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.
Our Founding Fathers, who I am forever thankful to due to their great wisdom and foresight, created the Declaration of Independance, and later the Constitution of the United States of America which they voted upon & passed OF BY & FOR THE PEOPLE. We, as THE PEOPLE defined in the Constitution, we that ARE the democratic authority, must constantly be vigilant of OUR PEOPLE POWER over corporate corruption. Just sayin'...
The concepts of personal property ownership is most definitely there, though. The founding fathers were intensely opposed to a large centralized government.
Where in the world did you get your American History education? Russia? States were originally intended to have more power and authority than the Feds.
Yes, and that document was called the Articles of Confederation.
Now please excuse my "Russian" education ( it must have been Father Pavelac because there was nothing Russian going on in Ives Hall) but if you would care to point out in the records of the Constitutional debates, the Federalist Papers (not to be confused with the Anti-Federalist Papers), the Constitution itself, or any Supreme Court decision which points to the intention of the Framers to give states greater power than the national government, or the people, then by all means post it.
SourD and OhioIsTheBest sure have some hate going on for the Fed Govt. What's the beef with the Feds? Do you really want to live on a balkanized continent with 50 squabbling state govt's? Oh and guess what Ohio, there never was nor is there now a state right of secession. None. The Union and The Constitution Forever. If you don't like that, you might want to consider moving somewhere else. Ask Scalia, he said as much himself.
That is exactly why no private company should be bought out by governamnt such as banks and auto comanies. they should be alloweed to fail under bankrupsy laws or allowed to be bought out.
I hope you agree that in certain areas where the powers are granted to the Fed Govt, the national government is supreme over the several states. A blanket statement such as "states have the authority over the fed govt" is just plain wrong.
On issues which are covered in the Constitution, the national government is surpeme, on issues not covered in the Constitution, the states have the ONLY power.. States having authority over the federal government in most cases because of the 10th amendment clause, originally the Senate was from the state governments.. It was only after we began to elect Congress the federal government began to grab powers not granted to them.
When folks jump up and down about what the Framers intended, one of the most quoted individual is James Madison who along with Alexander Hamilton were the two main fomenters of the constitutional convention and while both parted ways in the years following the ratification of the Constitution, it should be interesting to note Madison's initial idea of what the national government should look and act like.
The Virginia Plan
Before introducing James Madison's proposal fellow Virginian and delegate Edmund Randolph made the following introductory remarks as noted by James Madison:
Mr. RANDOLPH then opened the main business. (Mr. R. Speech A. to be inserted Tuesday May 29) He expressed his regret, that it should fall to him, rather than those, who were of longer standing in life and political experience, to open the great subject of their mission. But, as the convention had originated from Virginia, and his colleagues supposed that some proposition was expected from them, they had imposed this task on him. He then commented on the difficulty of the crisis, and the necessity of preventing the fulfilment of the prophecies of the American downfal. He observed that in revising the foederal system we ought to inquire 1. into the properties, which such a government ought to possess, 2. the defects of the confederation, 3. the danger of our situation & 4. the remedy.
1. The Character of such a government ought to secure 1. against foreign invasion: 2. against dissentions between members of the Union, or seditions in particular states: 3. to procure to the several States, various blessings, of which an isolated situation was incapable: 4. to be able to defend itself against incroachment: & 5. to be paramount to the state constitutions.
2. In speaking of the defects of the confederation he professed a high respect for its authors, and considered them, as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederacies,- when the inefficiency of requisitions was unknown-no commercial discord had arisen among any states-no rebellion had appeared as in Massts.-foreign debts had not become urgent-the havoc of paper money had not been foreseen-treaties had not been violated-and perhaps nothing better could be obtained from the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.
He then proceeded to enumerate the defects:
1. that the confederation produced no security against foreign invasion; congress not being permitted to prevent a war nor to support it by their own authority-Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew, that they could not cause infractions of treaties or of the law of nations, to be punished: that particular states might by their conduct provoke war without controul; and that neither militia nor draughts being fit for defence on such occasions, inlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.
