CDZ What is the solution to the "illegal" American system?

[MisterBeale]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

Simple, we go back to using the articles of Confederation, like the sovereign people of this nation originally wanted. Just give the States and the people back their freedom. No more war for corporations profit, defense only.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/SMAN-107/pdf/SMAN-107-pg935.pdf

 

[MisterBeale]

However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

We do as the Founding Fathers intended and use the established process to amend it.

Yeah, that's worked out SOOOO well.

 

[Unkotare]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

Simple, we go back to using the articles of Confederation, like the sovereign people of this nation originally wanted.

Nonsense. The Articles were a failure.

 

[I amso IR]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible. It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park". However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts. This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc. Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

Seriously? You're that dumb?

The US is a federal system. The UN is a confederated system. In a confederate system, the STATE has the ultimate power. In a federal system, the central governing authority has the ultimate power. If the UN were a federal system, then UN resolutions would have binding power over their members. As it is, they don't. It is up to their member states to enforce them. If the member states don't want to enforce them, then that is too bad for the UN. Israel and the US have thumbed their nose at more resolutions than any other member. If the UN were a Federation, we would have lost our bill of rights and a whole lot of other things that make us Americans a long time ago. And the Israelis would have been forced to make a deal with the Palestinians WAY long ago.

This is a Federal system.

What is a Federation?

Contrary to traditional confederate legislation, federal legislation may extend rights and obligations directly on individuals in each member state. See figure below. Obviously it is much easier to coerce individuals than it is to coerce state authorities that have the full powers of the state at their disposal for protection. Thus the central powers tend to be much more important within a federation than within a confederation.

If state and federal laws conflict, as they invariably do eventually, it is the central body's laws and legal system that prevails. Central law is superior law, and the paths of control are top-down.

Since federal law prevails with respect to each individual, there is little or no need for the central government to directly instruct state law making bodies.

This is a Confederated System.

The traditional definition of a confederation is a body whose laws are binding only on sovereigns. This means that confederate legislation has to be transformed into internal legislation in each member state in order to be binding on that state's citizens and court system.


As the preceding figure shows, the paths of control in a confederation are top-down, but if a state fails to carry out confederate instructions, the confederation may take action only against state authorities. However, as happened during the Gulf war of 1991, it is common for state authorities to protect themselves behind a wall of ordinary people. (The United Nations is in fact a confederation, and the Iraqi authorities were probably legally bound to obey U.N. resolutions. However, legal technicalities turned out to be of minor importance as the Iraqi leaders hid and continues to hide behind a shield of innocent civilians and army personnel.) This makes the people rather than the responsible state leader suffer the consequences of illegitimate state action. As central decisions do not extend directly to individuals, traditional confederations are inherently unstable. Either they fall apart, with confederate instructions becoming no more than polite advice, or they evolve into federations.
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Confederations and Federations.htm


Confederations are political institutions that join people together that have common political interests but do not believe there should be an enforcement mechanism through violence.

Your source lacks credibility!

Blueprint for a New Confederation

About this site
This site is based on "As the People Want It, Blueprint for a new confederation" published by Fremskrittspartiets Utredningsinstitutt, an independent research institute dedicated to political and economic research and analysis in Oslo, Norway in 1992. (ISBN 82-7500-007-6).

The intention of this site is to present a model constitution (hyperlink to Main Features) based on the established concepts of popular sovereignty and knowledge gained from the newer field of Public Choice economics

Look here for the answers and the differences between the powers to "propose and persuade" and the powers to "coerce and compel".

Any comments or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely

John F. Knutsen​

Fine, what ever. If you want to throw out a poisoning the Well Fallacy, I'll use a different source. It still amounts to the same thing.

Federalist System

Federalism is marked by a sharing of power between the central government and state, provincial or local governing bodies. The United States is one example of a federalist republic. The U. S. Constitution grants specific powers to the national government while retaining other powers for the states. For example, the federal government can negotiate treaties with other countries while state and local authorities cannot. State governments have the power to set and enforce driving laws while the federal government lacks that ability. Modern Germany is also a federalist republic. The national government shares power with provincial political entities, known as “Länder.”


