ratification documents.
"National" and "federal" can be regarded as antonyms, and to some degree were, but "national" was in no way regarded as the opposite of "republican." You could have a republic composed of a single polity, or a federation of separate republics, or a republic composed of smaller units in a federal union. Having a national or federal government in no way violated republican principles or prevented a country from having a republican form of government. Madison recognized that the system the Constitution established was in some ways federal and in other ways national. It was a blend of the two principles. The word "nationalist" wasn't very much in common usage at the time and looks a bit like a red herring.
The guarantee of a "republican form of government" to every state in the union, doesn't negate the national aspects of the Constitution. On the contrary, the fact that such a power was entrusted to the federal government goes against the idea that it was simply a creature or agent of the states. One can't imagine that the NAFTA authority would have any say in whether the US or Mexican governments were legitimate.
Sovereignty means the right to make the final choice in a matter. Delegating permission to make the final choice in some matters is an act of sovereignty. Remember, these things you list that the states can't do were, by written permission (the Constitution), lent to a government one level up, for convienance and efficiency.
Sovereign power establishes and ordains. The people are the final sovereign power in this country, and each of them must live in a state (othere than those who live in the District of Columbia). We have forgotten, and we pay for our loss of memory.
The war changed the basis for sovereignty, of course, by the simple inclusion of the 14th amendment. Read some of the SC cases that clarified the effects on state constitutions.
It is frightening how many of the predictions in the anti-federalist papers have come true. One can argue and win, and one can still turn out to be wrong.
We should have stayed a confederation, and would have, had those who were sent to the constitutional convention to remedy a few points of controversy fixed those instead of coming up with an entirely new constitution.
And yet, Madison's draft of the Bill of Rights did provide a guarantee of basic rights against the states: "No State shall infringe the right of trial by Jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press." It didn't go through the Senate, but its inclusion in the original draft suggests that the intentions of the Founders were more complicated than you or McCandless would allow.
Actions count for a lot. The states either didn't have or gave up the appurtenances of sovereignty: armies, mints, postal services, established churches, embassies. The Federalists clearly thought in terms of an American nation, and so, once they were actually in power, did the Jeffersonian Republicans. It was always possible that the Union would fail, as it was always possible that the Constitution wouldn't last, but the idea that conflicts could be simply and cleanly resolved by the the states picking up their marbles and going home is doubtful, especially once more states had been added and more obligations been contracted.
Of course, after over a century of discussion this conflict isn't going to be resolved any time soon (though the prudence of Rockwell's trying to bring such questions to the forefront of debate can certainly be questioned). But the idea that there was some easy, workable answer, generally or universally agreed to be true that was abandoned through force or treachery is one that doesn't stand up on examination. The question is a difficult one with many opportunities for legitimate disagreement, and your answer has at least as many problems as the current resolution, and was rejected on those grounds.
I disagree. The states subordinated themselves to the whole when they ratified the Constitution. They voluntarily placed the Constitution, and the requirements and restrictions it it, over them. The Constitution and the laws made under it is supreme, not the state laws or the state constitutions. That does not sound like a sovereign nation to me.
Which was rejected.
The people of each state have the sovereign power to alter their form of goverment, to amend or toss out their existing form of government. Nowhere in the federal Constitution is this prohibited, nor does the Supremacy clause extend over the people of the several states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.