Posted on 02/16/2005 1:26:49 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
A Congress existed, not the Congress of the United States. The States, acting collectively and cooperatively created the Federal Government. Your assertion that the States had no part in creation of the Federal Government is patently false.
You are wrong in all those counts. Washington's transmittal letter with the Constitution refers to the United States in Congress. It was commonly known as the Congress of the United States.
The states did not create the Federal Government, the Constitution did. There was no role for states until the Conventions called within states ratified and on their own initiative called for amendments. After Congress sent 12 to the state legislatures 10 were approved. THAT was the entire state involvement and they are still limited to amendment in impacting the Constitution.
Since the powers of the states were to be constrained by the Constitution (and they KNEW it) they would have NEVER cooperated in its creation. It was precisely the state political establishments which opposed and fought ratification tooth and nail. You will find few of the state politicians supported it and the vast majority opposed it with dubious rhetoric and nonsense passing for logic.
Why was the creation and empowerment of the Federal Government dependent on the ratification of the Constitution by the States, and why are amendments required to be ratified by the States? If Federal authority under the Constitution is not dependent on the States to grant it, why is their permission needed?
I didn't write this post, my keyboard did.
If that were the case I would have expected more.
Conventions of the American People gathered in states was the mechanism of approval NOT states per se. Congress determined HOW that approval was to be made and DELIBERATELY excluded the instruments of the states, the legislatures, from doing it. These conventions were much more democratic and representative of the people than were the legislatures which were elected by a tiny minority in most states.
There are two methods of amendment one is state approval of Congressional changes, the other is through a convention called by 3/4s of the states. State approval can be obtained through legislative action or through a convention called by the state. This method is part of what constitutes Federalism.
Our Founders determined that if 3/4s of the states approved changes that would be representative of the Will of the People. Since the Constitution is the creation of the People such super majoritys are necessary to express the true Will of the People.
That is the only role of the States in this process. Without the super majority their desires are irrelevent to federalism. This is also why the RAT Rebellion of 1861 was illegal.
You seem to be expecting a lot of things that aren't happening.
I KNEW I should have become a doctor, gotten two Labs and moved to Montana...
Only in regard to minor issues. So far am pretty happy about the major ones.
Apparently this whole routine is a minor issue, because nobody's buying it.
Not sure what you believe is not being bought but it matters not since my beliefs are not subject to majority approval.
What's not being bought is that Congress can expand it's authority by "living document" revisionism like the substantial effects doctrine, and as long as the USSC let's them do it, the States have to go along with it.
Since you apparently don't understand the origin of or the meaning of the Constitution who would believe you can coherently discuss whats living or dead?
When you buy into the "States created it" bilge you would likely buy into anything.
How did a 55 mph speed limit get established in many states, when it was an initiative in the Federal government? And, where was the authority in the Constitution to have the Federal government change those speed limits in the respective states?
Same thing goes for the raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21 in the mid-1980s
Why are the Legislature, Executive, and Judicial branches of government in DC referred to as 'Federal', rather than 'National'?
For what purpose was the Constitutional Convention called?
If the States are only administrative branches of the government in DC, why do they have their own legislatures, executives, and judiciary?
For what purpose, prior to the 16th Amendment, were Senators to DC appointed by State legislatures, rather than popular elections in their respective states?
Why is there an electoral college?
What is the 'incorporation' clause of the 14th amendment, and why was it deemed necessary? These are some of the questions off the top of my head. I have some more for later, if you'll bear with me.
My bad. 16th Amendment should read 17th amendment.
When you buy into the "States created it" bilge you would likely buy into anything.
Coming from someone who picked their screen name to irritate people, why would anyone believe you've got any interest in discussing the matter for any purpose, or on any terms other than to do just that?
You're simply opining. All State officials are duty bound to honor our Constitution. Montana officials rightly see that the Feds are infringing on the 2nd. This is all the 'authorization' they need.
The tenth amendment only involves matters such as state and local health regulations, police powers or issues not covered by federal law. It can do nothing in conflict with those laws. All in all it is one of the least used amendments in the development of constitutional law and appears to be essentially meaningless since the passage of the 14th. My view is that it was a sop to the slavers to mitigate their fear of fed involvement with their slaves.
View it as you like. The 10th does not stop States from challenging Federal 'law'.
Speed limits were and are somewhat varied throughout the states. This was true 40 years ago and is true today. Uniformity has been forced through the blunt instrument of highway funds but has never really been that consistent. There is full constitutional authority to establish speed limits on US highways as well as Interstates. State and country roads are not affected.
Drinking age legislation has been justified through the Commerce clause and I don't have much argument with that since liquor is part of interstate commerce and has had federal connections for centuries. Its sale and impact does not stop at state borders.
It is a distinction without a difference since Madison described the government as partly federal and partly National. But the Constitution was to establish a Union which is national though created through federalism. Our Founders did not want a monolithic National government which overroad all state and local power thus power to regulate at those levels was left primarily with state legislatures.
The CC was called to reduce the power of state governments and increase that of the federal government. This produced the anti-Federalist opposition which did not agree with the aim and fought the ratification.
State governments are not arms of the federal government though Madison wanted to make them just that prior to the CC. Local concerns were left to local institutions such as legislatures, courts, executive but they differed greatly in their natures and powers.
Senators were to represent the permanent National Interest and be above politics to some degree. The Senate was to be analogous to the House of Lords outside democratic control. Given the degree of corruption and cupidity within the typical state legislatures I see no current benefit to the original method of selection but would not oppose returning to the old method. Illinois would likely be represented by the same party hacks who typically represent it in the Senate a disgusting lot at best.
Executive election was not left in the hands of the people at large because of distrust of democracy. Legislatures were to appoint in any manner they chose electors who would vote for President. They could use an election, a lottery, a dart board whatever. It was felt that screening that choice from direct popular influence was the best procedure. It should be recalled that during that era Democracy was a negative term synonymous with mobocracy.
I am not familiar with the term "incorporation clause" wrt the 14th. But as to the need for the amendment as a whole it was to prevent the Slavers from re-enslaving the slaves in fact if not in name through the suppression of their rights and political power.
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.