The Bill of Federalism

[Angel Heart]

http://www.federalismamendment.com/The_Bill_of_Federalism.pdf

 

[editec]

And all you have to do is CONGRESS to pass it?

Good luck with that.

I'm tellin ya' states righters...if ya want to take back the power ya got to have a constiutional convention and SPELL OUT CLEARLY what rights the FEDS have.

No more ambiguous language, no more vague descriptions that are really only suitable for the 18th century, you have got to clearly state what powers the states have, the Feds have and the PEOPLE retain free from abuse by EITHER the states or the FEDS.

 

[KittenKoder]

... and start using common English!

 

[jillian]

That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.

What a backwards looking paradigm....

Why on earth would we look to failed systems?

 

[editec]

That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.

What a backwards looking paradigm....

Why on earth would we look to failed systems?

Because they really do want the SOUTH TO RISE AGAIN, of course.

I mean just look at the policies of the Republican party of late and tell me Jeff Davis wouldn't happily sign onto most of them.

 

[mash107]

And all you have to do is CONGRESS to pass it?

Good luck with that.

I'm tellin ya' states righters...if ya want to take back the power ya got to have a constiutional convention and SPELL OUT CLEARLY what rights the FEDS have.

No more ambiguous language, no more vague descriptions that are really only suitable for the 18th century, you have got to clearly state what powers the states have, the Feds have and the PEOPLE retain free from abuse by EITHER the states or the FEDS.

That's what the Constitution did.

10: 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.

In other words, half of what the federal government is doing now are what the States should be doing. The other half are illegal under amendment 9.

9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Too bad our overlords treat the Constitution as nothing more than toilet paper.

 

[mash107]

That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.

What a backwards looking paradigm....

Why on earth would we look to failed systems?

An overbearing, central government is the most failed of all systems. Aristorcracy/monarchy is not a good thing to regress to, as much as you may like. The most progressive of ideas was that that was born in the 18th century in the American colonies where the people and the states have the rights and the central government is subservient to the will of the people, not the other way around.

 

[editec]

That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.

What a backwards looking paradigm....

Why on earth would we look to failed systems?

An overbearing, central government is the most failed of all systems. Aristorcracy/monarchy is not a good thing to regress to, as much as you may like. The most progressive of ideas was that that was born in the 18th century in the American colonies where the people and the states have the rights and the central government is subservient to the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yeah here's the thing...restoring (or increasing depending on your view of it) powers to the states does not insure citizens' individual rights.

What is does, or at least so the Federalist argument goes, is balkanize the USA from one (perhaps) potentially oppressive, but centrally powerful, (ergo more cohesisve national) government, to fifty potentially oppressive governments which lack that benefit of national cohesion?

Now do any of us think that state governments cannot become capricous and overbearing and corrupt?

Or do we recognize that the exact same complaints that we with have with Federalist abuse of government power will manifest in the state capitals?

 

[Tech_Esq]

That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.

What a backwards looking paradigm....

Why on earth would we look to failed systems?

An overbearing, central government is the most failed of all systems. Aristorcracy/monarchy is not a good thing to regress to, as much as you may like. The most progressive of ideas was that that was born in the 18th century in the American colonies where the people and the states have the rights and the central government is subservient to the will of the people, not the other way around.

Yeah here's the thing...restoring (or increasing depending on your view of it) powers to the states does not insure citizens' individual rights.

What is does, or at least so the Federalist argument goes, is balkanize the USA from one (perhaps) potentially oppressive, but centrally powerful, (ergo more cohesisve national) government, to fifty potentially oppressive governments which lack that benefit of national cohesion?

Now do any of us think that state governments cannot become capricous and overbearing and corrupt?

Or do we recognize that the exact same complaints that we with have with Federalist abuse of government power will manifest in the state capitals?

Your analysis on this thread is really beneath you. There must be a bias you have that rearing its head.