2. that the foederal government could not check the quarrels between states, nor a rebellion in any, not having constitutional power nor means to interpose according to the exigency: 3. that there were many advantages, which the U. S. might acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation-such as a productive impost- counteraction of the commercial regulations of other nations-pushing of commerce ad libitum-&c &c.
4. that the foederal government could not defend itself against the incroachments from the states.
5. that it was not even paramount to the state constitutions, ratified, as it was in may of the states.
3. He next reviewed the danger of our situation, appealed to the sense of the best friends of the U. S.-the prospect of anarchy from the laxity of government every where; and to other considerations. He proposed as conformable to his ideas the following resolutions, which he explained one by one [Here insert ye Resolutions annexed.]
The Plan:
1. Resolved, That the articles of the confederation ought to be so corrected and enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution, namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare.
2. Resolved, therefore, that the right of suffrage, in the national legislature, ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other may seem best, in different cases.
3. Resolved, That the national legislature ought to consist of two branches.
4. Resolved, That the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States, every _______ for the term of ______ to be of the age of years at least; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to public service; to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the first branch) during the term of service and for the space of ______ after its expiration; to be incapable of reselection for the space of _____ after the expiration of their term of service,; and to be subject to recal.
5. Resolved, That the members of the second branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual legislatures; to be of ______ the age of years, at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be compensated for the devotion of their time to the public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State, or under the authority of the United States, (except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch) during the term of service; and for the space of ______ after the expiration thereof.
6. Resolved, That each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts; that the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative right vested in congress, by the confederation; and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the union; and to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.
7. Resolved, That a national executive be instituted, to be chosen by the national legislature for the term of _______ years, to receive punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for the services rendered, in which no increase or diminution shall be made, so as to affect the magistracy existing at the time of the increase or diminution; to be ineligible a second time; and that, besides a general authority to execute the national laws, it ought to enjoy the executive rights vested in congress by the confederation.
8. Resolved, That the executive, and a convenient number of the national judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision, with authority to examine every act of the national legislature, before it shall operate, and every act of a particular legislature before a negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said council shall amount to a rejection, unless the act of the national legislature be again passed, or that of a particular legislature be again negatived by _____ of the members of each branch.
9. Resolved, That a national judiciary be established to hold their offices during good behavior, and to receive punctually, at stated times, fixed compensations for their services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made, so as to affect the person actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution- That the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunals shall be, to hear and determine, in the first instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine, in the dernier resort, all piracies and felonies on the high seas; captures from an enemy; cases in which foreigners, or citizens of other States, applying to such jurisdictions, may be interested, or which respect the collection of the national revenue; impeachments of any national officer; and questions which involve the national peace or harmony.
10. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the admission of States, lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise, with the consent of a number of voices in the national legislature less than the whole.
11. Resolved, That a republican government, and the territory of each State (except in the instance of a voluntary junction of government and territory) ought to be guaranteed by the United States to each State.
12. Resolved, That provision ought to be made for the continuance of a congress, and their authorities and privileges, until a given day, after the reform of the articles of union shall be adopted, and for the completion of all their engagements.
13. That provision ought to be made for the amendment of the articles of union whensoever it shall seem necessary; and that the assent of the national legislature ought not to be required thereto.
14. Resolved, That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers within the several States, ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of union.
15. Resolved, That the amendments, which shall be offered to the confederation by the convention, ought, at a proper time or times, after the approbation of congress, to be submitted to an assembly or assemblies of representatives, recommended by the several legislatures, to be expressly chosen by the people to consider and decide thereon.
Now as we all know the Virginia Plan was not accepted in the whole and portions were dropped in the give and take of political swap meet that ensued in the days that followed the opening session, but the weight of its intentions can not be ignored.
On issues which are covered in the Constitution, the national government is surpeme, on issues not covered in the Constitution, the states have the ONLY power..
The state have... ah, what about the People?
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is getting particularly tiresome having to correct mistakes in your post which even a 5th grader should know.
Quote:
States having authority over the federal government in most cases because of the 10th amendment clause,
What authorities would those be? To nullify a Federal Law? To override a Treaty, To circumscribe the power of taxation, spending, conduct of the military including the state militias? What authorities are these of which you speak?
