September 17, 1787, the day the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution, replacing state sovereignty with federal sovereignty.edpell said:When in history did we go from the States being sovereign and over the Federal government to the Federal government being sovereign and over the States?
Nonsense. Cite your source or retract your claim.The founders like Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Marshall and Webster all understood the States as sovereign with the right to secede.
russ_watters said:September 17, 1787, the day the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution, replacing state sovereignty with federal sovereignty. Nonsense. Cite your source or retract your claim.
...Let me just cut to the chase: Hamilton wrote some of the Federalist Papers, Adams was a member of the Federalist party when elected President and Marshall helped defined the role of the federal government as one of the first chief justices of the USSC.
And what do you mean by enforcement exactly? Ultimately, there is only one true form of political power in the world and it comes out the barrel of a gun. The goal of a social contract type government is for the citizens to be happy enough with it that the government doesn't need to use its gun (much).This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
US v Butler said:The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.
which I suppose is now the law of the land. But, the constitution is in my view one of the more carefully crafted and succinct writings in existence. The idea that the founders dumped superfluous amendments in it is crock.US v Darby said:The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers...
russ_watters said:Certainly, the Articles were a contradiction - it is a wonder how the founders ever believed they would work! But the Constitution is explicit on the matter:
Therein lies the issue. Clearly, this phrase must be taken in the context that the federal government is sovereign for only the matters enumerated in the constitution, and thus does not allow the federal government to be sovereign over the states in anything it attempts to do.any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.mheslep said:Therein lies the issue. Clearly, this phrase must be taken in the context that the federal government is sovereign for only the matters enumerated in the constitution, and thus does not allow the federal government to be sovereign over the states in anything it attempts to do.
That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:Pythagorean said:The civil war resulted in a strengthening of the union and the 14th amendment made us all federal citizens (instead of pure sovereigns).
The primary author of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Bingham's main inspiration was the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article Four of the original unamended Constitution,[1] which provided: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Your opinion, but that quote isn't the only court decision or historical precident to say it is superfluous:mheslep said:...which I suppose is now the law of the land. But, the constitution is in my view one of the more carefully crafted and succinct writings in existence. The idea that the founders dumped superfluous amendments in it is crock.
and:Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified. [emphasis added] [1931]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#f3That this provision was not conceived to be a yardstick for measuring the powers granted to the Federal Government or reserved to the States was firmly settled by the refusal of both Houses of Congress to insert the word ''expressly'' before the word ''delegated,'' 3 and was confirmed by Madison's remarks in the course of the debate which took place while the proposed amendment was pending concerning Hamilton's plan to establish a national bank. ''Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.'' 4 Nevertheless, for approximately a century, from the death of Marshall until 1937, the Tenth Amendment was frequently invoked to curtail powers expressly granted to Congress, notably the powers to regulate commerce, to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, and to lay and collect taxes.
Yes you're right I misread, though I think the point still holds. The authority of the federal government is, or should be, limited only to that which is enumerated in the constitution, and the general welfare language is not a do-what-you-will escape clause for the Fed. Otherwise the states are sovereign.russ_watters said:You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.
Oh yes, 45 to start.russ_watters said:In any case, you said it appears clearly in the federalist papers that this wasn't the intent: do you have a particular one in mind?
I'd say Madison's first sentence has been almost exactly reversed in the modern era. It's a retro history parlor game to say so, but if the Depression era acts of Congress could have been forseen, and given the concerns of those which Madison attempts to allay above, this constitution never gets ratified as is in 1789.The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.
russ_watters said:That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
In my perception the confederate states was much like a large scale formalized syndicalist style government. The Federal government was not an autonomous authoritative body but rather more a forum for voicing and resolving grievances. Resolutions arrived at by the fed were to be followed but this hinged on the willingness of the individual states to actually enforce any particular resolution. The problem here, as with most syndicalist style governments, was that those states with greater wealth, resources, and access to shipping lanes and ports necessarily made a far weightier vote than the less wealthy states. The consequence being that few wished to go against them and even if a resolution was made against these states they could easily flout the resolution without much concern that any of those states who rely upon them would actually attempt to enforce it. The effect of course is that the federal government made many resolutions that the governors of individual states were unwilling to abide or enforce.Russ said:And what do you mean by enforcement exactly? Ultimately, there is only one true form of political power in the world and it comes out the barrel of a gun. The goal of a social contract type government is for the citizens to be happy enough with it that the government doesn't need to use its gun (much).