Confederations

A confederation has a weak central authority that derives all its powers from the state or provincial governments. The states of a confederation retain all the powers of an independent nation, such as the right to maintain a military force, print money, and make treaties with other national powers. The United States began its nationhood as a confederate state, under the Articles of Confederation. However, the central government was too weak to sustain the burgeoning country. Therefore, the founding fathers shifted to a federal system when drafting the Constitution. A contemporary example of a confederation is the Commonwealth of Independent States, which is comprised of several nations that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. These nations formed a loose partnership to enable them to form a stronger national body than each individual state could maintain.

Differences in Unitary Confederate and Federal Forms of Government The Classroom Synonym

Which was derived from this source.

political system Confederations and federations Britannica.com

CONFEDERATIONS AND FEDERATIONS​

Confederations are voluntary associations of independent states that, to secure some common purpose, agree to certain limitations on their freedom of action and establish some joint machinery of consultation or deliberation. The limitations on the freedom of action of the member states may be as trivial as an acknowledgment of their duty to consult with each other before taking some independent action or as significant as the obligation to be bound by majority decisions of the member states. Confederations usually fail to provide for an effective executive authority and lack viable central governments; their member states typically retain their separate military establishments and separate diplomatic representation; and members are generally accorded equal status with an acknowledged right of secession from the confederation. The term federation is used to refer to groupings of states, often on a regional basis, that establish central executive machinery to implement policies or to supervise joint activities. In some cases such groupings are motivated primarily by political or economic concerns; in others, military objectives are paramount.​

Both sources agree that the Confederation failed because it doesn't work to have a weak central government.

Why go back to something that has already proven itself to be a failure?

Fine, then let's get rid of the UN and the EU.

The UN is an example of a failed confederacy and the EU is dealing with the consequences of a failing confederacThere are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible. It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park". However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts. This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc. Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.y.

But you didn't answer the question about why you want to force Americans to adopt a failed system of government?

I am so IR responds; Do you really read or simply speed read? Having read some of your responses on other topics, I doubt either. Please try reading and comprehending my statement fully.

"There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible. It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park". However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts. This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc. Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it."
******************************************************************************************************
Where do I state "we" as a nation should revert to a Confederacy? Further, I do state, "Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form?

My desire is to understand and consider the American system as, just, legal and proper. I have asked for help in doing that. Probably should have known better. If you feel a Confederacy and a Federal system are one in the same, I do not need your help, Je Suis Charlie.

Your own words:
"Federation and Confederation mean the same thing."
"There is no differentiation from the point of view of definitions."
"What difference do you perceive other than that the South chose to use the term Confederacy when it illegally succeeded."

Further, MisterBeal, above, has offered substance to the claim that the "Washington Elite" of the period in fact wrote the Preamble for themselves and not for the citizens. Since the Preamble was written prior to the establishment of the Federation of States that charge has some merit, not a heck of a lot, however some. Lysander Spooner also makes some sense with his above quote.

Finally, since you and one other brought up the South and that war, show me where, within the United States Constitution, succession is prohibited. And don't give me babble along lines of so & so said this or that. Show me! The best you can do is state it does not say "a state may succeed". That is not a suitable answer to the matter as the Founders and Constitutional fathers, finding The Confederation lacking should have included such language had they thought succession probable. It is apparent they held no such thoughts and if they had, would have taken steps to prevent it. Or they simply did not care one way or the other by that time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

We do as the Founding Fathers intended and use the established process to amend it.

Yeah, that's worked out SOOOO well.

Prove that having a weaker central government would be any different.

Bear in mind that it was only by weakening the existing Federal government that enabled that skewed wealth distribution to occur in the first place.

Just look at the history of this nation and see that it was the Federal government that took down the "robber barons" and the cartels and made things more equitable.

Then we come to the St Reagan deregulation era of gutting the Federal government and the wealth all flows back into the hands of the 1% because of a weakened central government.

Your post has effectively destroyed your own position.

 

[MisterBeale]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

Simple, we go back to using the articles of Confederation, like the sovereign people of this nation originally wanted.

Nonsense. The Articles were a failure.

Yeah, absolutely. I think we went over this in post #10. It depends on your perspective. Since elites and the oligarchy run this nation, they will have you believe that. I'll agree with you, The Articles were a disaster for consolidating power. They were a disaster for controlling competition, controlling currency, and big business interests. If you wanted to control trade and markets, a Confederation was awful, I agree. However, I think that is EXACTLY what would remedy all of our societies ills today.

Forcing the little people of this nation to do the elites will, and taking away their freedom and sovereignty, the Articles of Confederation just didn't give the political elites enough control. However, it's doubtful those patriots would have stood for a Monarchy after the type of political propaganda that got them to take up arms for England, isn't it?

