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.
Lets put this in perspective. What Madison is basically trying to say is. If a union was created by separate communities(nations). Then dissolution of the union would simply revert them back to being separate communities(nations).
He then goes on to say that, if the union was created by a single community. Then if it was to break apart, then it could not simply revert back to being separate communities(nations). Rather, if a nation was to break apart. It could be broken apart effectively into as many communities are there are people. Ultimately "returning them to nature", or a state of anarchy.
While I understand why you wanted to quote Madison. I think you forget that the southern states, operated as if they were sovereign nations. I can understand Madison's point of view that. The states weren't really all that distinct from each other. Which is why the Civil War saw father and son, and brother and brother, fighting against each other. As well as things like, West Virginia breaking off from the rest of Virginia.
Thus, Madison's concern was basically that. While we did have different states in the country. The states weren't all that unique. And so, if you began a process of breaking the country apart through secession. The country would continue to be broken apart practically indefinitely. To the point that there was basically no government. Because everyone would end up basically advocating and demanding to be the ruler of their own government. As in a state of anarchy.
The idea that losing the federal goverment created anarchy is absurd. Once you dissolve the federal goverment, you have the states, which are complete, in and of themselves. They had everything they needed to simply be the sovereign states they were and are (by the Constitution).
The idea that losing the federal goverment created anarchy is absurd. Once you dissolve the federal goverment, you have the states, which are complete, in and of themselves.
As long as each and everyone goes about its separate business. When combined into a confederation, as the United States under the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America under their constitution amply demonstrated, the result is disastrous.
Quote:
They had everything they needed to simply be the sovereign states
Of wildly varying capabilities, some states would be as productive as a major European state and some would be barely above Sudan (see Mississippi GDP minus Federal spending).
Quote:
they were and are (by the Constitution).
Sovereign if you define sovereignty as being subordinate to a national government without the powers that any other sovereign nation on the planet would have as a matter of course.
As long as each and everyone goes about its separate business. When combined into a confederation, as the United States under the Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America under their constitution amply demonstrated, the result is disastrous.
Oh, brother. Talk about desperate nonsense! Don't insult our intelligence, ok? If you think an overwhelmingly powerful and controlling centralized power is necessary, then say so and why, not make up silly (really silly) nonsense.
Quote:
Of wildly varying capabilities, some states would be as productive as a major European state and some would be barely above Sudan (see Mississippi GDP minus Federal spending).
Who cares? It's not the federal government's job to make any state rich.
Quote:
Sovereign if you define sovereignty as being subordinate to a national government without the powers that any other sovereign nation on the planet would have as a matter of course.
They have ALL of them. They have delegated some to a subordinate.
If you think an overwhelmingly powerful and controlling centralized power is necessary, then say so and why, not make up silly (really silly) nonsense.
If you remove the Federal government what are you left with? A state government acting as controlling centralize power? Remove state government and you are left with a city or county government acting in the role of a centralized power. So unless you are an anarchist, your argument is reduced to nothing more than an argument of what the locus of the power lies.
Quote:
Who cares? It's not the federal government's job to make any state rich.
You did, at least if you remember your own argument which was, "They had everything they needed to simply be the sovereign states they were and are." One of the primary roles of any government, one recognize by the Framers, is the role of government providing the foundation of the successful prosecution of commerce. So the point is without the resources of the federal government many states would be reduced to Third World status making the successful pursuit of commerce just about as viable as... well a third world country. So, while it isn't the role of the government to make a state "rich" it is the role to make it capable of functioning at the most basic level a level which many states are incapable of pursuing on their own.
Quote:
They have ALL of them.
What sovereign nation is prohibited from:
entering into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
coining Money; emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
or without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay?
Quote:
They have delegated some to a subordinate.
And who pray tell would this subordinate be, surely not the federal government since the Supremacy clause clearly establishes the dominate position of the national government these subordinates of whom you speak we must assume are counties and incorporated areas of their respective states because since 1787 and the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States only a person with a risible intelligence would be foolish to argue otherwise.
If you remove the Federal government what are you left with? A state government acting as controlling centralize power? Remove state government and you are left with a city or county government acting in the role of a centralized power. So unless you are an anarchist, your argument is reduced to nothing more than an argument of what the locus of the power lies.
LOL, you did fail history, didn't you! As our nation was founded, power did not reside in the government, it resided in the people. You're obsessed with creating a point of power to rule. There does not need to be any. No state, federal, or local government need be "the locus of power".
Quote:
You did, at least if you remember your own argument which was, "They had everything they needed to simply be the sovereign states they were and are." One of the primary roles of any government, one recognize by the Framers, is the role of government providing the foundation of the successful prosecution of commerce.
Huh? Care to explain what you mean?
Quote:
So the point is without the resources of the federal government many states would be reduced to Third World status making the successful pursuit of commerce just about as viable as... well a third world country. So, while it isn't the role of the government to make a state "rich" it is the role to make it capable of functioning at the most basic level a level which many states are incapable of pursuing on their own.
PURE HORSE MANURE. Gawd, I have never seen such arrogant stupidity in writing, except by academicians.