The issue here is that the fed was not considered to have the authority to abridge state law through its actions unless the constitution gave it the explicit authority to do so. So congress could pass federal laws only so long as the subject of those laws fell squarely within the domain of the federal government and, assuming this criterion was met, no state law could then countermand the federal law. Mostly it has been invoked with regard to treaties as the fed reserves absolute authority to enter into treaties. Any treaty made by the Executive and ratified by congress, so long as its provisions do not violate the constitution, is supreme and countermands any laws of any individual state.Russ said:You misread the line. That's not the US Constitution it is talking about, it is state constitutions. It's saying that state constitutions and laws may not contradict the US constitution or laws.
The Privileges and Immunities clause has always been interpreted as a remedy for the issue of individual states instituting discriminatory laws and taxes aimed at citizens of others states. This was a major issue under the Confederate States which was never adequately addressed.Russ said:That portion of the 14th amendment is redundant in that it says basically the same thing as Article 6, quoted above. It was necessary only because Article 6 wasn't being properly followed. Wiki has articles on both, for reference:
The Constitution has been interpreted as a contract between the states and not of the people so the rights and limitations in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, are considered to only apply to the federal government and its relationship with its citizens and the states.Brainstorm said:What does sovereignty really mean in a republic anyway? The whole point of a republic is to allow citizens to self-govern by rule of reason. The branches of government are supposed to check and balance each other and protect the sovereign rights and freedoms of individuals.
This may be my own interpretation or not, I'm not sure, but it seems like the purpose of dividing power between federal and state governments is that they should check and balance each other's power to assure that no individual's rights and freedoms are solely conditional on the power of a single level of authority.
In other words, sovereignty is supposed to be multiple to prevent autocracy. If the point had ever been to delegate absolute sovereignty to any level of society from the president to the landlord, the whole principle of all people being equal and having inalienable rights and freedoms would have been compromised, because a single sovereign government or governor would have a monopoly on the institutional means of claiming those rights for the people within their jurisdiction.
It seems to me that when you try to resolve this by giving less powerful entities more power, it only ends up magnifying the problem since those more powerful only work harder to buy the power of the "little guys" who have been given more power artificially. In other words, it just gives small players more bargaining power to become subsidiaries of bigger players. What would motivate a less powerful entity to actually utilize its power to stand up to bigger players, instead of just trading its power for a greater portion of the spoils?TheStatutoryApe said:In my perception the confederate states was much like a large scale formalized syndicalist style government. The Federal government was not an autonomous authoritative body but rather more a forum for voicing and resolving grievances. Resolutions arrived at by the fed were to be followed but this hinged on the willingness of the individual states to actually enforce any particular resolution. The problem here, as with most syndicalist style governments, was that those states with greater wealth, resources, and access to shipping lanes and ports necessarily made a far weightier vote than the less wealthy states. The consequence being that few wished to go against them and even if a resolution was made against these states they could easily flout the resolution without much concern that any of those states who rely upon them would actually attempt to enforce it. The effect of course is that the federal government made many resolutions that the governors of individual states were unwilling to abide or enforce.
This reads like something a lawyer would write trying to specify and delimit rights and powers in order to contain them. What about the fact that these entities are supposed to check and balance each other, not just restrain themselves to their defined terrain?The issue here is that the fed was not considered to have the authority to abridge state law through its actions unless the constitution gave it the explicit authority to do so. So congress could pass federal laws only so long as the subject of those laws fell squarely within the domain of the federal government and, assuming this criterion was met, no state law could then countermand the federal law. Mostly it has been invoked with regard to treaties as the fed reserves absolute authority to enter into treaties. Any treaty made by the Executive and ratified by congress, so long as its provisions do not violate the constitution, is supreme and countermands any laws of any individual state.
So you are saying that state agents have no responsibility to observe the rights and limitations of the constitution? That doesn't make any sense? Why would anyone be immune from observing constitutional rights just because they have the privilege of claiming state authority? That sounds like confederationism.The Constitution has been interpreted as a contract between the states and not of the people so the rights and limitations in the Constitution, unless otherwise specified, are considered to only apply to the federal government and its relationship with its citizens and the states.
There are no eu passports or eu citizenship. Citizens of each member state can live and work in any member country . Although the eu has 'influnced' a few countries' rules on how they grant citizenship.brainstorm said:Last I heard, for example, the EU state governments determine citizenship and only people with EU state citizenship can get EU passports, but that may have changed.