Quote:
originally the Senate was from the state governments.. It was only after we began to elect Congress the federal government began to grab powers not granted to them.
BS! Is your argument that the people of the states vote for their Senators because they campaign to represent the interest of a neighboring state and not in the interest of their own? Is a Senator from New York accountable to the voters of Mississippi? Puleeze, the mechanics of how a Senator is elected does nothing to change the political dynamics of representing state interest, well maybe except for the interest of a few powerful state legislators and governors.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is getting particularly tiresome having to correct mistakes in your post which even a 5th grader should know.
We are talking about the powers in the Constitution. I dont need government to grant me powers as a "people".. If government, be it the state or federal government, isnt proving a power, of course you as a person hold that responsibility. There was no "mistake" made, any fool knows that the government doesnt feed you, thereby you are responsible as a person for basic necessities. They dont house you, clothe you, they dont give you jobs.. You as a person does. You didnt correct me, you simply ignored the topic of discussion because the other poster asked about where the authority of GOVERNMENT rested.. Forgive me for believing that you would know that you as an individual is responsible for yourself.. I took basic elementary knowledge for granted, and considering i quoted the 10th amendment, I find you claiming to have corrected me kind of humorous because all you did was prove your inability to follow along in the discussion. Here let me help you. This is the posting I responded to
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
I hope you agree that in certain areas where the powers are granted to the Fed Govt, the national government is supreme over the several states. A blanket statement such as "states have the authority over the fed govt" is just plain wrong.
See, the discussion was state vs federal government ONLY.. The other poster didnt ask about the powers of the individual. Try to follow along...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
What authorities would those be? To nullify a Federal Law? To override a Treaty, To circumscribe the power of taxation, spending, conduct of the military including the state militias? What authorities are these of which you speak?
The ability to rule federal laws unconstitutional.. You talking about elementary knowledge and then standing here asking how laws get nullified is rather humorous.. excuse me while I laugh at you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
BS! Is your argument that the people of the states vote for their Senators because they campaign to represent the interest of a neighboring state and not in the interest of their own? Is a Senator from New York accountable to the voters of Mississippi? Puleeze, the mechanics of how a Senator is elected does nothing to change the political dynamics of representing state interest, well maybe except for the interest of a few powerful state legislators and governors.
The Senate was not elected originally. The governor and states would send 2 representatives which would give the states a balance to minimize any federal mandates on the states. Only when people began electing the Senate did this balance become unequal and lean towards the individuals. Please hold your attempts to educate me until you go back to elementary school and learn basic facts..
We are talking about the powers in the Constitution. I dont need government to grant me powers as a "people"..
You may feel that there is no need, but the Framers disagreed.
Quote:
You didnt correct me, you simply ignored the topic of discussion because the other poster asked about where the authority of GOVERNMENT rested..
You made an incorrect statement. You were corrected, several times.
Quote:
Try to follow along...
Would you like me to read back your posts, so that we can determine who is following what?
Quote:
The ability to rule federal laws unconstitutional..
The States have the ability to rule federal laws unconstitutional. Now that is a novel concept! Pray tell, how does a State rule a federal law unconstitutional?
Quote:
You talking about elementary knowledge and then standing here asking how laws get nullified is rather humorous.. excuse me while I laugh at you...
You are so right, so please inform myself and others on how a state goes about "nullifying" a federal law in the face of the Supremacy Clause and while you are at it perhaps you can point to those laws which have been successfully nullified by a state government.
Quote:
The Senate was not elected originally.
That's weird since the Constitution stated at the time:
Section 3 - The Senate
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Which would seem to explain why the very first two Senators, William Maclay and Robert Morris of Pennsylvania were ELECTED by the Pennsylvania legislature by a vote of 66 to 1 and 37 to 31. respectively!
Quote:
Only when people began electing the Senate did this balance become unequal and lean towards the individuals. Please hold your attempts to educate me until you go back to elementary school and learn basic facts..
That would certainly come as news (although belatedly) to Jefferson Davis et, al.
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.