Quote:
What sovereign nation is prohibited from:
entering into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
coining Money; emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
None. The states have that power, but it is delegated to Congress. Should any state leave the union, they re assume said powers. Duhhhh.
Quote:
or without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay?
You still fail to comprehend the principle concept behind our system was created... these are DELEGATED, not surrendered.
Quote:
And who pray tell would this subordinate be, surely not the federal government since the Supremacy clause clearly establishes the dominate position of the national government these subordinates of whom you speak we must assume are counties and incorporated areas of their respective states because since 1787 and the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States only a person with a risible intelligence would be foolish to argue otherwise.
Clearly you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
Someone told you this crap, and you spout it without ever critically thinking on your own.
The supremacy clause means that in terms of those powers delegated, they REALLY ARE delegated. Man, you can't seem to comprehend a thing. It just means "these powers are delegated" and they... really are.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
The American government is very oppressive - unless you are a ridiculous, paranoid, Democrat, who hates the fact that they voted for Obama because he is black and he turned out to be an inept and dishonest President. People who listen to unintelligent morons like MSNBC, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Mathews, etc., also tend to become unintelligent themselves.
So anyone who voted for President Obama did it because they are black ?
Quote:
It is not only the right, but also the duty of patriotic Americans to secede from a tyrannical government.
Actually, threatening to over throw the U.S. government is against the law. When you disagree in this nation, you show it through elections, not rebellion.
18 USC 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Quote:
Yes, that's true. Both events were rebellions against tyrannical governments. If you rebel and win, you are patriotic heroes. If you rebel and lose, you get reviled forever. The winners write the history books.
I guess Lincoln thought killing 800,000 Americans was enough so he stopped.
You do realize that the confederate states wanted to continue slavery right? And that their confederate constitutions all still exist and are searchable ????
Winners writing the history books is not true in the sense you are using it . Do we not still talk about the American Indians ???
So anyone who voted for President Obama did it because they are black ?
We know some did.
Quote:
Actually, threatening to over throw the U.S. government is against the law. When you disagree in this nation, you show it through elections, not rebellion.
It should not be.
One of the inalienable rights of man is to throw off government that fails to protect and defend his rights.
Quote:
You do realize that the confederate states wanted to continue slavery right? And that their confederate constitutions all still exist and are searchable ????
What of it? Do you really think that would have continued for long? Of course not. Slavery was failing fast, as the economics of it, as well as the morality of it, were demonstrating to be abject failures.
The south had no economic strength, because it relied on slave labor and low value manual labor for its productivity. Had Lincoln let it go, likely it would have collapsed in less than a generation anyway.
"Slavery was failing fast, as the economics of it, as well as the morality of it, were demonstrating to be abject failures."
By 1860, the number of slaves increase from 3.2 million in 1850 to 3.9 million in 1860, not exactly downward trending and it begs he question that if slavery was on the decline, then what was the consternation amongst the slave states regarding the Republican opposition to the expansion of slave labor into the western territories?
Quote:
As our nation was founded, power did not reside in the government, it resided in the people.
Well you finally got one right. That being the case are you now ready to acknowledge that the Constitution is a compact between the people and not the states as you have contended?
Quote:
You're obsessed with creating a point of power to rule. There does not need to be any. No state, federal, or local government need be "the locus of power".
I don't care how you far you reduce the size or composition of a human society a central point of power will always be present even it is nothing more than parents power over children.
Quote:
Huh? Care to explain what you mean?
If I need to explain the prosecution of commerce...?
Prosecute, verb 2. continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion.
Quote:
PURE HORSE MANURE. Gawd, I have never seen such arrogant stupidity in writing, except by academicians.
Perhaps you should read Alexander Hamilton's "Report on the Subject of Manufactures," oh wait, that may be too academic.
Quote:
None. The states have that power, but it is delegated to Congress. Should any state leave the union, they re assume said powers. Duhhhh.
Where is it written in the Constitution where those powers were "delegated to the Congress?" The Constitution doesn't say that those powers are delegated, on loan, held in a blind trust until the states ask for them back. The are PROHIBITED from possessing them. As for any state leaving the union... dude that was settled once and for all in 1865.
"Slavery was failing fast, as the economics of it, as well as the morality of it, were demonstrating to be abject failures."
By 1860, the number of slaves increase from 3.2 million in 1850 to 3.9 million in 1860, not exactly downward trending and it begs he question that if slavery was on the decline, then what was the consternation amongst the slave states regarding the Republican opposition to the expansion of slave labor into the western territories?
Sigh. Nothing about my statement is incongruent with either facts or history.
Slavery was failing fast. The north was industrialized and mechanizing, and the south was sticking with manual labor - low value slave labor as its economic base. Yes, that was failing fast. The number of slaves increasing? I didn't say the number was falling, I said the economic and moral aspects were failing. Fewer and fewer people believed in it, and the economy was not growing and prosperous like the north was.
Quote:
Well you finally got one right. That being the case are you now ready to acknowledge that the Constitution is a compact between the people and not the states as you have contended?
No, it is not. It is a product of the states. The STATES delegated duties to the federal government, they did NOT surrender their sovereignty.
Quote:
I don't care how you far you reduce the size or composition of a human society a central point of power will always be present even it is nothing more than parents power over children.
So now you're changing your assertion? That mere authority over your children (that you are responsible for) is political power to control? You need to clarify, then, what "power" you mean.
I
Quote:
f I need to explain the prosecution of commerce...?
Prosecute, verb 2. continue with (a course of action) with a view to its completion.
You said this:
Quote:
One of the primary roles of any government, one recognize by the Framers, is the role of government providing the foundation of the successful prosecution of commerce.
I have no idea where you find this. It's absurd. Commerce depends upon only the free will actions of those involved.
Quote:
Where is it written in the Constitution where those powers were "delegated to the Congress?" The Constitution doesn't say that those powers are delegated, on loan, held in a blind trust until the states ask for them back. The are PROHIBITED from possessing them. As for any state leaving the union... dude that was settled once and for all in 1865.
I have no idea where you find this. It's absurd. Commerce depends upon only the free will actions of those involved.
How was it "settled"?
I appreciate your patience with trying to have an argument with a statist. But you are never going to convince him. I've been having the same argument with him for several years now.
I understand his point-of-view. The commerce clause in the constitution is there to make sure commerce is "made regular". Which in the context of the constitution, was to prevent states from putting up real barriers to trade. If you read the federalist papers. The example they gave, was basically if you had a river which flowed through three states. Then all traffic going up and down that river would have to flow through the "middle" state. And the purpose of regulating trade, was to prevent the middle state from doing things like placing huge taxes or tolls or other burdens on the movement of goods within its territory.
Basically, the idea was that, the middle state should not try to get rich simply because of the luck of its geographic location. Or to deny trade of the other two states, simply because it had to flow through the state. And so the primary role of the federal government was basically to prevent the states from trying to take advantage of each other, or do harm to each other.
The problem with the commerce clause, is that is so often read improperly. And it is sort of understandable to read it improperly, because its hard to understand its context.
Basically, if you actually read the commerce clause. Its real intention is to guarantee "free trade" between the states. Yes, free trade. What a glorious idea. The idea is that free trade will tend to encourage trade, and thus friendship between the states. The problem is that, many statists have come to recognize that since the commerce clause is there primarily to prevent barriers which would discourage trade. Then the commerce clause must be there for the purpose of encouraging trade. Which means, the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the authority to do anything in the name of supposedly trying to encourage trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
The idea that losing the federal goverment created anarchy is absurd. Once you dissolve the federal goverment, you have the states, which are complete, in and of themselves. They had everything they needed to simply be the sovereign states they were and are (by the Constitution).
What I was trying to say is that. Madison was concerned that the United States wasn't just a union of sovereign nations. He believed that the people of all of the states in the United States were mostly all the same people, with very minor differences. And that the colonies were more administrative units, rather than nations. That the people of the United States were mostly of British origin. With similar culture, beliefs, and language. And thus, to break apart the United States along these "state lines". Which were largely just arbitrary lines on a map. Would be the equivalent of breaking apart those same states, based on arbitrary county lines.
His view was basically that the United States was really just a single nation, of the same people. And his view was that, if you take the stance that a single nation or a single people can suddenly be broken apart as soon as one part disagreed with each other. That the whole concept of government totally breaks down.
You can't really have a government, if everyone is allowed to secede from a government the second they disagree with it. That eventually breaks down into individuals claiming they are sovereign citizens, and that their house is their own country. And thus, anarchy.
With that said. I can completely understand Madison's concerns. But I do think he was wrong. And I think this sort of fear of secession actually made the Civil War much worse.
I don't think secession was going to create anarchy. I don't think anarchy can realistically ever exist. Anarchy in reality is not so much individuals trying to be their own countries. Rather, anarchy always ends up with groups within a country, fighting for control over the entire country(and sometimes even parts of other countries).
In the case of the south. The beautiful part of the creation of the Confederacy. Was that it was my favorite kind of revolution. It was the kind of revolution where you had people fighting against what they see as a tyrannical government. And through that hatred of centralized government. They created a new government which was even more limited than the government than were throwing off.
This runs counter to the other kinds of revolutions. Where you have people who are trying to take over the government so they can redistribute wealth(IE communist revolutions), or impose some kind of social/moral rules(IE Islamic revolutions).
In my opinion, whenever you have revolutions for limiting government. The outcome is generally pretty peaceful, and guarantees at least for a time, more freedom. While revolutions for expanding the government, always end up with massive numbers of people being killed. And then a nation falling under some form of dictatorship.
Thus, when I look at the Confederacy. I think of it kind of in the same way that "Lord Acton" saw it....
Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison's and Hamilton's papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.
This is why I'm such a big proponent for secession. The kinds of people arguing for secession in this country. Are almost always the more libertarian types. They are the people arguing for less government. They are the people arguing for less taxes. They are the people arguing for less regulations.
A movement for secession today, would come from such a complete hatred of government. That the only kind of government that could come out of it, would be an extremely limited one. And that fills me with hope.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-21-2013 at 02:44 AM..
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.
