Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Try twice - before the Constitution and then during the Civil War. In both cases, the results were disastrous.
By the way, the individual states have been highly diverse since their inception. I don't see why now is suddenly so different.
Until just recently we strove for a single culture. Now that we're multicultural it's finally occuring to a growing number of people...............we aren't getting along anymore. It's time for more power left to the state and local level. Washington is just messing this whole country up. More power at the state and local level is what the founders envisioned anyway. And if I'm not mistaken we're going to have to give back some land to the damn mexicans too.
I know exactly what the changes are in the confederate constitution. But more than 90% of the confederate constitution was an exact rip-off of the United States constitution.
I don't know about the percentages (having never compared the two line by line), but the changes were to address the failures of confederacy and that primarily involved absolutely no federal control over the states.
Personally, despite all the partisan acrimony and the economic situation, I don't think things really are that bad in the larger sense.
I don't think we are "failing" as a country. I think our period of overwhelming dominance might be under threat and perhaps it may be coming to an end. If this is indeed true, it has as much to do with the end of the Cold War than it does with our policies. We benefitted greatly from being the victor in WW2, and it's only natural that those benefits would erode over time.
This country has problems, no doubt, but relatively - compared to a lot of others - it's not a disaster.
IOW, we've been in tighter spots than this and done fine. People who think that this country was some kind of Paradise in the past have probably spent far too much time looking at Norman Rockwell paintings.
The hyperpartisanship going on right now makes things seem far worse than I think they really are. We need to remember the benefits of teamwork and the words of Abraham Lincoln(?): "United we stand, divided we fall."
The screeching voices of division are drowning out the rest of us - even on this board you can see it.
Well that's what I'm saying, "divided we fall" is our future.
I guess the philosophical disagreement that cannot seem to be reconciled by debate on these forums seems to devolve to a basic diversion of opinion.
People who support a confederation of states rather than a single nation, are generally people who believe that there is a very simple definition of right and wrong, and that the chosen "right and wrong" should be forced onto the people all around the world, because in their view, it is the righteous thing to do.
These are your environmentalists, your communists/socialists, your anti-war people, your social justice people, and your PETA's and your humanitarian aid groups, even religious groups. They believe the best course of action to raise up all of humanity is for all of humanity to be guided by a single force. That to prevent one group from abusing the other, would require all groups to be brought under a single umbrella as just one people. Environmentalists need a single governing body to implement their vision of the world. The Socialists and communists need to destroy competing ideas to impose their inefficient system on the world. The Humanitarian groups want us all to live like one big happy family, happily helping whoever is in need.
That ideal obviously sounds wonderful and glorious on the surface, and in some ways I also long for such a world. The problem with those idealists is that the refuse to recognize the reality of the world.
They refuse to recognize why such a world does not already exist. They refuse to acknowledge the utter loss of freedom and diversity that would be created by such a world. As there would be a single rule over all people. It fails to acknowledge the fact that such a world would become so corrupt and stagnant, as competing ideas would be silenced or ignored. They fail to realize such a world would necessarily end in what amounts to a democratic communism, as the people would demand more and more from government as corruption and inefficiency could no longer be held in check by competing nations, thus creating stagnation and misery.
They refuse to discuss such issues as abortion, language, homosexuality, religion, what should be taught in schools, what people are allowed to wear, what types of speech is allowed, etc. All of these things would be ruled by a single body, which would force its ideology on everyone.
So who and why would anyone advocate for such a totalitarian system of democratic tyranny? Simple, the people who believe they will be in control of such a system if it became reality. The corporations and billionaires of the world advocate for such a world, a world in which they will have more control and power to have their way and exploit than ever before. The ones who have the money, power, and influence to mold that society are the ones advocating for such a system. The smaller the business or group, the more they would see their influence slip away, and they are the ones who are so opposed to a single government. A single government means they are conquered.
