Posted on 03/15/2010 8:36:16 AM PDT by Publius
Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
5 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #3
/JUST kidding
Perhaps you would like to try your hand at the first discussion topic.
Hello Friend. Just received a very good read from a friend at work last Friday. If you want options, I strongly encourage you to read “The Grey Book.” It is a well written plan for an alternative to the corrupt gang ruling from DC.
The current situation is the federal government has all the power and the States have become mere provinces like in Canada.. mere vassals.. The States now serve the federal government not the other way around...
The political poles are those that want the (1)federal government to have even more power and the States LESS, and those that want the (2)States to have more power and the federal government LESS....
This dichotomy is NOT championed well.. These issues are clouded in reams of mush mouth and verbiage.. Its quite simple really.. We need some word butchers that can get down to the bone.. and trim the fat..
BUT; we would need some people that even know that this is the problem first..
Then it would fairly easy to butcher those mired in the quicksand of words..
Funny, we didn’t need consolidation to beat the Brits. And of course, we already WERE the United States before the constitution.
The Constitution was designed to produce just such a result:
"Thus I apprehend, it is evident that the consolidation of the States into one national government (in contra- distinction from a confederacy) would be the necessary consequence of the establishment of the new constitution, and the intention of its framers-and that consequently the State sovereignties would be eventually annihilated, though the forms may long remain as expensive and burdensome remembrances of what they were in the days when (although laboring under many disadvantages) they emancipated this country from foreign tyranny, humbled the pride and tarnished the glory of royalty, and erected a triumphant standard to liberty and independence. "
Antifederalist 39, A Farmer
Well said Hose!
What we need is a FEW good men who will stand up for the Constitution and require strict adherence to the thing!
Instead we have those who seek to undermine the Constitution making steady progress!
I don't believe that to be true but there are those who, from the very beginning, sought to bring about that result and they are currently winning!
If that was the aim NO STATE would have signed on..
The intent was for a confederation not a central government..
The States considered themselves sovereign, Sovereign States..
The federal government was intended for certain specific limited purposes..
The result has been in the STATES having certain specific limited purposes..
Democracy is Mob Rule.. by mobsters.. i.e. strong central government weak provinces.. even weaker local governments..
Did he take into account human nature, and the tendency on the part of those in power towards self-aggrandizement?
Thats why I am a radical not a conservative Bigun..
I'm looking for radical change back to the Republic from a democracy..
Restoring the Constitution to orginal intent..
Conservative change or modification WILL NOT DO IT..
It will take a radical change.. removing a few amendments..
Forrest McDonald's States' Rights and the Union covers the debate over federalism for the first one hundred years of the Republic, and it's a must-read for those who want to write about federalism.
What I find astonishing is that issues that were considered settled as far back as 1832 have come to the surface again. Thanks to the Tea Party movement, a rebalancing of the federal-state relationship may be in the cards.
Would take a States Rights Caucus to do it..
Parties seem to be becoming obsolete...
BUT a strong caucus would trump any Party...
The Articles were so effective that Virginia was on its own as Cornwallis and the infamous Tarleton cut a swath of destruction unequaled until the ravages of Sherman. The Virginia government had to flee across the Shenandoah. The situation was so bad a military dictator named Thomas Nelson was appointed. He confiscated stores and various supplies without regard to the law, from civilians to assist Washington and the French forces.
We won at Yorktown despite, not because of the totally inadequate Articles.
bookmark
That's incorrect. They had a confederation. They replaced it with a consolidated national gubmint.
That is simply untrue and I defy you to produce the evidence that the participants of the Philadelphia convention intended any such thing!
Actually, that was what Alexander Hamilton was pushing for in his 5 hour speech that opened the Convention. (Imagine five hours without a bathroom break!) Hamilton was pushing the idea as far as he could take it as a means of framing the issue, but no one really wanted to follow up on his suggestions. He had gone too far for most of the delegates.
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.