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 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.