Still creates a few interesting political positions - each nations government argues that as much power as possible must be concentrated at national level - less bureaucracy / close to the people / accountable / no super-state etc.brainstorm said:I think the EU still protects state authority against federal intervention to a large degree.
brainstorm said:It seems to me that when you try to resolve this by giving less powerful entities more power, it only ends up magnifying the problem since those more powerful only work harder to buy the power of the "little guys" who have been given more power artificially. In other words, it just gives small players more bargaining power to become subsidiaries of bigger players. What would motivate a less powerful entity to actually utilize its power to stand up to bigger players, instead of just trading its power for a greater portion of the spoils?
This reads like something a lawyer would write trying to specify and delimit rights and powers in order to contain them. What about the fact that these entities are supposed to check and balance each other, not just restrain themselves to their defined terrain?
So you are saying that state agents have no responsibility to observe the rights and limitations of the constitution? That doesn't make any sense? Why would anyone be immune from observing constitutional rights just because they have the privilege of claiming state authority? That sounds like confederationism.
I think the EU still protects state authority against federal intervention to a large degree. Last I heard, for example, the EU state governments determine citizenship and only people with EU state citizenship can get EU passports, but that may have changed.
russ_watters said:Cite your source or retract your claim.
edpell said:]
from the back page of the book DiLorenzi is professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he is the author of eleven books and is widely published in academic journals and such national pubilcations as The Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's.
The fact that EU citizenship is framed in this way is an irritating reminder of the propagandistic culturalism that is infused into EU policies. The idea is to give citizens the benefits of economic unification while protecting their right to ethnically differentiate from each other and practice exclusionist ethnic pluralism.mgb_phys said:There are no eu passports or eu citizenship. Citizens of each member state can live and work in any member country . Although the eu has 'influnced' a few countries' rules on how they grant citizenship.
Usually when I read complaints about EU level government as being undemocratic because its not directly elected, it seems like it's a reactionary argument on the part of people who want greater national autonomy. In fact, it's rare that I read discussion of EU politics that doesn't come across as a politically loaded spin-bomb designed to implicitly insist on one or other perspective.Still creates a few interesting political positions - each nations government argues that as much power as possible must be concentrated at national level - less bureaucracy / close to the people / accountable / no super-state etc.
While at the same fighting independance for local regions - because power given out to local areas leads to inefficiencies, unaccountability, less power for people, breakdown of nations etc.
TheStatutoryApe said:Sorry Brainstorm. I typed out a rather lengthy response to this that was subsequently lost and I do not have the patience to try to reconstruct it fully.
Basically: Yes, it is very much like confederationism. That was the idea back then. You are misplacing the principle of checks and balances. The checks and balances were designed into the federal government; specifically the relationship between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government. The idea was to avoid the perceived rampant abuse of power in the English Parliament of that time. There were not, in fact, any checks and balances designed into the relationship between the state and the federal government. Protection of sovereignty was the aim of the limitations in the constitution which were predominantly leveled at the federal government. The relationship designed between the states and federal government was indeed the limitation of each to their respective domains.
Also remember that we are talking about a time when only white male property owners were allowed to vote. They were the ones that voted on state laws. They did not necessarily have any care for the plight of the poor and underrepresented who were most likely to be abused by state law.
And please note that I am not advocating such a system as I am presenting but only attempting to illustrate the historical precedent. Ed's belief that the relationship between state and federal government has changed drastically over time is correct. The answer to his question of when this happened, where the turning point was, can probably be found in the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction era after the US Civil War as already noted by other members.
I am currently finishing reading a textbook, an introduction to basic constitutional law, and most everything I have posted is based on my understanding of the information I have gleaned from that source. If you would like any citation I will cite the book or find online accessible sources at your (or anyone's) request.
Of cource if you're scottish and a conservative government gets in then that's pretty much not-directly elected (generally conservatives win no seats in Scotland)brainstorm said:Usually when I read complaints about EU level government as being undemocratic because its not directly elected
edpell said:"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."
Isn't this just an argument against despotism? It's not saying that individual freedom should be subject to consent of state government. It's saying that no individual should exercise sovereignty over others. It's basically an argument against slavery.
So how are state governments supposed to be held accountable to the constitution?Marshall page 90 a state can not be "called before the bar of the Federal court."
This implies that not only should slavery be allowed, that all authorities would be required to assist in the subjugation of slaves for the owner's benefit. Granted this raises the issue of freedom being protected as a means of gaining wage-laborers in free states, which could be construed as one master stealing the slaves of another by appeal to the slave's free will - but that is a complex argument.Webster page 90 'said in 1851 "if the Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side."
Do you happen to know how and why the war actually started? I remember there was an attack on a fort. I also remember reading the Lincoln refused to attack the confederates, saying that it was up to them to attack if they wanted to. What was the exact request that was made by the confederate leaders that was not honored by the federal government? What did they expect the government to do in response to their claim of independence?