So, International Bankers and corporatists went into a super secret meeting and invented, for the very first time, something that had never been seen or tried anywhere on the planet. Something that would give them the tyrannical power they desired, yet convinced the people that their democratic rights would still be preserved. That something was the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus was born, federalism.

International Bankers and corporatists, media and cultural elites through out the industrial and post industrial era have always had a tendency to go into super secret meetings to discuss the future of human events and write policy and documents that will have far reaching consequences. The Federal Reserve Act on Jekyll Island is one HUGE example. I can't tell you how much that has affected everyone's lives. The latest was this TPP, and soon this TIPP. I can't tell you how huge this will be to all of our futures. They always pull this shit in secret w/o input from the people.

 

[Unkotare]

The Articles were a disaster for consolidating power. ...

They were a disaster for forming a functioning nation. They left the country weak, divided, and poor. They all but guaranteed the eventual dissolution of the nation. Find another fantasy.

 

[MisterBeale]

The Articles were a disaster for consolidating power. ...

They were a disaster for forming a functioning nation. They left the country weak, divided, and poor. They all but guaranteed the eventual dissolution of the nation. Find another fantasy.

There were already 13 functioning nations. The banking cartel wanted one. The people didn't.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's a fact, at the time the Constitution was drafted, folks from New York, didn't think of themselves as, "Americans," they thought of themselves as New Yorkers. And folks from Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians. So how can someone post, "It all but "guaranteed that dissolution of the nation?"

That's the fantasy. Folks didn't want that. It was forced on them by the elites.

 

[MisterBeale]

However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

We do as the Founding Fathers intended and use the established process to amend it.

Yeah, that's worked out SOOOO well.

Prove that having a weaker central government would be any different.

Bear in mind that it was only by weakening the existing Federal government that enabled that skewed wealth distribution to occur in the first place.

Just look at the history of this nation and see that it was the Federal government that took down the "robber barons" and the cartels and made things more equitable.

Then we come to the St Reagan deregulation era of gutting the Federal government and the wealth all flows back into the hands of the 1% because of a weakened central government.

Your post has effectively destroyed your own position.

Any nation on earth is free to provide better technology or computer services than the US. When the US was making cars, we supplied the world with the best and the most for many years. The world did not have an "anti-trust" suit because we were making all the TV's, radio's, computer's and cars.

However, eventually, other nation's produced them, WITHOUT an anti-trust suit. This whole "robber baron" shit you were taught in school, was just a bunch of folks that didn't want to compete, using the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so they didn't have to. Perhaps if there hadn't been a Federal government in the first place, there would not have ever been the need. We shall never know.

The Truth About the "Robber Barons"
Mises Daily Mises Institute
Because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency (and lower prices), the company's share of the refined petroleum market rose from 4 percent in 1870 to 25 percent in 1874 and to about 85 percent in 1880.[27]

As Standard Oil garnered more and more business, it became even more efficient through "economies of scale" — the tendency of per-unit costs to decline as the volume of output increases. This is typical of industries in which there is a large initial "fixed cost" — such as the expense involved in building an oil refinery. Once the refinery is built, the costs of maintaining the refinery are more or less fixed, so as more and more customers are added, the cost per customer declines. As a result, the company cut its cost of refining a gallon of oil from 3 cents in 1869 to less than half a cent by 1885. Significantly, Rockefeller passed these savings along to the consumer, as the price of refined oil plummeted from more than 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents in 1874 and 8 cents in 1885.[28]

Because he could refine kerosene far more cheaply than anyone else could, which was reflected in his low prices, the railroads offered Rockefeller special low prices, or volume discounts. This is a common, ordinary business practice — offering volume discounts to one's largest customers in order to keep them — but Rockefeller's less efficient competitors complained bitterly. Nothing was stopping them from cutting their costs and prices and winning similar railroad rebates other than their own inabilities or laziness, but they apparently decided that it was easier to complain about Rockefeller's "unfair advantage" instead.

Cornelius Vanderbilt publicly offered railroad rebates to any oil refiner who could give him the same volume of business that Rockefeller did, but since no one was as efficient as Rockefeller, no one could take him up on his offer.[29]

All of Rockefeller's savings benefited the consumer, as his low prices made kerosene readily available to Americans. Indeed, in the 1870s kerosene replaced whale oil as the primary source of fuel for light in America. It might seem trivial today, but this revolutionized the American way of life; as Burton Folsom writes, "Working and reading became after-dark activities new to most Americans in the 1870s."[30] In addition, by stimulating the demand for kerosene and other products, Rockefeller also created thousands upon thousands of new jobs in the oil and related industries.

Rockefeller was extremely generous with his employees, usually paying them significantly more than the competition did. Consequently, he was rarely slowed down by strikes or labor disputes. He also believed in rewarding his most innovative managers with bonuses and paid time off if they came up with good ideas for productivity improvements, a simple lesson that many modern corporations seem never to have learned.

Of course, in every industry the less efficient competitors can be expected to snipe at their superior rivals, and in many instances sniping turns into an organized political crusade to get the government to enact laws or regulations that harm the superior competitor. Economists call this process "rent seeking"; in the language of economics, "rent" means a financial return on an investment or activity in excess of what the activity would normally bring in a competitive market. This sort of political crusade by less successful rivals is precisely what crippled the great Rockefeller organization.

The governmental vehicle that was chosen to cripple Standard Oil was antitrust regulation. Standard Oil's competitors succeeded in getting the federal government to bring an antitrust or anti-monopoly suit against the company in 1906, after they had persuaded a number of states to file similar suits in the previous two or three years.

There is no such thing as, "DE-regulation" when it comes to business. You watch too much TV and listen to too much radio or read too much CFR news propaganda. It matters not whether you are a Democrat or Republican. The State is always involved in the economy, it is only a matter of degree.

How can we hypothesize that income inequality would be less if the States were confederated? Well, for one, nearly every European State, save for one or two, has less income inequality. This has mostly to do with banking control, but it also has in large measure do to with commerce control via state regulations.

Due to the interstate commerce clause, the Constitution explicitly gives control over interstate commerce to the Federal Government. Early on, the power hungry fools in DC made it know to the sovereigns of the States that this would mean every facet of their lives. Likewise, the Federal Government has the power to coin money, which they unconstitutionally surrendered to a private banking cartel which manipulates the economy for the nefarious goals of the political and financial elites. This too increases the wealth gap. I think you will forever be too obtuse to ever explain in detail how this works, however, it would only be possible with a central authority in DC. This is one of the reasons the political elites created the IBS, the Word Bank, and the ECB. With consolidation, brings control for the elites and further wealth disparity. Decentralization brings freedom for the masses.

Do you think it is just coincidence that world wealth disparity has gotten greater as more of these institutions are created and their activity goes up? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Unkotare]

Folks didn't want that. ....

Folks did want an actual nation. The Constitution was ratified. Spin and revise all you want, you can't change that fact.

 

[I amso IR]

Ok, so to this point in time, the founding of the Nation allowed the money folks to accumulate the bulk of the wealth to the tune of roughly 60%. Since the forming of this Nation is the tool which allowed 1% to hold the bulk of the wealth, how is that reversed to allow more money to flow back to the people. Is that a function of the people, the government, exactly what is the path to righting this wrong? Do we chalk it up to, let the wealthy who have the means to formulate change, throw bits and pieces to the population hoping to appease them. How is this situation mediated? To my way of thinking, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do the people demand more anti monopoly legislation? One thing seems certain. The wealthy have the means to defend and manipulate. On the other hand the people have the numbers of and in the population. Is this a matter of the size of the 1% holdings trumps the people's numbers in terms of population? Should that be the actual situation, what is the solution? And in addition has this accumulation of massive wealth, by 1% of the of the population, if that is in fact truth, has it been a criminal act? Were the founders engaged in criminal activities insisting that this form of government be accepted. Was their goal to create a wealthy base while regulating the majority into a "caste" system, with the wealthy calling the shots and the masses following behind in the Pied Piper frame of mind? I tend to feel that is not the case, but what do I know? My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy.

 

[I amso IR]

8/11/2015 Seems as tho this thread hit a dead end with the "get off of your butt and create something. As honestly I thought it would.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Simple, we go back to using the articles of Confederation, like the sovereign people of this nation originally wanted. Just give the States and the people back their freedom. No more war for corporations profit, defense only.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/SMAN-107/pdf/SMAN-107-pg935.pdf

"The sovereign people"???? The people you claim to speak for viewed it as "the sovereign authority of the whole people" So either you are ill-informed or making stuff up. You could say I am in error, but if you do please be respectful and show links to the people who founded this nation using and or thinking in your term 'sovereign people' (note: I am assuming you believe in being a sovereign citizen)

Americans as a whole people, as a sovereign people, voted to change from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute​

where is the link between your first sentence and this gem: "No more war for corporations profit,"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you gonna go fishing?
Cause you are opening a can o' worms....

