- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Noting the division of power does not excuse the definitions that you provided in the OP. Using your definition of of a nationalist government makes the States look like they have endless power. After all you have described a system where the Federal Government is weak, inept and cowered to the States. But let us lay this out for the others to read. 1.Tell us how you believe that the States have a right to secede. 2.And how you dont recognize basically any changes in the government since day one. 3.Also go into the thing about voting for Senators.
1. some of the founders at the constitutional convention, on may 31st 1787, propose that the federal government be granted authority to preserve harmony of the union, and to negative any state law which conflicts with the Opinion of congress and to use force on a state by the federal government....that power was denied to the federal government
constitutional convention may 13st 1787
The other clauses10 giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat. Leg. the articles of union, down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union,” being added after the words “contravening &c. the articles of the Union,” on motion of
Dr. FRANKLIN) were agreed to witht. debate or dissent. The last clause of Resolution 6.11 authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.
Mr. MADISON observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. -A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse12 unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.
The Committee then rose & the House
Adjourned
2. can you explain what changes you mean?, because changing the Constitution is by amendment, not by a USSC decision.
3. when the founders created the Constitution, they first only created a house of representatives, but they thought if the only a house existed ,it would be controlled only by the largest states and the small states would not be represented, .... example....... of CA having 53 delegates to the house, while WY has 1, this would leave WY at a great disadvantage.
they also knew people by they very nature are collective, and when people have power and get together they will always work in their own interest and create collective legislation for the interest of the people, which does not protect the interest on the states or the union.
since the house is elected by the people, that makes it a democracy, but now the founders created the non democratic election of senators by the states legislatures, the senate's purpose is to serve as a block against collectivist house legislation, because it represents the interest of the states.
so for legislation to pass both chambers of congress, the interest of the people [house] and the interest of the states [senate] have to both be represented, not just one....for legislation to go before the President for his signature.
as i stated the house, because they can get together and talk and make deals with each other and can be lobbied, it is a collective body.
but the senators cannot get together they cannot make deals and be lobbied, because they must vote according to how their state legislature tells them to vote......states legislatures do not get together and make legislative deals for the senate, therefore they are not collective.
the house being a democracy because of how it is elected, the senate is a aristocracy of how it is elected, [but in name only]..because the senator is chosen by people of the state legislatures who have political skills, and they chose one from among them, who has that knowledge and will execute the wishes [by vote] of the legislature, that chose him.
by having the house a democracy, this prevents and aristocracy from controlling congress, by having the senate an aristocracy, this prevent democracy from controlling congress, creating a balance of power.
since the senate is in the hands of the states, its impossible for the federal government to expand its powers into states powers, because the senate has the power to stop it since they control of that chamber.
again.... the senate serves as a CHECK, on federal power.