Freedom's Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction

[Kevin_Kennedy]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Campaign For Liberty — Freedom's Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction   | by Timothy Baldwin

 

[Old Rocks]

I see. Can't get the Constitution of the United States of America to say what you want it to, so let's just do away with it.

Kevin, we live in the 21st century, not the 18th.

 

[jillian]

That's Kevin's greatest frustration... but the thinks he's smarter than the supreme court so it should say what HE wants it to.

Apparently, they've had it wrong for 200 years.

Me? I think Kevin should actually take a couple of con law classes before he claims to know even a little about it. but hey, why should he be informed?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Kevin,

The problem you'll have championing the Articles of Confederation is that many of the same folks behind the birth of the nation and the founding of the Articles are the same folks behind the Constitution.

These are people that started the nation with an abject fear of centralized government, and went nearly 180 on the topic in light of some very credible and potentially disasterous shortcomings in the original Articles.

If you want to debate what the Founders wanted in a centralized government and use the Constitution as a guide, that's a very interesting topic, but the Articles themselves are relegated to the trash heap of history for a very good reason.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I see. Can't get the Constitution of the United States of America to say what you want it to, so let's just do away with it.

Kevin, we live in the 21st century, not the 18th.

That would actually be the position of those who believe in a "living document," not me.

 

[Oddball]

Kevin,

The problem you'll have championing the Articles of Confederation is that many of the same folks behind the birth of the nation and the founding of the Articles are the same folks behind the Constitution.

These are people that started the nation with an abject fear of centralized government, and went nearly 180 on the topic in light of some very credible and potentially disasterous shortcomings in the original Articles.

If you want to debate what the Founders wanted in a centralized government and use the Constitution as a guide, that's a very interesting topic, but the Articles themselves are relegated to the trash heap of history for a very good reason.

The constitutional framers had an abject fear of centralized gubmint, too...That's why they introduced the concept of strictly enumerated powers and construction of the BoR.


Also, the Articles of Confederation were never repealed...The Constitution was meant to build upon and further perfect them.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The constitutional framers had an abject fear of centralized gubmint, too...That's why they introduced the concept of strictly enumerated powers and construction of the BoR.

They did however come to the Constitutional Convention understanding the need, despite their fears, for a centralized government and the failures of the Articles in the respect.

That's about all you can say in general about the Founders. Past that they all had their opinion about how far the Fed can and should go. What they put on paper was the best compromise they could come up with.

 

[Oddball]

No argument here.

They further wrote that document with the intent that the enumerated powers were it, unless an amendment vested them with more....The writings in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers make that pretty clear to all who can read and comprehend plain English.

And I wouldn't say that the Articles of Confederation were a total failure...If they sere so they would have been repealed altogether, not built upon and made more specific with the Constitution.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No argument here.

They further wrote that document with the intent that the enumerated powers were it, unless an amendment vested them with more....The writings in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers make that pretty clear to all who can read and comprehend plain English.

And I wouldn't say that the Articles of Confederation were a total failure...If they sere so they would have been repealed altogether, not built upon and made more specific with the Constitution.

True, the Articles weren't a complete failure. The individual States still had democratic forms of government prior to ratification of the Constitution and none of the original States had fallen to foreign powers.

It did have some serious failings though, which prompted the need to create the Constitution and ratify it.

As for building on the Articles, I don't see anything in the Constitution that mentions the Articles as having any legal force once the Constitution was passed. Article VI paragraph I says:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Implying that this may be an issue. Hardly seems necessary if the Articles and those laws passed under it still had binding force. Its true that Article VII doesn't specifically say that the Articles are repealled once the Constitution is ratified though. However, the Constitution lays out a completely new form of government.

EDIT: I'd like to add that an interesting corollary to the idea that the Articles would still have binding legal power under the Constitution, is that the Articles, unlike the Constitution, specifically disallows secession by stating that the "Union shall be perpetual".

 

[Oddball]

More likely that the Articles of Confederation were meant to lapse into obsolescence than anything else.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

More likely that the Articles of Confederation were meant to lapse into obsolescence than anything else.

True, which is kinda what has happened. The Articles are the great void in American History it seems these days. That's kinda unfortunate as studying the how and why we went from independent States, to the Articles, to the Constitution illuminates a lot of what the Founders were thinking. They very clearly distrusted centralized government, but had come around to its necessity in some controlable form.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the expansion of the Federal Government myself. Government close to the people is government that works best. Once you remove the decision making process to Washington, it stop doing a good job of watching out for the little people back home.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's Kevin's greatest frustration... but the thinks he's smarter than the supreme court so it should say what HE wants it to.