This is very general and broadly interpretable.Adams page 87-88 a quote from a speech in 1839 it is long so I will quote only a small part "Then will be the time for reverting to the precedencts which occurred at the formation and adpotion of the Constitution, to form again a more prefect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center."
On the other hand, the declaration of independence, freedom, and rights are framed as inalienable rights that are self-evident. So there's an undertone of universality to them. So why would any proponent of the universal liberties and rights of all people created equal ever simply passively allow a group of people to opt for a form of government that abridges the rights of some of the people claimed as citizens (or as non-citizens) of the succeeding government?Jefferson page 86 quoting DiLorenzo "Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration, was a strong supporter of the Union, but he nevertheless defended the right of any state to secede from it."
If the rights and liberties described in the constitution were only applicable for certain people and not others, why wouldn't they have chosen less universal language?
brainstorm said:So how are state governments supposed to be held accountable to the constitution?
The majority of the framers of the constitution were of a mind, typical of intellectuals in that age, that the poor and uneducated were in need of guidance from wealthier more educated individuals. Wealth generally brought with it better education, which theoretically grants superior judgment, and a state of liberty and well being that, again theoretically, confers the ability to judge without self interest. You might say that this is to some degree true since wealthier people usually are more educated and more educated people tend to be more concerned with the liberty and well being of their less fortunate brethren. The framers though perhaps misjudged the extent of mans avarice and the ability of wealthy educated intellectuals to understand the circumstances and needs of the less fortunate.brainstorm said:I always hear people say that the constitution is inherently flawed because it was written in a historical context of slavery and subordination of women. My feeling is that the men who wrote it had the right idea in that they were laying a foundation for self-governance through reason instead of submission to the authority of a sovereign. It seems clear to me that this same claim to self-governance through reason is valid for anyone regardless of identity or status. The problem is that people's claims of reason are not always reasonable and you get into power-struggles over who gets to claim the right to self-govern as such and what that does or should entail.
The constitution used to protect sovereignty above all else. It is still protected to quite a degree but the federal government has succeeded in drawing much more power to itself than has previously been the case. Through the protection of sovereignty the federal government implicitly left the general protection of the rights of individual citizens to their respective states.Brain said:You say that the state governments were not to be checked by the federal government, but how is the federal government supposed to tolerate abridging of rights at the state level? The exercise of state-power is limited by the federal constitution, isn't it? Are you trying to argue that the federal constitution protects state sovereignty over individual rights?
It appears to be a reference to the 11th Amendment...Brain said:Isn't this just an argument against despotism? It's not saying that individual freedom should be subject to consent of state government. It's saying that no individual should exercise sovereignty over others. It's basically an argument against slavery.Ed said:"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union."
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
edpell said:If an EU state secedes will it be "right" for the EU to use military force to make the state rejoin?
How does the EU Constitution compare with the Constitution of these United States?
edpell said:How is the federal government to be held accountable to the tenth amendment?
Why did Jefferson own slaves his whole life?
Documents and people are contradictory and inconsistent.
Let me be clear I oppose slavery. Including the working conditions that existing in many countries of the world today.
There's no problem with Eu states leaving, Greenland did when it got independence from Denmark in the 80s.edpell said:If an EU state secedes will it be "right" for the EU to use military force to make the state rejoin?
One was written by some of the brightest and best classically trained scholars and political philosophers of the century drawing on 100s of years of British and French oratory. The other is written by 1000s of committees of bureaucrats and failed politicians.How does the EU Constitution compare with the Constitution of these United States?
Defining who is legitimate in guiding others and who isn't is a status issue. The core question is whether you think that autonomy should be respected when people are acting unreasonably and irrationally, especially when they put themselves or others directly in danger. As long as you're capable of reasoning with people, it is reasonable to do that instead of intervening. When they refuse to reason back, do they have a right to pursue activities that are destructive to themselves or others? To a certain degree, yes, but once it can be established that they are incapable of reasoning or they are directly harming themselves or others, don't you think intervention is required? Or do you recognize them as being sovereign to do harm without providing and defending reason?TheStatutoryApe said:The majority of the framers of the constitution were of a mind, typical of intellectuals in that age, that the poor and uneducated were in need of guidance from wealthier more educated individuals. Wealth generally brought with it better education, which theoretically grants superior judgment, and a state of liberty and well being that, again theoretically, confers the ability to judge without self interest. You might say that this is to some degree true since wealthier people usually are more educated and more educated people tend to be more concerned with the liberty and well being of their less fortunate brethren. The framers though perhaps misjudged the extent of mans avarice and the ability of wealthy educated intellectuals to understand the circumstances and needs of the less fortunate.
