• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were The United States Supposed To Be Soverign, By Definition Are They?

Were the United States Supposed To Be Soverign, By definition are they?

  • Yes The States Were Supposed To Be Sovereign When Founded, Yes They Fit The Definition

    Votes: 2 33.3%

  • Yes The States Were Supposed To Be Sovereign When Founded, No They Do Not Fit The Definition

    Votes: 4 66.7%

  • No The States Were Not Supposed To Be Sovereign When Founded, Yes They Fit The Definition

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No The States Were Not Supposed To Be Sovereign When Founded, No They Do Not Fit The Definition

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other, Please Explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
Master PO said:
the anti-federalist made arguments against the constitution because they believed it gave the federal government to much power, and with that power the new federal government would violate rights of the people.

Hamilton and Madison both argued against the claims of the anti-federalist that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the federal government to violate rights of the people, BECAUSE the constitution delegates no power to the federal government concerning the lives liberty and property of the people, and if the federal government has no powers then they cannot make any law, and without law the federal government cannot act to violate anyones rights.

this is why both men referred to the constitution has a bill of rights itself and stated an actual bill of rights was not needed.

the thinking of both men was correct, however the problem lies in amendments [ which violate the principles this nation was founded upon, and its republican form] along with the USSC.

for over 100 years after the constitution the federal government, did not SCREW with the people because they had no power to do it, but with the 16th amendment this gave the federal government the power to tax people directly, and "the power to tax is the power to destroy",the 16th gave the federal government its first power into peoples lives

then we see the 17th amendment come along, this amendment strips the states of their power to control the senate and protect their own state powers from federal usurpation.

the state governments powers concerns the peoples personal lives and their property, but with the 17th the federal government begins to makes laws concerning the people violating the separation of powers in our federal system of government, the federal government moves in on state powers, the states are powerless to stop them and the states must NOW reply on the USSC to stop the overreach of the federal government.

with the new deal of FDR, FDR wants more control then the federal government has, programs are created which directly impact/involve themselves in individual Citizens lives and these cases go before the USSC and because of FDR's threats against the court, he gets his way.

in 1942 in Wickard vs. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the USSC rules in favor of the federal government government, allowing the federal government to regulate Citizens of the u.s., once this is done the federal government as all the power it needs to do as it wishes, and we see the violations of American citizens rights by the federal government.

the 16th and Wickard vs. Filburn have given the federal government control /power over the people they were never intended to have.

17th has damaged our Classical Republic of "mixed government" the founders created, and moved it away from its republican form to a more democratic form of government, which democratic forms are unstable and eventually fail, which is why the u.s. was not created a democracy by the founders

it has been the power hungry ideas of men who have changed our constitution with its creation of a limited federal government, to the federal government today of exercising powers far outside of that limited capacity they were delegated.
Click to expand...

That is a well written argument. I do feel that Hamilton and Madison, as well as many other framers of our constitution had large flaws in drafting the constitution.
1, many were hypocritically claiming equal rights for all people while neglecting women, slaves, and non-property owners equally.
2, the constitution was drafted in secrecy, which adds to a fear of a deceived and duped public.
3, states obviously resigned their sovereignty to the federation and were no longer free from a form of aristocracy they not long before fought to rescind.

Are the anti-federalist arguments held in as high regard as the federalist arguments when SCOTUS reviews the constitution? If not, should the anti-federalists arguments be held in high regard by SCOTUS because they were the counter compromise that our countries constitution was supposed to be founded?
 
Pozessed said:
That is a well written argument. I do feel that Hamilton and Madison, as well as many other framers of our constitution had large flaws in drafting the constitution.
1, many were hypocritically claiming equal rights for all people while neglecting women, slaves, and non-property owners equally.
2, the constitution was drafted in secrecy, which adds to a fear of a deceived and duped public.
3, states obviously resigned their sovereignty to the federation and were no longer free from a form of aristocracy they not long before fought to rescind.

Are the anti-federalist arguments held in as high regard as the federalist arguments when SCOTUS reviews the constitution? If not, should the anti-federalists arguments be held in high regard by SCOTUS because they were the counter compromise that our countries constitution was supposed to be founded?
Click to expand...

well in the constitution, i feel they needed to defined things more then they did, and one thing they did do which is bad is let congress write it own rules.

1. the founders wanted to end slavery at the Declaration of independence , but it was not possible because some southern states would not agree to it, and the continental congress needed every state to be on board with the revolution, the revolution would certainly fail with out everyone.

slaves were considered property and not people, which is why slaves were not treated equally, concerns of women/ slaves and non property owners concerning voting was a state power, when the founders had the power to prevent slavery they did with the northwest ordnance.

the constitution itself is ONLY a document creating the structure of the federal government and separating powers, those delegated powers of the constitution are federal, all other powers which exist are state, while the bill of rights restrict the federal government from making certain laws

2. the founders of the convention only went to Philly to fix the AOC, not write a new constitution, the states and the people were given ample time to understand the constitution before it was ratified, and they could have rejected it.

3. the states gave up some of their sovereignty in order to form the union, because the 13 states separately under the AOC was not working.
 
Master PO said:
well in the constitution, i feel they needed to defined things more then they did, and one thing they did do which is bad is let congress write it own rules.