Apparently, they've had it wrong for 200 years.

Me? I think Kevin should actually take a couple of con law classes before he claims to know even a little about it. but hey, why should he be informed?

Let it be noted that Jillian has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, otherwise she would be an arrogant jerk who thinks she knows more than everyone else.

 

[Old Rocks]

More likely that the Articles of Confederation were meant to lapse into obsolescence than anything else.

True, which is kinda what has happened. The Articles are the great void in American History it seems these days. That's kinda unfortunate as studying the how and why we went from independent States, to the Articles, to the Constitution illuminates a lot of what the Founders were thinking. They very clearly distrusted centralized government, but had come around to its necessity in some controlable form.

For the record, I'm not a fan of the expansion of the Federal Government myself. Government close to the people is government that works best. Once you remove the decision making process to Washington, it stop doing a good job of watching out for the little people back home.

What has given the Federal Government more power than any other single action, is the failure of individual states to live up to law. Jim Crow laws, corruption so rampant in state government that the feds had to step in, control of the state governments by business interests. All of these actions created the impetus for more Federal intervention to right the abuses.

Were the insureres in the Health Care industry trying to provide a good product at a reasonable price, then the impetus toward government health care in this nation, and the rest of the civilized nations, would not be a factor. But that industry has no interest in the health of the citizen, only how much money they can extort out of the citizenery of this nation.

 

[Oddball]

What has given the Federal Government more power than any other single action, is the failure of individual states to live up to law. Jim Crow laws, corruption so rampant in state government that the feds had to step in, control of the state governments by business interests. All of these actions created the impetus for more Federal intervention to right the abuses.

Were the insureres in the Health Care industry trying to provide a good product at a reasonable price, then the impetus toward government health care in this nation, and the rest of the civilized nations, would not be a factor. But that industry has no interest in the health of the citizen, only how much money they can extort out of the citizenery of this nation.

Non Sequitur Theater presents...Old Rocksinthhead!!

 

[jillian]

That's Kevin's greatest frustration... but the thinks he's smarter than the supreme court so it should say what HE wants it to.

Apparently, they've had it wrong for 200 years.

Me? I think Kevin should actually take a couple of con law classes before he claims to know even a little about it. but hey, why should he be informed?

Let it be noted that Jillian has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, otherwise she would be an arrogant jerk who thinks she knows more than everyone else.

like you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's Kevin's greatest frustration... but the thinks he's smarter than the supreme court so it should say what HE wants it to.

Apparently, they've had it wrong for 200 years.

Me? I think Kevin should actually take a couple of con law classes before he claims to know even a little about it. but hey, why should he be informed?

Let it be noted that Jillian has never disagreed with the Supreme Court, otherwise she would be an arrogant jerk who thinks she knows more than everyone else.

like you?

Precisely. Since the Supreme Court is apparently infallible only an arrogant jerk could possibly find fault with any of their rulings. Since I find fault with many of their rulings I'm obviously an arrogant, know-it-all jerk. It couldn't possibly be that I have a different opinion over constitutional construction or anything silly like that.

 

[Liberalism]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Campaign For Liberty — Freedom's Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction **| by Timothy Baldwin

Does attempting to form a more perfect union necessarily negate the idea that a more perfect union might be a completely different one that that being reformed?

If what you say is gospel, than how do you explain the fact that those very same states accepted this, according to you, completely new union masquerading as a more perfect union? Are you saying the states were somehow incapable of discerning the differences between the two documents?

You interchange the terms states and public, and states and colonies, when laying out your argument. Why is this? Didn't the men at the convention derive their powers from the states?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a "more perfect union" (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Campaign For Liberty — Freedom's Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction **| by Timothy Baldwin

Does attempting to form a more perfect union necessarily negate the idea that a more perfect union might be a completely different one that that being reformed?

If what you say is gospel, than how do you explain the fact that those very same states accepted this, according to you, completely new union masquerading as a more perfect union? Are you saying the states were somehow incapable of discerning the differences between the two documents?

You interchange the terms states and public, and states and colonies, when laying out your argument. Why is this? Didn't the men at the convention derive their powers from the states?

The people were told, through the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, that this new Constitution would protect their rights just as well as the Articles, and would form a better government. However, this doesn't change the fact that this was not the purpose for which the convention was called. Their objective was to revise the Articles and make them better, not create an entirely new government. Also, there was strong dissent against the new Constitution from the Anti-Federalists, but they lost the battle of ideas at the time. However, many of their concerns have been proven correct over time.