Isn't the Constitution illegal and Britannical?

[fskimospy]

But is the Constitution a change in the Confederation, or forming a different union?

It really depends on how you look at it, the ratification was sort of a shady affair. Technically it was just an amendment to the Articles, but when they drew it up they changed the rules for what was required to amend them from a unanimous vote to 9 of the 13 states. EDIT: So it passed under the terms they decided on, but not under the terms of the document they claimed to be amending.

In the end everyone ratified it so I guess it doesn't matter, but the federalists were kind of underhanded about it... haha.

 

[werepossum]

It really depends on how you look at it, the ratification was sort of a shady affair. Technically it was just an amendment to the Articles, but when they drew it up they changed the rules for what was required to amend them from a unanimous vote to 9 of the 13 states.

In the end everyone ratified it so I guess it doesn't matter, but the federalists were kind of underhanded about it... haha.

Imagine that, underhanded politicians . . .

I guess I date America as we know it from 1789, when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederacy and Washington (as opposed to Huntington) became our first President. But I suppose it would be equally valid to think of it the other way too. I can't really understand though anyone thinking the Articles were superior to the Constitution; the Articles weren't even capable of handling the Barbary Pirates, much less something like World War I or our modern world. Even the European Union has draconian power compared to the Articles.

 

[fskimospy]

Imagine that, underhanded politicians . . .

I guess I date America as we know it from 1789, when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederacy and Washington (as opposed to Huntington) became our first President. But I suppose it would be equally valid to think of it the other way too. I can't really understand though anyone thinking the Articles were superior to the Constitution; the Articles weren't even capable of handling the Barbary Pirates, much less something like World War I or our modern world. Even the European Union has draconian power compared to the Articles.

I don't think anyone actually thinks they are better, with the possible exception of the moron who made this thread. (although I imagine he would hate the AOC too) Regardless of your opinion on the current government situation, we have direct evidence that the AOC sucked.

I mean, we tried them for eight or so years and it was horrible, and the government worked better almost immediately after we replaced them. This is a no brainer.

 

[CanOWorms]

Of course the Constitution is "Britannical." The US was born of the European enlightenment, of which Britain was a huge part (unfortunately for COW). Our entire legal system is a continuation of English common law.

You can characterize the origin as influenced by that, but it also deviates quite a bit from the UK model (unfortunately for Infohawk). I would characterize our entire governmental system as an aversion to British barbarism.

 

[Linflas]

I think the Anarchist has every right to his position, however, it seems to me that the ratifying bodies to the Constitution were the same folks/Colonies involved with the Articles of Confederation. If this is true then they adopted new law by their ratification.

The term 'Founders' seems equally suitable for the creators of the Articles of Confederation as for the US Constitution... The 'A of C' were the first Constitution of the Sovereign States... And to my thinking the States intended to retain their Sovereignty with the exception for what authority was given the Federal Government in the US Constitution.

I think my position is: The States never intended to let the 14th, for instance, become a total and complete limit on them as determined by the subsequent Court Opinions beyond the issue addressed when they ratified that bit of hocus pokus.

It is not the 14th amendment that changed the relationship between the states and the Federal Government, it was the 16th and 17th amendments that had the greatest effect. Even then the effect was limited until the SCOTUS allowed the commerce clause to be so perverted as to cover almost any action the Federal Government wished to impose.

 

[Harvey]

The Articles of Confederation was supposed to be a perpetual union, and the Constitution, which is of no authority, is of no authority, among other reasons, because it didn't follow the Amendment procedure of the Articles of Confederation.

Put simply, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was only able to be amended--not replaced. It followed our nation's founding principles to a tee, whereas the Constitution has failed to protect life, liberty, and property. It set up a strong central government, a quasi-monarch, it gave power to the elites (rather than to every citizen), it mandates a standing army, and it mandates taxation. Those are all against the founding principles of our nation.

We became much more like Britain when the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution is a big dirty rat.

If you don't like the Contstitution, you could do real Americans a favor, and leave the country. At least, you'll be helping to remove toxic waste from the nation.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Constitution is a federation, the Articles of Confederation was a confederation.

And no, the Constitution was not better--every Austrian believes that the Constitution sucks, and that it's not even a minarchist document.

Taxation wasn't necessary under the Articles of Confederation because the powers of the government were so limited, and all the wars we've ever fought under the Constitution have been unnecessary. It's not like the Barbary Pirates were coming on American soil.

The Constitution was ratified purely due to special interests and to help the elites get corporate welfare. If you look at the demographics of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention, most of them were merchants, speculators, and lawyers. That should tell people something.

 

[Harvey]

The Constitution is a federation, the Articles of Confederation was a confederation.

And no, the Constitution was not better--every Austrian believes that the Constitution sucks, and that it's not even a minarchist document.

Taxation wasn't necessary under the Articles of Confederation because the powers of the government were so limited, and all the wars we've ever fought under the Constitution have been unnecessary. It's not like the Barbary Pirates were coming on American soil.

