Replies

That's strange, so did the authors and founders of the Constitution and the Republic under it.

(sigh)

Try comprehending the words of the Founders before you try to fit them to your agenda.

Federalist #34
Suppose, then, the convention had been inclined to proceed upon the principle of a repartition of the objects of revenue, between the Union and its members

WHO are the members of the Union? The STATES

----

Federalist #39
that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy

WHO are the "political bodies composing the Confederacy"? The STATES

***Here's the rest of Federalst 39 that you so noticably failed to mention:

In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

-----

Federalist #45
Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States

-----

Your 3rd link doesn't work, but I found it anyway.

Anti Federalist # 3 concludes:

The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance.

-----

I also noticed you skipped Federalist #43:The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes

--------------------------

I see nothing in your post to negate my original contention.

If you believe the Founders created either a wholly national OR a wholly federal government, you are incorrect. It is a hybrid government operation in each jurisdiction (federal/national) only in certain enumerated areas.

WHO are the "political bodies composing the Confederacy"? The STATES

And what did the Constitution replace the Confederacy with?

It was replaced by a Republic and national govenment operating with concurrent jurisdiction on the individual within the states, not a Federation operating on the the States as was the case of the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

The operation of the constitution changed the form of government from a confederation to that of a Republic.

Here's the rest of Federalst 39 that you so noticably failed to mention

A description of what was replaced by the Constitution, (i.e. the confederacy operating with respect to States under the Articles of Confederation,) not applicable to what exists today as a Republican form of government operating with respect to individuals concurrent with the States. One must point out that with is applicable now, not what was being replaced by the Constitution.

For it is to be distinctly noted that taxation under the Constitution is what exists today, with a concurrent jurisdiction over the individual as regards taxation.

Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Your 3rd link doesn't work, but I found it anyway.

Google, does have an occassional function. With updated link we look again.

Anti Federalist # 3 concludes:

The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance.

Hate to be the one to inform you of this, the Anti-Federalists were the opposition to the Constitution, and lost the argument over whether or not we would continue with the Articles of Confederation.

While the setiments may be of some value in recognition of concern for the rights of the individual, With the ratification of the Constitution, the controlling document and its express guarantee of a republican government today, your sentiment was tossed into the dustbin of history as description of a form of government that was replaced 2010 years ago.

A sentiment of why there should be no change from the Articles of Confederation, loses to the established fact that the Constitution was ratified and replaced that prior form of government with a National form, not a Federal form of government nor a loose confederation of states as existed under the Articles.

For in Regards the Constitution which is the charter of national government in effect today,

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

Anti-Federalist Papers #3 NEW CONSTITUTION CREATES A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT;

There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution.

I also noticed you skipped Federalist #43:The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession;as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes

Strange that you overlook the implicit recognition of the "Concurrent" character of the national jurisdiction over the individual that statement requires to have meaning.

The national government is not local, it has national purpose and a concurrent jurisdiction as regards taxation and all powers expessly enumerated in the Constitution,

Such is denied to the states and the people respectively as is clearly under scored in the 10th amendment.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That amendment is a sword that swings two ways, powers being expressly given to the National government or that are prohibited by the constitution to the states are not within the perview of the states nor the people, out side their capacity to amend the constitution under Article V.

I see nothing in your post to negate my original contention.

Other than the fact the Constitution was ratifie, replacing the Articles of Confederation by a national Republic guaranteed under that Constitution.

IF you believe the Founders created either a wholly national OR a wholly federal government, you are incorrect. It is a hybrid government operation in each jurisdiction (federal/national) only in certain enumerated areas.

LOL, enumerated "powers", its geographichal area of concurrent power is a jurisdiction over all individuals in all the states.

Federalist #34:

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

A jurisdiction clearly supported from the earliest Supreme Court decisions of judges who were also delegates and participants in the creation of the National constitution that established those powers.

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

This was a writ of Error directed to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia; and upon the return of the record, the following proceedings appeared. An action of debt had been instituted to May Term, 1795, by the attorney of the district, in the name of the United States, against Daniel Hylton, to recover the penalty imposed by the act of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, for not entering, and paying the duty on, a number of carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which he kept for his own use. ... is not a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution,

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"