So the federal government is always correct in its decisions to protect individual rights? Like they were when they ordered the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans and then the Supreme Court upheld it as proper in the Koromatsu decision. Or maybe an example of how well the federal government upholds individual rights was the Dred Scott decision? Or how about Plessy v. Ferguson? Maybe that's that you mean by the Federal Government supporting individual rights?

What you'd like us to focus on was the one time where states' rights supported slavery and Jim Crow, while conveniently forgetting the National government's role in both of those institutions. You also conveniently forget all of the states that supported and fostered the abolition movement at the state level. Those were also those laboratories of democracy that eventually forced the end of the slavery. This was against the prevailing view of the national government at that time that you want to be the sole arbiter of individual freedom.

We can guarantee but one thing, that is that whatever the guarantor of our freedoms, it will be imperfect. This is because it is a creation of man and man is imperfect. I would chose to have 50 small guarantors where I can move freely from one that I despise to another I feel is more superior that a single large one that becomes oppressive that forces me to change my citizenship and way of life if I chose to leave. The stakes are far too high to vest the preservation of rights in one entity.

 

[amrchaos]

When you lose power, pull out your trusty pocket constitution and tell the people why the current regime is not following it to the T.


Like I said before, after it sets up the Republic, the Constitution is no more than propaganda.

 

[amrchaos]

I was just thinking--I do not want a nation in which power is handed mostly or totally over to the states.

All that does is create a nation composed of radically different laws from region to region. No form of legal stability would exists in the nation! Why not treat states like states treat Counties? You know, some self government when dealing with local issues, non at the General state level?

 

[Tech_Esq]

When you lose power, pull out your trusty pocket constitution and tell the people why the current regime is not following it to the T.


Like I said before, after it sets up the Republic, the Constitution is no more than propaganda.

All you need is a Supreme Court that refuses to follow the Constitution and you are absolutely right!

Jefferson was adamant about this in his later years. He was exceedingly distraught about the seizure of authority by the Marshall court to "say what the law is."

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was just thinking--I do not want a nation in which power is handed mostly or totally over to the states.

All that does is create a nation composed of radically different laws from region to region. No form of legal stability would exists in the nation! Why not treat states like states treat Counties? You know, some self government when dealing with local issues, non at the General state level?

Yet for most of this nation's history, that's the way it was. At least until the 1940s.

Remember the Constitution, you think is just propaganda (luckily most of us don't agree with you), provides for limited national government that gives all the stability required and the states are required to have a republican form of government. The fact is that the variances between the states was not extreme at all.

 

[midcan5]

That reads like a lawyer's wet dream.

"The rights of citizens of the United States include all the enumerated and
unenumerated liberties, and privileges recognized by this Constitution. Nothing in
this constitution shall be construed to create any conclusive or irrebuttable
presumption that a law, regulation, or order of the United States or of a State does not
infringe such rights. In any case or controversy in which an abridgment of such rights
is alleged, no party shall be denied the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise
show that a law, regulation or order is an unreasonable restriction on such rights and
therefore is unconstitutional."

Huh?

 

[midcan5]

Your analysis on this thread is really beneath you. There must be a bias you have that rearing its head.

Curious post, you forget the Civil War? And you forget it was those bad liberal courts at the federal level who reversed these wrongs. You have some pretty heavy blinders.

One more thing, did you want fifty masters when the Republicans were in charge?

 

[manifold]

I was just thinking--I do not want a nation in which power is handed mostly or totally over to the states.

All that does is create a nation composed of radically different laws from region to region. No form of legal stability would exists in the nation! Why not treat states like states treat Counties? You know, some self government when dealing with local issues, non at the General state level?

Yet for most of this nation's history, that's the way it was. At least until the 1940s.

Remember the Constitution, you think is just propaganda (luckily most of us don't agree with you), provides for limited national government that gives all the stability required and the states are required to have a republican form of government. The fact is that the variances between the states was not extreme at all.