That wasn't always the case. Take the modern-day conservatives. Not long ago they were in power in America, they were the smug and pompous ones behind Bush, ready to shove a federal marriage amendment down the throats of Massachusetts and California, giving corporations tax breaks, and sending Americans to die in needless wars. Now look at them, scrambling to the hills, threatening secession and nullification because they can't stand it. And its pathetic.
You people seem to believe a one-world government would provide the most freedom and safety. I on the other hand believe just the opposite. I believe that real freedom can only be maintained through the competition of ideas. To allow people a level of self-determination, but also the ability to vote with their feet. If it was up to me, not only would there never be a one-world government, but there would be hundreds of new countries across the world. From Kurdistan to Tibet to the Sudan to Eastern Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. Each of these countries would be a Republic, and each of them would be guaranteed that Republican form of government.
Decentralization and self-determinate is on the march.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-19-2011 at 03:02 PM..
I don't know about the percentages (having never compared the two line by line), but the changes were to address the failures of confederacy and that primarily involved absolutely no federal control over the states.
Do you actually have a point? The confederacy created a new constitution modeled after the United States constitution, it was intended to fix what it believed were the flaws that caused the dissolution of the United States. In their view the flaws weren't because there needed to be more centralization of power in a federal government(which was the argument of the North) but that the failure was caused by too much centralization of powers in the federal government.
The difference of opinion largely coincided with the balance of power. When the slave states outnumbered the non-slave states, you had non-slave states threatening to secede and rejoin England. When the non-slave states began outnumbering the slave-states, you had the slave-states threatening to secede. Had the federal government been properly held in check from the beginning, neither would have felt the need to threaten to secede.
Either way it proves me point, the people in power don't want to give it up and they want to expand it. And the people who aren't in power want to just be left alone. That is the history of the world.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-19-2011 at 02:52 PM..
Do you actually have a point? The confederacy created a new constitution modeled after the United States constitution, it was intended to fix what it believed were the flaws that caused the dissolution of the United States...
You mean the state power folks? Yeah, they had real issue with the US constitution because it was put in place to give more power to the federal government. Never mind that they failed, miserably and losing more than they would have otherwise.
Quote:
Either way it proves me point, the people in power don't want to give it up and they want to expand it. And the people who aren't in power want to just be left alone. That is the history of the world.
You mean the state power folks? Yeah, they had real issue with the US constitution because it was put in place to give more power to the federal government. Never mind that they failed, miserably and losing more than they would have otherwise.
Did you even know of the parts of the confederate constitution were changed from the original?
Do you think the framers would have been opposed to something like a line-item veto? Do you think the founders would have been opposed to requiring all acts of Congress to be limited to just one topic, to prevent a persons vote from being bought off by promising them billions in federal money to be spent in their district, Congressmen try to insert all kinds of crap into all the bills in this way, and such a change would have prevented it(and we still need it).
Do you also believe the framers would have been opposed to requiring that every act of Congress be required to list what article or clause of the constitution grants them the power? Do you believe the founders would have liked the idea that almost all tax revenue would come from tariffs on a few states, and that the tax revenue would be overwhelmingly spent on special programs and public works in states which paid almost nothing in taxes? Didn't the founders intend to make sure that each state should be taxed equally?
I highly doubt there would be very many framers of the constitution that would have opposed to anything in the confederate constitution. Outside of maybe the reduction in the percentage of the states necessary to ratify an amendment down from 3/4ths in the United States constitution, to just 2/3rds in the Confederate constitution(and I agree with the founders, I like 3/4ths more).
Quote:
And "state power" folks are different?
They aren't necessarily different, they are the same. Where the difference comes in is that, if Massachusetts passes a law that I don't agree with, I can just get up and move to New Hampshire. If the United States government passes a law that I don't agree with, I am not left with many options. If the entire world had a single government and it passed a law that I didn't agree with, I would have absolutely zero options.
As Milton Friedman said about the best way to evaluate a government is by how people vote with their feet. Fast Forward to 4:15 to see what I mean.