The Constitution was ratified purely due to special interests and to help the elites get corporate welfare. If you look at the demographics of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention, most of them were merchants, speculators, and lawyers. That should tell people something.

What you don't know is your ass from that hole in the ground you keep digging. Not going to bother trying to argue with someone who hasn't a clue, let alone a fact in anything he's posted in this thread. Out.

 

[LunarRay]

But is the Constitution a change in the Confederation, or forming a different union?

I think that is answered here:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Each capitalized word there seems to be what the transition is all about but especially the bolded bit...

 

[LunarRay]

It is not the 14th amendment that changed the relationship between the states and the Federal Government, it was the 16th and 17th amendments that had the greatest effect. Even then the effect was limited until the SCOTUS allowed the commerce clause to be so perverted as to cover almost any action the Federal Government wished to impose.

I was toying with the notion that the Supremacy Clause was the initial bit then the Commerce Clause and then on to the 14th and so on... I had to think a bit about the affect of the 14th's DP and EP being restrictive on the States in order for the Supremacy Clause to further empower the Central Government... But, I won't argue against your position either... except to say the Income tax apportionment and Senator selection would not be my first thought regarding this.

Griswald v Some Atty General an Oregon case and the Silkwood case come to mind in that Supremacy bit... among others.

 

[LunarRay]

If you don't like the Contstitution, you could do real Americans a favor, and leave the country. At least, you'll be helping to remove toxic waste from the nation.

But not the planet... IF your concern is toxic waste... 😀

 

[LunarRay]

The Constitution is a federation, the Articles of Confederation was a confederation.

And no, the Constitution was not better--every Austrian believes that the Constitution sucks, and that it's not even a minarchist document.

Taxation wasn't necessary under the Articles of Confederation because the powers of the government were so limited, and all the wars we've ever fought under the Constitution have been unnecessary. It's not like the Barbary Pirates were coming on American soil.

The Constitution was ratified purely due to special interests and to help the elites get corporate welfare. If you look at the demographics of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention, most of them were merchants, speculators, and lawyers. That should tell people something.

I don't think your proffer is a fair one. IF you take everything slanted to sustain your position then ok... but if you look at the general theme of the Constitution as defined by the preamble you'd not easily be able to conclude as you do... It is in how the intent of the words have been used that has made the Constitution a bit more than original thinking...
I recall in the section regarding extradition the word 'Shall' used to occupy the place of 'May'... At least in my old tattered copy... Article IV, section 2, as I recall. Perhaps that is to do with due process and all but it does say 'shall'.

 

[dawp]

can we get Anarchist420 committed?

 

[Anarchist420]

What you don't know is your ass from that hole in the ground you keep digging. Not going to bother trying to argue with someone who hasn't a clue, let alone a fact in anything he's posted in this thread. Out.

No offense, but I DO have a clue. Unlike most people, I have listened to both sides of the debate, and I realized several years ago when I became a libertarian that popular opinion and popular references on the issue are full of shit. Just because 99% of today's population may choose to ignore the fact that the Articles of Confederation worked fine and was starting to work even better before it was replaced, doesn't mean the Constitution was better.

I'll give you some non-mainstream references to start with. Refutations are welcome, if you have any after reading the following:

http://mises.org/daily/1296
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north247.html

We all know how truthful our government textbooks and corporate msm are, after all.

 

[Fern]

The Articles of Confederation was supposed to be a perpetual union, and the Constitution, which is of no authority, is of no authority, among other reasons, because it didn't follow the Amendment procedure of the Articles of Confederation.

Put simply, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was only able to be amended--not replaced. It followed our nation's founding principles to a tee, whereas the Constitution has failed to protect life, liberty, and property. It set up a strong central government, a quasi-monarch, it gave power to the elites (rather than to every citizen), it mandates a standing army, and it mandates taxation. Those are all against the founding principles of our nation.

We became much more like Britain when the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution is a big dirty rat.

I don't see why the AoC couldn't be modified, or even abandoned if people wanted it so.

Legal agreements between people/parties can just be dropped if they wish. The people/states of the USA back then could have done so with the AoC.

Or, if you prefer, just consider it another 'revolution'. The people and 2nd (Constitution) government overthrowing the 1st (AoC).

But in no case can I see the AoC preventing the Constitution from existing and superseding it. Indeed, laws etc are constantly superseded by newer ones, even if the newer one doesn't specifically say so etc.

Edit: WTH is "britannical"? The OP made up a new word.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution is a federation, the Articles of Confederation was a confederation.

And no, the Constitution was not better--every Austrian believes that the Constitution sucks, and that it's not even a minarchist document.

Taxation wasn't necessary under the Articles of Confederation because the powers of the government were so limited, and all the wars we've ever fought under the Constitution have been unnecessary. It's not like the Barbary Pirates were coming on American soil.

The Constitution was ratified purely due to special interests and to help the elites get corporate welfare. If you look at the demographics of the people who attended the Constitutional Convention, most of them were merchants, speculators, and lawyers. That should tell people something.

Who do you think the people were who wrote the Articles of Confederation?

The AoC and the Constitution were both federations, one was just stronger than the other.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...every Austrian believes that the Constitution sucks...

You have polled all the Austrians?

...Or, if you prefer, just consider it another 'revolution'. The people and 2nd (Constitution) government overthrowing the 1st (AoC)...

:thumbsup:
The Constitution was the Thermidorian Reaction of the American Revolution.

 

[Infohawk]

You can characterize the origin as influenced by that, but it also deviates quite a bit from the UK model (unfortunately for Infohawk). I would characterize our entire governmental system as an aversion to British barbarism.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but English court cases have been cited by and been relied upon by American lawyers and judges for centuries. Because it's recognized that the US is a continuation of the English common law system. There are differences but you cannot deny this fundamental connection. Try not to cry. Those English-based rights still give you the right to be a bigot and try to rewrite history.

 

[Harvey]

No offense, but I DO have a clue.

The Constitution is, by definition, THE underlying document defining our entire legal establishment. When the title of your thread is a preposterous question, Isn't the Constitution illegal and Britannical?, NO, you most certainly do NOT have a clue.

I apologize for breaking my pledge to remain silent to the rest of your garbage, but the absurdity of your premise, and your continuing denial of your own ignorance/stupidity was too much to let go.

You've already spewed about as much meaningless drivel as possible on your non-subject. I'll refrain from any further comments because there's nothing of value to say about the nothing you've posted. 🙄

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but English court cases have been cited by and been relied upon by American lawyers and judges for centuries. Because it's recognized that the US is a continuation of the English common law system. There are differences but you cannot deny this fundamental connection. Try not to cry. Those English-based rights still give you the right to be a bigot and try to rewrite history.

I didn't deny the origin or common law nature. Old English cases have certainly been cited, but also deviated from it quite severely. It's a recognition that the US system is a separate system now. In addition, I believe that Louisiana is not common law in its state system.

Going beyond the common law you will notice other significant changes in reaction to the British. The Constitution, concept of judicial review, etc. all support this. Try not to cry. Those unique American deviations still give you the right to be a bigot and try to rewrite not only history but today's reality.

 

[Infohawk]

I didn't deny the origin or common law nature. Old English cases have certainly been cited, but also deviated from it quite severely. It's a recognition that the US system is a separate system now. In addition, I believe that Louisiana is not common law in its state system.

Going beyond the common law you will notice other significant changes in reaction to the British. The Constitution, concept of judicial review, etc. all support this. Try not to cry. Those unique American deviations still give you the right to be a bigot and try to rewrite not only history but today's reality.

Yes Louisiana follows the civil law system which is based on French civil law. You also hate France right? Any any other European country that has been a democracy for longer than any third world country? That's right I thought so.

And try to be original and not just copy what I say... You're original in your irrational hatred of Europeans, so I think you can do it.

 

[CanOWorms]

Yes Louisiana follows the civil law system which is based on French civil law. You also hate France right? Any any other European country that has been a democracy for longer than any third world country? That's right I thought so.

I like how you ask me a question and then make up a reply from me. That's interesting.

I'm not sure how you came to democracy, but it's an interesting topic. I don't think that many European countries have been democratic for longer than some third world countries. There is a difference between claiming you're a democracy and acting like one.

And try to be original and not just copy what I say... You're original in your irrational hatred of Europeans, so I think you can do it.

I just like your writing style. Don't be too sad that a minority dares to challenge you. It doesn't demean you or your race if you're corrected. Cool down the White Pride stuff!

 

[Ns1]

Thanks for catching that, not sure how everyone missed it for the past century.

 

[Infohawk]

I like how you ask me a question and then make up a reply from me. That's interesting.

I'm not sure how you came to democracy, but it's an interesting topic. I don't think that many European countries have been democratic for longer than some third world countries. There is a difference between claiming you're a democracy and acting like one.



I just like your writing style. Don't be too sad that a minority dares to challenge you. It doesn't demean you or your race if you're corrected. Cool down the White Pride stuff!

How did I come to democracy? We're talking about the Constitution. European countries have had more suffrage than non-European countries and continue to do so for the most part. Just because a weak caste-system society was colonized by a stronger more democratic society doesn't change that.

 

[CanOWorms]

How did I come to democracy? We're talking about the Constitution. European countries have had more suffrage than non-European countries and continue to do so for the most part. Just because a weak caste-system society was colonized by a stronger more democratic society doesn't change that.

Sorry, I disagree. Many European countries still have restrictive citizenship laws that restrict suffrage to a class of people who would have citizenship elsewhere in the world. Ethnicity/Race-based citizenship is something that has to be abolished. It's a step that they skipped. Even Switzerland, a supposed very progressive European country, didn't allow all women to vote until the 1980s. That was after Yemen.

Also, I'm not aware of the UK being colonized by another stronger, more democratic society. Unless you're from the future?