You're only off by about 80 years. The Civil War was the death blow to states rights, it's just taken a little while to bleed out. Without the right to secede, states rights is pure fantasy. The ONLY reason the states still retain ANY power at all is because the Fed hasn't gotten around to taking it away...yet.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Your analysis on this thread is really beneath you. There must be a bias you have that rearing its head.

Curious post, you forget the Civil War? And you forget it was those bad liberal courts at the federal level who reversed these wrongs. You have some pretty heavy blinders.

One more thing, did you want fifty masters when the Republicans were in charge?

I did not post this to you. If you had made that post, I would have said it was so typical of your usual "analysis"

What about the War of Northern Aggression? I'm not going to fill in the blank for you. If you want to say something about it, go ahead.

So, if Federal Government only makes it the law of the land to enforce apartheid type policies for 58 years, that's a pretty good protection of individual rights to you? As long as they eventually get it right, it's ok? How is that any better than state's rights?

At least if a state or two fucks up, it's only those states that are effected. When the Supreme Court fucks it up, it impacts the entire country. And then it only takes a couple generations to fix it? That sounds like a pretty shitty trade off to me.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I was just thinking--I do not want a nation in which power is handed mostly or totally over to the states.

All that does is create a nation composed of radically different laws from region to region. No form of legal stability would exists in the nation! Why not treat states like states treat Counties? You know, some self government when dealing with local issues, non at the General state level?

Yet for most of this nation's history, that's the way it was. At least until the 1940s.

Remember the Constitution, you think is just propaganda (luckily most of us don't agree with you), provides for limited national government that gives all the stability required and the states are required to have a republican form of government. The fact is that the variances between the states was not extreme at all.

You're only off by about 80 years. The Civil War was the death blow to states rights, it's just taken a little while to bleed out. Without the right to secede, states rights is pure fantasy. The ONLY reason the states still retain ANY power at all is because the Fed hasn't gotten around to taking it away...yet.

Actually I'm not off by 80 years. Go look up the case of Hamer v. Dagenhart. You must have a VERY odd view of what state's rights are about. It is simply adherence to the doctrine of federalism that is one of the foundational principles of this country.

 

[manifold]

Yet for most of this nation's history, that's the way it was. At least until the 1940s.

Remember the Constitution, you think is just propaganda (luckily most of us don't agree with you), provides for limited national government that gives all the stability required and the states are required to have a republican form of government. The fact is that the variances between the states was not extreme at all.

You're only off by about 80 years. The Civil War was the death blow to states rights, it's just taken a little while to bleed out. Without the right to secede, states rights is pure fantasy. The ONLY reason the states still retain ANY power at all is because the Fed hasn't gotten around to taking it away...yet.

Actually I'm not off by 80 years. Go look up the case of Hamer v. Dagenhart. You must have a VERY odd view of what state's rights are about. It is simply adherence to the doctrine of federalism that is one of the foundational principles of this country.

Why odd? My view is pretty simple really. States rights are about the states retaining the power to self-govern except for matters where power is specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. Is your view different than that?

 

[Tech_Esq]

You're only off by about 80 years. The Civil War was the death blow to states rights, it's just taken a little while to bleed out. Without the right to secede, states rights is pure fantasy. The ONLY reason the states still retain ANY power at all is because the Fed hasn't gotten around to taking it away...yet.

Actually I'm not off by 80 years. Go look up the case of Hamer v. Dagenhart. You must have a VERY odd view of what state's rights are about. It is simply adherence to the doctrine of federalism that is one of the foundational principles of this country.

Why odd? My view is pretty simple really. States rights are about the states retaining the power to self-govern except for matters where power is specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. Is your view different than that?

The reason I said 'odd' is your focus on the civil war in your response.

In the discussion of state's rights, it is significant, but not as an ending point. The real ending point for state's rights was United States v. Darby Lumber Co.. In that case the USSC said that the 10th Amendment is a "truism" and contains no enforceable language against the federal government. That was 1941.

Up to that point Hamer v. Dagenhart was the law of the land. Hamer was the last of a line of several cases enforcing state's rights under the 10th Amendment well into the 20th century.