I guess the philosophical disagreement that cannot seem to be reconciled by debate on these forums seems to devolve to a basic diversion of opinion.
People who support a confederation of states rather than a single nation, are generally people who believe that there is a very simple definition of right and wrong, and that the chosen "right and wrong" should be forced onto the people all around the world, because in their view, it is the righteous thing to do.
These are your environmentalists, your communists/socialists, your anti-war people, your social justice people, and your PETA's and your humanitarian aid groups, even religious groups. They believe the best course of action to raise up all of humanity is for all of humanity to be guided by a single force. That to prevent one group from abusing the other, would require all groups to be brought under a single umbrella as just one people. Environmentalists need a single governing body to implement their vision of the world. The Socialists and communists need to destroy competing ideas to impose their inefficient system on the world. The Humanitarian groups want us all to live like one big happy family, happily helping whoever is in need.
That ideal obviously sounds wonderful and glorious on the surface, and in some ways I also long for such a world. The problem with those idealists is that the refuse to recognize the reality of the world.
They refuse to recognize why such a world does not already exist. They refuse to acknowledge the utter loss of freedom and diversity that would be created by such a world. As there would be a single rule over all people. It fails to acknowledge the fact that such a world would become so corrupt and stagnant, as competing ideas would be silenced or ignored. They fail to realize such a world would necessarily end in what amounts to a democratic communism, as the people would demand more and more from government as corruption and inefficiency could no longer be held in check by competing nations, thus creating stagnation and misery.
They refuse to discuss such issues as abortion, language, homosexuality, religion, what should be taught in schools, what people are allowed to wear, what types of speech is allowed, etc. All of these things would be ruled by a single body, which would force its ideology on everyone.
So who and why would anyone advocate for such a totalitarian system of democratic tyranny? Simple, the people who believe they will be in control of such a system if it became reality. The corporations and billionaires of the world advocate for such a world, a world in which they will have more control and power to have their way and exploit than ever before. The ones who have the money, power, and influence to mold that society are the ones advocating for such a system. The smaller the business or group, the more they would see their influence slip away, and they are the ones who are so opposed to a single government. A single government means they are conquered.
That wasn't always the case. Take the modern-day conservatives. Not long ago they were in power in America, they were the smug and pompous ones behind Bush, ready to shove a federal marriage amendment down the throats of Massachusetts and California, giving corporations tax breaks, and sending Americans to die in needless wars. Now look at them, scrambling to the hills, threatening secession and nullification because they can't stand it. And its pathetic.
You people seem to believe a one-world government would provide the most freedom and safety. I on the other hand believe just the opposite. I believe that real freedom can only be maintained through the competition of ideas. To allow people a level of self-determination, but also the ability to vote with their feet. If it was up to me, not only would there never be a one-world government, but there would be hundreds of new countries across the world. From Kurdistan to Tibet to the Sudan to Eastern Libya to Afghanistan and beyond. Each of these countries would be a Republic, and each of them would be guaranteed that Republican form of government.
Decentralization and self-determinate is on the march.
Interesting stuff, but wouldn't we have more Baltic states, Western Africas and more war and dysfunction? More evil dictators and less cooperation? Conversely, look at Brazil... that's alot of harmony in a huge space. Of course I doubt it's sustainable for long.
It's becoming obvious that our nation is too diverse for a centralized government we have now. Simply we shouldn't have a government where the democratic socialist views of Bernie Sanders should have an impact on Alabama, likewise, the anti-gay marriage views of a Senator from the south shouldn't have an impact on California, or Massachusetts via the federal government. I simply think America is too big and too diverse to have such a centralized government.
That is the basic concept of states rights exceeding that of the federal government.
The confederacy of the south was quite a bit different than the articles of confederation we first formed.
It did limit the amount of power that Davis could wield as President of the confederacy though, which was a major problem and part of the reason the war was lost. Lincoln completely abandoned the constitution in order to preserve the Union.
And so did the South when the tried to secede from the Union.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