I do not believe that the intention of the constitution was to defend the rights of state governments to abridge the rights and freedoms of individuals according to collective sovereignty. I don't see how you could possibly insist on that.The framers apparently considered uniform standards of citizenship and voting rights but due to incredibly varied ideas of standard across the several states they intentionally left this out of the constitution implicitly leaving that right to the states which all required that one own property/land which automatically excluded anyone who was not white and male. Later amendments changed this.
So yes the framers supported self government but on a state level and not on an individual level.
Individual is sovereign over personal property. Conflicts between individual authority have to be resolved by laws and courts. Laws and courts are subject to rights of fair and public trial, etc. No state government is allowed to carry out secret trials without explicit charges, due process, etc.The constitution used to protect sovereignty above all else. It is still protected to quite a degree but the federal government has succeeded in drawing much more power to itself than has previously been the case. Through the protection of sovereignty the federal government implicitly left the general protection of the rights of individual citizens to their respective states.
In other words, some people were afraid that federalism would limit their sovereignty to be dictators over others at the state level?The Bill of Rights was agreed upon as the first order of business for the first Congress even before the Constitution was ratified. It was specifically aimed at limiting the powers of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of individual citizens and through them the states. It was proposed for the purpose of mollifying the antifederalists, many of whom rejected the constitution primarily based on fear of an authoritative federal body abusing the citizens of the states and thereby curtailing state sovereignty.
Cohesion need not be the motive. It could just have been the limitation of governmental power at the state level in the interest of freedom/republic.The limitations on state action in the constitution were aimed at creating a cohesive union. Specifically they are prohibited from printing their own money, entering into treaties or confederacies, raising armies (other than the state militia), levying tariffs, discriminating against citizens of other states, legitimizing freebooters, ect ect. Every enumerated limitation on state action, excepting discrimination against citizens of other states, was to prevent states from infringing on those rights reserved to the federal government.
I'm very sorry. I am more of a theorist and a philosopher. You sound like a lawyer trying to approach the language in a way that pushes certain implications and interpretations without putting them on the table explicitly for discussion. I hope you realize that people twist these things in different directions by interpreting in one way or another. My interpretation is that the constitution was designed to promote a democracy of multiple free authorities/powers checking and balancing each others at various levels. That is a republic-oriented interpretation, though. There are many people who attempt to interpret any and all language with assumptions of absolute authority wherever possible. I do not subscribe to that ideology because it is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.Edit: sorry. In addendum to the above paragraph the limitations on state action against individuals also includes similar limitations to that of the federal government. Specifically prohibitions against; bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contract. Note though that these are specifically outlined prohibitions against state action where it is elsewhere stated that the federal government is prohibited these actions. I mean to point out that this holds with the interpretation that limitations on state action are only found where specified.
mgb_phys said:There's no problem with Eu states leaving, Greenland did when it got independence from Denmark in the 80s.
It may be a little trickier technically for a euro member to leave, but in general more people are queuing up to join.
Plus the EU doesn't actually have a military.
There is occasionally a call for there to be some sort of eu peacekeeping force, because at the moment by the time you've got the eu+nato, the eu+non-nato, the none-eu+nato countries to all agree the war is generally over.
There is also a problem that of the countries in europe with a significant military, the UK doesn't want to offend the Americans, the Germans don't want to be seen to be starting 4th Riech and the French are all for it as long as they are in charge.
The smaller countries want a joint force - as long as the Brits/Germans/French aren't in charge.
The new member states in the east don't have the money to waste and don't want to risk pissing off the Russians
One was written by some of the brightest and best classically trained scholars and political philosophers of the century drawing on 100s of years of British and French oratory. The other is written by 1000s of committees of bureaucrats and failed politicians.
The eu constitution is really more a technical description of which powers to regulate the size of bananas.
No I'm saying that as a work of literature, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, and Hamilton building on the works of Locke, Hobbs and Paine and the writers of the french revolution may have done a better job.brainstorm said:Even your comparison of the constitutions framed the EU documents as a large collection of "bureaucrats," implying that all European individual will is subordinate to institutional authority.
Aticel 1) The preamble shall be amended as follows:
(a) the following text shall be inserted as the second recital:
‘DRAWING INSPIRATION from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law,’;
(b) In the seventh, which shall become the eighth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’;
(c) In the eleventh, which shall become the twelfth, recital, the words ‘of this Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘of this Treaty and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,’.