1. the founders wanted to end slavery at the Declaration of independence , but it was not possible because some southern states would not agree to it, and the continental congress needed every state to be on board with the revolution, the revolution would certainly fail with out everyone.

slaves were considered property and not people, which is why slaves were not treated equally, concerns of women/ slaves and non property owners concerning voting was a state power, when the founders had the power to prevent slavery they did with the northwest ordnance.

the constitution itself is ONLY a document creating the structure of the federal government and separating powers, those delegated powers of the constitution are federal, all other powers which exist are state, while the bill of rights restrict the federal government from making certain laws

2. the founders of the convention only went to Philly to fix the AOC, not write a new constitution, the states and the people were given ample time to understand the constitution before it was ratified, and they could have rejected it.

3. the states gave up some of their sovereignty in order to form the union, because the 13 states separately under the AOC was not working.
Click to expand...

1, Insinuating all people are created equal, and then not permitting all people a fair vote regarding how their state and/or federation would be governed is an obvious flaw. It can not be denied nor excused, because we know better.

2,

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? ... The operation of measures thus unconstitutional & illegal ought to be prevented, by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional & legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State Governments to protect their own authority over their own Militia, & to interpose between their citizens & arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State Governments exist; & their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights & the liberties of their people.
— Daniel Webster, Webster's Speech Against Conscription (December 9, 1814), Letters of Daniel Webster

The civil war seems like a boiling point of the 1780s federalist views clashing with anti-federalists views of active vs inactive federal government. Slavery was the largest concern regarding the civil war. I do think that many fought for the idea that states rights were more important than federal authority though. The stark difference that makes the loss of sovereignty apparent IMO is that before the civil war, federal income tax was found to be unconstitutional. After the civil war the federalists subdued without compromise the anti-federalists philosophy of states rights. From that moment on, the federation had complete supremacy without regard to the compromise our country was founded, and the already constituted supremacy clause was the condemnation of their sovereignty. What do you think would have happened in this era had a similar 1942 in Wickard vs. Filburn trial been held? Of course it is pure speculation, but I think a civil war may have ensued had our federal government tried telling people what they could and couldn't grow for personal use.

3, The supremacy clause could be exploited to require states to give up all their rights so long as it was found constitutional. Many feel the constitution can be amended by those who are supreme, and many feel states are not supreme nor are their people supreme. The supremacy clause is the reason for that feeling. Not because the supremacy clause is exploited, but because, the states relinquish our rights to the constitution regardless of what the ever changing constitution rules law so long as it is written.
Our framers should have done more to refine the constitution rather than requiring a bill of rights. The bill of rights is not held to the same respect as the constitution.
 
Pozessed said:
1, Insinuating all people are created equal, and then not permitting all people a fair vote regarding how their state and/or federation would be governed is an obvious flaw. It can not be denied nor excused, because we know better.

2,

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? ... The operation of measures thus unconstitutional & illegal ought to be prevented, by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional & legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State Governments to protect their own authority over their own Militia, & to interpose between their citizens & arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State Governments exist; & their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights & the liberties of their people.
— Daniel Webster, Webster's Speech Against Conscription (December 9, 1814), Letters of Daniel Webster

The civil war seems like a boiling point of the 1780s federalist views clashing with anti-federalists views of active vs inactive federal government. Slavery was the largest concern regarding the civil war. I do think that many fought for the idea that states rights were more important than federal authority though. The stark difference that makes the loss of sovereignty apparent IMO is that before the civil war, federal income tax was found to be unconstitutional. After the civil war the federalists subdued without compromise the anti-federalists philosophy of states rights. From that moment on, the federation had complete supremacy without regard to the compromise our country was founded, and the already constituted supremacy clause was the condemnation of their sovereignty. What do you think would have happened in this era had a similar 1942 in Wickard vs. Filburn trial been held? Of course it is pure speculation, but I think a civil war may have ensued had our federal government tried telling people what they could and couldn't grow for personal use.

3, The supremacy clause could be exploited to require states to give up all their rights so long as it was found constitutional. Many feel the constitution can be amended by those who are supreme, and many feel states are not supreme nor are their people supreme. The supremacy clause is the reason for that feeling. Not because the supremacy clause is exploited, but because, the states relinquish our rights to the constitution regardless of what the ever changing constitution rules law so long as it is written.
Our framers should have done more to refine the constitution rather than requiring a bill of rights. The bill of rights is not held to the same respect as the constitution.
Click to expand...

Also, to add to my second point.
"Both the majority opinion and the dissenting views in Prigg v. Pennsylvania ultimately favored federal over state law -- and upheld the rights of slave owners. The Court's decision provoked outrage across the North, inflaming abolitionists and spurring the creation of "personal liberty laws" -- forbidding state officials from participating in the return of fugitive slaves -- throughout Northern states. Without the cooperation of the North, the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act lost all efficacy. Within the decade, however, a new Fugitive Slave Act was adopted. Under the terms of the 1850 law, federal officials were stationed in non-slave holding states to enforce the return of runaway slaves."
The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Majority Rules | PBS

Of course the obvious conflict regarding the civil war was slavery. But I am assuming a large underlying factor was states rights that both abolitionists and slave holders recognized. I think slavery managed to capture the majorities attention. Had slavery not existed though, I speculate state rights would have led to the civil war had the feds tried to regulate each persons ability to commerce within their home state. I also believe those in favor of states rights would have won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom