The Bill of Federalism

[manifold]

Fair enough.

I didn't mean the Civil War was the ending point. I meant that it made the end inevitable.

 

[American Horse]

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?

Let's see: You mean to say you trust and would choose one over-arching government from which there is no option to flee, nor to draw a comparison, as opposed to 50 state governments, from which, if you find the power of your own state exceeds your tolerance limits, of having a choice of moving to another state's jurisdiction with less onerous rules, regulations, taxation, laws, requirements, and all that those things impose on your personal freedom?

Doesn't the first, overarching system seem to be the perfect situation of limiting the pool of political talent to those most bent on tyranny from which there is no escape?

And doesn't the second system preserve testing options - the states - for the development and comparisons of competing ideas that allow for experimentation with success and failure without the cost of failure being too great, or without the total elimination of choice for those living out those social experiments in those political and legal jurisdictions?

 

[midcan5]

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.

Damn, talk about wacky, I'm not even going to call that analysis.

Northern aggression? That would mean the agreement to join the Union had no legal footing, an argument I'm sure you could make in your imaginary world.

The federal government is made of three branches, the idea here is checks and balances, the people who made what you call 'apartheid' are from those very states, slavery was unique in that it existed in the south as the backbone of an unjust economic system. It was wrong, doesn't matter that it was tolerated for so long. (see link)

If a state breaks the law of the land, the federal government is there to correct it. That is the purpose of checks and balances and of being part of the union. If the federal government breaks the law there are courts and elections. Sorry, but the 'United' means more than your narrow ideology. And the SCOTUS makes mistakes but I bet when they support your ideology you don't notice. PS You remind me of Scalia, you could debate a sunny day was night and believe it.



"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

 

[editec]

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.

Oh, stop... you'll turn my head. Just trying to live down to your expectations, chum.

There must be a bias you have that rearing its head.

Or in your reading of what I posted?

So the federal government is always correct in its decisions to protect individual rights?

Like the above for example. Can you find anywhere in my post that proposed anything remotely like how you just characterized it?

Of course you can't...but that's how you read it, isn't it?

Go back and read it again, without you pinko colored glasses on.

Lawyers are supposed to respect the words, dude.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Why does there NEED to be legal conformity on everything from state to state? As far as I'm concerned, the Founding Fathers were correct about which things require federal oversight and conformity, and the rest SHOULD be left up to the wills of the various peoples. What's wrong with saying that Arizona ain't California, and doesn't want to be, and Americans - children of the land of choice and opportunity - should have the option of one or the other or something else entirely different?

And it frankly doesn't matter what YOU want or think, unless you can get a lot of other people to agree with you enough to change the law. Whether you personally agree or not, it IS the law, and you don't just get to throw it out because you've decided it was a bad idea.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Damn, talk about wacky, I'm not even going to call that analysis.

Northern aggression? That would mean the agreement to join the Union had no legal footing, an argument I'm sure you could make in your imaginary world.

The federal government is made of three branches, the idea here is checks and balances, the people who made what you call 'apartheid' are from those very states, slavery was unique in that it existed in the south as the backbone of an unjust economic system. It was wrong, doesn't matter that it was tolerated for so long. (see link)

If a state breaks the law of the land, the federal government is there to correct it. That is the purpose of checks and balances and of being part of the union. If the federal government breaks the law there are courts and elections. Sorry, but the 'United' means more than your narrow ideology. And the SCOTUS makes mistakes but I bet when they support your ideology you don't notice. PS You remind me of Scalia, you could debate a sunny day was night and believe it.



"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

AmericanHeritage.com / Why the Civil War Was Fought, Really

First, you are the least person to tell me what my ideology is. Pretending you know something about it puts you immediately in a hole.

Second, thank you for even mentioning me in the same sentence as Justice Scalia, an honor I do not deserve.

Third, I didn't analyze anything so there is no reason for you to call it analysis. I just called for you to explain yourself.

Fourth, I'm very aware of the system of checks and balances within the national government. You apparently are unaware of Federal character of the Constitution and the role states play in it. Here's James Madison in Federalist 39 to get you up to speed:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.

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.

It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.

In this last arena, it has been called into question (most recently by the several states that are contesting the federal government's power when dealing with the states) whether the tribunal is impartial and its decisions are according to the rules of the Constitution. Madison was well aware of the alternatives.

So, in final analysis, my views about "United" are well founded in the Federalist Papers. Where do yours come from?

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

Oh, stop... you'll turn my head. Just trying to live down to your expectations, chum.


Or in your reading of what I posted?

So the federal government is always correct in its decisions to protect individual rights?

Like the above for example. Can you find anywhere in my post that proposed anything remotely like how you just characterized it?

Of course you can't...but that's how you read it, isn't it?

Go back and read it again, without you pinko colored glasses on.

Lawyers are supposed to respect the words, dude.

Come on Edi...I was just trying to give you a little respect. Don't take it in the worst possible light.

Your post indicates that the increased power in the state end of the federal system, may result in "capricous and overbearing and corrupt" state governments and no better protect individual rights. In addition you say that increasing state rights may "balkanize" the country.

So, my analysis of those statements was that you must not be arguing for nothing, that you must be arguing in the alternative. The only alternative I know is national government. I haven't noticed that you are an anarchist, so I didn't think you were arguing for no government at all. If there is some alternative I missed, let me know and I'll recant.

Words do indeed mean things, so do the construction of arguments with those words. If I've misapprehended your meaning, please set me straight.