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,’.
The federal government is allowed to intervene in state issues when it can show a 'compelling interest' and only to such a degree as is absolutely necessary to rectify the issue. Typically though the state is considered to be made up primarily of competent individuals who can recognize an untenable situation and enact measures to rectify the issue. The federal government need not step in unless the situation is entirely out of hand. Consider the relationship between parent and child. An adult child is free to its own devices. Parents may advise but they have no right to step in until such time as the child has shown themselves to be an eminent danger to their self. Otherwise the child is considered competent enough to make its own decisions and deal with its own mistakes.brainstorm said: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?
Do you believe that it is the intention of the UN to allow the US, or any other country, to abridge the rights and freedoms of its citizens? The UN has strictly outlined procedures for when intervention is allowable and recognizes the sovereignty of nations. It will not impede the right of any national entity to make its own choices and is not allowed to hold any nation to its own standard of decency through force unless absolutely necessary.Brain said: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.
Due Process is found in the 14th Amendment. It also does not define due process. The courts have been interpreting the exact extent of due process for over a century. Even the federal government before the fourteenth amendment was not held to the same standard of due process that we have today. Civilizations evolve.Brain said: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.
Nor is recognition of sovereignty consent to allow dictatorship.Brain said:In other words, some people were afraid that federalism would limit their sovereignty to be dictators over others at the state level?
I can look for sources and cite them later if you like (I need some sleep) but it is the historical reasoning that these limitations on states were to form a more cohesive union. Many of them address issues specific to the failure of the Confederate States. Individual states would print bank notes that were more or less valuable depending upon which state you were in and some would not accept any other currency. The states levied variable taxes and tariffs on one another to reduce out of state competition or just to turn a profit. States would invalidate contracts from out of state lenders to free its citizens of their obligation to consideration.Brian said: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.
I may respond more to this later. Right now I would just like to say that I am referring primarily to historical interpretation. We are in "History & Humanities" discussing the history of constitutional interpretation and its changes over time. Your posts and arguments seem to be applying a modern interpretation of constitutional principle. I am only saying that this sort of interpretation was not always in force. Realizing and understanding the history of the document, its various interpretations, and the context of its creation and amending is important to our modern perspective.Brian said: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.
Freedom is not absolute. It is subject to checking and balancing, which is what makes it democratic. Defense and respect for the constitution also means defending the spirit of republic and democracy. The problem is that authoritarianism is not ultimately excludable. It is always possible for people to assert absolute authority of a document or institution by claiming it is a prescription of democracy or republic. This is actually the most successful means of undermining freedom and democracy, because it takes some critical work to first recognize that freedom and democracy are being authoritarianized and, second, you have to figure out a way to re-assert freedom and democracy without reproducing more authoritarianism. It is very tricky and I always get confused trying to figure it out.
brainstorm said:I don't even get what the meaning of "union" is except to the extent that it protects again separatist violence.
brainstorm said:The better question, imo, is whether it is ever wrong for any force to intervene in the affairs of another when universal rights and freedoms are being abridged. If you believe that some individual(s) have the right to abridge the rights of others, then you would probably defend the sovereignty of their authority to do so. If you believe that no individual(s) have the right to do so in the name of sovereignty or otherwise, you would support the use of power to intervene.
I think we agree on the principle that intervention should only be undertaken as a last resort and more diplomatic/democratic means pursued first. Where we disagree is in viewing collective sovereigns as deserving the same respect as individual sovereigns. The very idea of collective or state sovereignty presumes the right for some individual(s) to be sovereign over others. So it seems hypocritical to me to say that intervention in the right of some individuals to be sovereign over others should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Power checks sovereignty to protect individuals from state/collectivist tyranny.TheStatutoryApe said:The federal government is allowed to intervene in state issues when it can show a 'compelling interest' and only to such a degree as is absolutely necessary to rectify the issue. Typically though the state is considered to be made up primarily of competent individuals who can recognize an untenable situation and enact measures to rectify the issue. The federal government need not step in unless the situation is entirely out of hand. Consider the relationship between parent and child. An adult child is free to its own devices. Parents may advise but they have no right to step in until such time as the child has shown themselves to be an eminent danger to their self. Otherwise the child is considered competent enough to make its own decisions and deal with its own mistakes.
Do you believe that it is the intention of the UN to allow the US, or any other country, to abridge the rights and freedoms of its citizens?I think part of what the UN does is to make it very difficult for anyone to intervene in anyone else's business out of ethical concerns without facing a discourse of submission to authority of sovereignty. In other words, the first thing UN agents do is attempt to preserve sovereignty as long as possible as war-avoidance. Cultural relativism and moral relativism are held as reasons that no one should interfere in the affairs of someone else with "a different culture." The fact is that defining cultural differences and boundaries is itself a relativist power-claim, and there is no reason why national-state authorities should be able to define culture for individual citizens and therefore claim special jurisdiction over intervention in their affairs. Granted, any authority should operate in dialogue with the authority of whosever affairs it is intervening in, but this must occur at the individual level, imo.
This language assumes that collective self-determination is ontologically possible. I dissect collectivist language-claims and always find that collectivism involves some individuals being subjugated to the will or interests of others. A "national-entity" can't make "its own choices" because "it" doesn't exist except as conflicting interests and individuals. Why should individuals be subject to exclusion from interaction with other individuals on the basis of statism? If one individual is defined as having the same nationality as another, she is free to intervene in the other's affairs but if they are defined as having different nationalities, it can be called an act of war? What kind of nonsense is that?The UN has strictly outlined procedures for when intervention is allowable and recognizes the sovereignty of nations. It will not impede the right of any national entity to make its own choices and is not allowed to hold any nation to its own standard of decency through force unless absolutely necessary.
Collectivist action is a different story. If multiple individuals coordinate their actions to exercise oppressive force over others, shouldn't that be checked, regardless of whether the individuals are defined as having the same or different nationality from the people they are attacking?
Maybe not, but it is itself the means to allow the atrocity of discrimination on the basis of national citizenship.Recognition of sovereignty is not consent to allow any manner of atrocity.
I'm afraid that informal trial and punishment occur in various forms regularly and pass as everyday affairs. Employers can investigate and punish or fire employees without due process or even explicit notification. Managers just base their decision on one thing and give a different reason for disciplinary action. Look at media scandals. Was Tiger Woods given the privilege of due process or rights of the accused? No, he was simply subject to public humiliation protected by freedom of speech. I'm not arguing against freedom of speech, of course, just pointing out that people still find informal ways of exercising pre-modern power tactics without giving much thought to the fact that they are acting as judge, jury, and disciplinary agent.Due Process is found in the 14th Amendment. It also does not define due process. The courts have been interpreting the exact extent of due process for over a century. Even the federal government before the fourteenth amendment was not held to the same standard of due process that we have today. Civilizations evolve.
What is sovereignty except a form of dictatorship?Nor is recognition of sovereignty consent to allow dictatorship.
Note that political and philosophical forces led to the eventual institution of a nation standard of rights.
I suppose standardizing currency can be called a form of cohesion. It can also just be called a convenience for market exchanges. Appropriating governmental institutions for business discrimination is corruption, not incohesion. All of these things sound like abuses of power the way you describe them, but I'm sure their are situations in which they would be a lesser evil of necessary evil to check/balance some other act of corruption. It's always handy for one side to point out the ethics abuses of the other as part of a discourse to claim legitimacy and redress. In reality, democracy like war usually involves some level of ethical shortfalls on the part of both sides. The only hope is de-escalation since allowing them to subject each other to political accountability only adds another dimension to the bickering.I can look for sources and cite them later if you like (I need some sleep) but it is the historical reasoning that these limitations on states were to form a more cohesive union. Many of them address issues specific to the failure of the Confederate States. Individual states would print bank notes that were more or less valuable depending upon which state you were in and some would not accept any other currency. The states levied variable taxes and tariffs on one another to reduce out of state competition or just to turn a profit. States would invalidate contracts from out of state lenders to free its citizens of their obligation to consideration.
I don't think you have access to any interpretation except through the lens of your current interpretation. You may believe that you can transparently survey different interpretive frameworks as changing through time, but you seem to ignore that to interpret those frameworks, you have to interpret them from your own perspective. I'm willing to discuss reasoning and evidence that one texts exhibits one interpretive framework and another another, but I disagree that you can assume cohesion among everyone living during a particular time of how they interpreted constitutional passages or anything else. If anything is certain about interpretation, it is that there are always conflicts and dissent.I may respond more to this later. Right now I would just like to say that I am referring primarily to historical interpretation. We are in "History & Humanities" discussing the history of constitutional interpretation and its changes over time. Your posts and arguments seem to be applying a modern interpretation of constitutional principle. I am only saying that this sort of interpretation was not always in force. Realizing and understanding the history of the document, its various interpretations, and the context of its creation and amending is important to our modern perspective.
I would say that marriage is a statement of commitment by individuals but not a union, per se, although I say this because I'm uncomfortable with what "union" can or should mean. Divorce is indeed an expression of separatism. Practically it allows people to guarantee parental rights and protect their assets against abuse by a person who may no longer take their interest into consideration.edpell said:So in the union of marriage you would oppose all divorce?
Is this the same as saying that you would sacrifice a certain number of individual's rights that you believe into protect others? Is damage-control ethically tenable when it willfully allows victimization of innocents? By comparison, would it have been ethical for the military to have allowed the European holocaust of the 1930s-1940s occur without intervention as a means of avoiding creating war-casualties? It can be disturbing, but I sometimes think that this is the lesson of Christianity with "turning the other cheek," i.e. that it is better to suffer at the mercy of an oppressor than oppressing back. On the other hand, if you can intervene in oppression, why wouldn't you except to avoid committing greater violence? These are hard ethical issues without easy answers.edpell said:I suppose women's rights but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading all countries that have Shia law (with their population of about a billion). I suppose religious freedom but I would not suppose the U.S. Army invading China (with their 1.3 billion people). This is for pragmatic reasons.
If we had a magic wand that would allow the U.S. Army to impose U.S. values on the whole world I would have to wonder which values would those be? The values of the religious or the non religious? The values of the north or the south? the values of the urban or the rural? The values of those who want to nationalize all industries or the values of those who do not want to nationalize all industries? etc, etc...
edpell, in your first mention of the sovereignty issue, I had the impression you meant those founders were stating that the US states were sovereign over the US Federal government in all cases. Clearly this is not the case. For the cases detailed in the Constitution, e.g. who runs the Post Office and so on, the Federal government is sovereign. None of the quotes above run counter to that idea. The disagreements stem for those cases not so clearly spelled out in the constitution.edpell said:As I am reading "The Real Lincoln" by DiLorenzo now. I will use that for references.
Hamilton page 89 from "The Federalist Papers" (number 81) he states
"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."
Marshall page 90 a state can not be "called before the bar of the Federal court."
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."
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."
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."
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.
I see this not as ontological claims but practical claims. Intervention into 'sovereign' relationships carries with it the danger of imposing only an alternate form of oppression and 'dictatorship'. Even with only the best of intentions and the most careful consideration any intervention at all may only cause strife and suffering either directly or indirectly. Regardless of ontological correctness the perception of collective will is rather thoroughly ingrained and presents issues for practical consideration.brainstorm said:This language assumes that collective self-determination is ontologically possible. I dissect collectivist language-claims and always find that collectivism involves some individuals being subjugated to the will or interests of others. A "national-entity" can't make "its own choices" because "it" doesn't exist except as conflicting interests and individuals. Why should individuals be subject to exclusion from interaction with other individuals on the basis of statism? If one individual is defined as having the same nationality as another, she is free to intervene in the other's affairs but if they are defined as having different nationalities, it can be called an act of war? What kind of nonsense is that?
I believe that even at its most broad interpretation "dictatorship" is defined as the rule of the minority over the majority. Sovereignty in itself does not equate to this.Brain said:What is sovereignty except a form of dictatorship?
Corruption leads to incohesion. Being in a depressed community and traveling to another to find resources only to find that the depression of my community has led to my currency being worth even less anywhere else creates disparity and incohesion. Doing business with persons in another community only to find that that community has decided I am owed no consideration and will use force to prevent me from recuperation of my losses creates incohesion. "To form a more perfect union" one may see fit to mitigate these issues.Brain said:I suppose standardizing currency can be called a form of cohesion. It can also just be called a convenience for market exchanges. Appropriating governmental institutions for business discrimination is corruption, not incohesion. All of these things sound like abuses of power the way you describe them, but I'm sure their are situations in which they would be a lesser evil of necessary evil to check/balance some other act of corruption. It's always handy for one side to point out the ethics abuses of the other as part of a discourse to claim legitimacy and redress. In reality, democracy like war usually involves some level of ethical shortfalls on the part of both sides. The only hope is de-escalation since allowing them to subject each other to political accountability only adds another dimension to the bickering.
I am referring primarily to interpretation by the court. There has rarely been a strong consensus of interpretation of the constitution but it is the function of the Supreme Court to make such determinations and their interpretation affects the practical application of the law. For a historical and legal perspective their interpretations are authoritative. I am sure that my own biases of perception may colour my presentation of those interpretations to some degree or another but I assume an ability on the part of readers to filter any bias and glean useful information for discussion from my communications.Brain said:I don't think you have access to any interpretation except through the lens of your current interpretation. You may believe that you can transparently survey different interpretive frameworks as changing through time, but you seem to ignore that to interpret those frameworks, you have to interpret them from your own perspective. I'm willing to discuss reasoning and evidence that one texts exhibits one interpretive framework and another another, but I disagree that you can assume cohesion among everyone living during a particular time of how they interpreted constitutional passages or anything else. If anything is certain about interpretation, it is that there are always conflicts and dissent.