Another civil war may help reestablish the "confederation" but it was not a confederation after the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of govt....

I amso IR responds;

I am aware of that point and thought I opened with that in mind. However, my question is and remains, what action is needed should our current system actually be faulty?

Simple, we go back to using the articles of Confederation, like the sovereign people of this nation originally wanted.

Nonsense. The Articles were a failure.

They may have been, but your answer has avoided stating anything of substance or value.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Articles were a disaster for consolidating power. ...

They were a disaster for forming a functioning nation. They left the country weak, divided, and poor. They all but guaranteed the eventual dissolution of the nation. Find another fantasy.

There were already 13 functioning nations. The banking cartel wanted one. The people didn't.

They were not 13 functioning nations. Stop being disingenuous.

VI.
No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

...more...​

Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation March 1 1781

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a fact, at the time the Constitution was drafted, folks from New York, didn't think of themselves as, "Americans," they thought of themselves as New Yorkers. And folks from Virginia thought of themselves as Virginians. So how can someone post, "It all but "guaranteed that dissolution of the nation?"

That's the fantasy. Folks didn't want that. It was forced on them by the elites.

try reading

Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation March 1 1781

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ok, so to this point in time, the founding of the Nation allowed the money folks to accumulate the bulk of the wealth to the tune of roughly 60%.

Since the forming of this Nation is the tool which allowed 1% to hold the bulk of the wealth, how is that reversed to allow more money to flow back to the people. Is that a function of the people, the government, exactly what is the path to righting this wrong? Do we chalk it up to, let the wealthy who have the means to formulate change, throw bits and pieces to the population hoping to appease them. How is this situation mediated?

To my way of thinking, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Do the people demand more anti monopoly legislation? One thing seems certain. The wealthy have the means to defend and manipulate.

On the other hand the people have the numbers of and in the population. Is this a matter of the size of the 1% holdings trumps the people's numbers in terms of population? Should that be the actual situation, what is the solution?

And in addition has this accumulation of massive wealth, by 1% of the of the population, if that is in fact truth, has it been a criminal act? Were the founders engaged in criminal activities insisting that this form of government be accepted.

Was their goal to create a wealthy base while regulating the majority into a "caste" system, with the wealthy calling the shots and the masses following behind in the Pied Piper frame of mind? I tend to feel that is not the case, but what do I know?

My belief is that anyone, depending upon their personal motivation and ability, may within the system, go up or down. It is one's motivation which dictates their position in life. And many folks simply do not place a priority on being wealthy.

The forming of this nation had nothing to do with how the 1% today have gamed the system.

What is the link between this post and the OP?

 

[I amso IR]

There are persons or person who feel the American system of government have been taken over by "criminal persons or entities" by moving from a Confederation of States to a Federation of United States. Since my understanding of the subject is unclear, I ask for assistance from the readers and responders of the "Clean Debate Zone", what they feel is needed to reverse or correct, or replace this flaw, should it exist. Please be as concise as possible.

It is understood, by most (I believe) such an effort, that of changing a form of government is not a "walk in the park".

However, simple analogies are often helpful in portraying ones thoughts.

This is an honest appeal for I am often adrift in a sea of statements, quotations and wording from 230 years ago ect, ect, etc.

Why are certain elements of government cited as "criminal" for working within the constraints of accepted practice or law, should that law exist, in it's accepted form? I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it.

No insult intended. I know schools have changed how they educate people. The process of creating and ratifying the US Constitution was not a 'walk in the park' not by any definition.

Junior High School Civic Class 101:

For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Article VI Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
​

Now, you end with "I am truly trying to understand what the issue is and what is needed to correct it." so, you jump from asking if there is a problem to stating there is a problem.

I amso IR responds;

Thank you for the response and we would like for you to know we value your input. It will be forwarded to the Office of Evaluation for usable content.

Troll much Dante? You must live a horrible and lonely life! You bemoaned thread take over in another area of interest, earlier, and left the thread at least three times, only to keep blabbing. Is that your game here? Won't work Oh Great Italian Impostor! See you around.