• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

what kind of constitution do you wish to create...National or Federal.

natiuonal or federal?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
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.
 
I don't I explained it well enough. ALL government national federal what have you, needs hard defined limits. Lines they do not cross without repercussion. The power must be defined as lying with the people with only a little doled out to the various governments for very specific and defined purpose exclusively. Your local government should not have much more power than the national government and visa versa, and both should have only limited powers in comparison to the people. The government in large part at most levels should mainly be referee's at most any level. Their power negated by jury, by the people the government effects.

There should be a national standard for certain things. Freedom of speech belief and association should be inviolate wherever you go in the union, same with the right to bear arms. You should be able to go anywhere in this union and say what you please and carry whatever firearms you please. Your documents of identity, and contracts and other selected things like marriage should be valid wherever you go. The states and local governments should have NO say in those matters. When I look at divided government, I don't just look at executive, legislative, judicial, I look at local state and national as well. Divided government should be just that. Divided into small distinct pieces so they cant grow out of hand. Like I said we really need to look way out of the box and take what we have and not use them as they are now but see about using them differently or create new ways of doing things.

National government does not mean ALL power will reside there, nor would it have unlimited power. Nor does it mean just one single government entity.
Federal doesn't necessarily mean small and unobtrusive as we have seen.

The argument for national or federal is NOT an either, or, argument. It never has been. Divided power is divided power no matter how you term it.

I see people arguing for federal government who think the states and the local should have a majority of power. I say not only no, but hell no. ALL government needs to be limited and defined explicitly with harsh repercussion for violation. The reason we see many problems today that we do is because there is little if any repercussion for government violating the rules.

i would ask you to read federalist 39 from Madison.

once you open the door to a government ....to be involved in the personal life's of the people...you vastly expand that governments powers.
 
Last edited:
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.



here is what the Constitution says the states cannot do when it comes to legislative powers.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



federalist 45-- 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.
 
here is what the Constitution says the states cannot do when it comes to legislative powers.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



federalist 45-- 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.

You havent at all defended you definitions in the OP. Highlighting doesnt make an explanation. In fact you were so far off with you definitions that your poll is irrelevant (which is shown by the lack of votes)

In Federalist, no. 39 Madison explains well that you are completely wrong and out in left field.

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57

"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

But according to ernst barkmann we must decide between Federal or National government. But according to Madison we have a government that really defies the separation between federal and national. Which makes this poll both ignorant and manipulative. Ignorant in the fact that anyone with at least a high school level of American history should know better, and manipulative because ernst barkmann is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Shame on you, this isnt your usual DP debate ernst barkmann we all have a personal interest in making this project work. It will take a lot of give and take negotiations, compromises and work. The body of this group has endured your rewriting of history at one point or another on DB and will be quick to point out when you try that stuff here.
 
But according to ernst barkmann we must decide between Federal or National government. But according to Madison we have a government that really defies the separation between federal and national. Which makes this poll both ignorant and manipulative. Ignorant in the fact that anyone with at least a high school level of American history should know better, and manipulative because ernst barkmann is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Shame on you, this isnt your usual DP debate ernst barkmann we all have a personal interest in making this project work. It will take a lot of give and take negotiations, compromises and work. The body of this group has endured your rewriting of history at one point or another on DB and will be quick to point out when you try that stuff here.

I respectfully request that you not personally attack other members and instead concentrate on pointing out the mistatement of facts they have posted

I propose that this poll is invalid and should be closed. What say you?

I doubt that it will be closed, but it has no "weight" in this convention. No one is bound by its' results. People are free to make of it what they will (and in my case, that is "not much" as at least one possible response to the OP's question was intentionally and deliberately omitted by the OP which I see as manipulative)
 
You havent at all defended you definitions in the OP. Highlighting doesnt make an explanation. In fact you were so far off with you definitions that your poll is irrelevant (which is shown by the lack of votes)

In Federalist, no. 39 Madison explains well that you are completely wrong and out in left field.

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57

"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

But according to ernst barkmann we must decide between Federal or National government. But according to Madison we have a government that really defies the separation between federal and national. Which makes this poll both ignorant and manipulative. Ignorant in the fact that anyone with at least a high school level of American history should know better, and manipulative because ernst barkmann is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Shame on you, this isnt your usual DP debate ernst barkmann we all have a personal interest in making this project work. It will take a lot of give and take negotiations, compromises and work. The body of this group has endured your rewriting of history at one point or another on DB and will be quick to point out when you try that stuff here.

you seem to be on a tear, for some reason to try to prove me wrong, however i suggest you read 39 carefully, because i had to read it a few times, to gasp what Madison is saying.

you asked for 3 things before, yet you dont respond to any of them i answered......strange?.......
 
I propose that this poll is invalid and should be closed. What say you?

could it be that you want to keep people in the dark about how each government would work?

lets give the forum members an example:

lets say we have a national system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a national government, we would probably have a dept. of public roads, which means the people of any-town would have to write a letter to Washington, and ask that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

Washington would most likely send a survey party to any-town, and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

being that any-towns letter would be among millions the dept would get, and the time involved to do a survey, and answer it could take months or even longer to get back from d.c.




lets say we have a federal system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a federal government, a person or persons would attend a city counsel meeting of their town, and request that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

the city counsel could render a decision right on the spot (up or down), or do their own survey and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

seeing how this situation deals on a local level, the decision will not take every much time, since it does not have to go thru Washington and bureaucrats, the problem can be dealt with in more timely manner, and lower cost to pay payers, and not tax citizens who do not live in any-town USA.
 
Last edited:
you seem to be on a tear, for some reason to try to prove me wrong, however i suggest you read 39 carefully, because i had to read it a few times, to gasp what Madison is saying.

you asked for 3 things before, yet you dont respond to any of them i answered......strange?.......

I didnt see that post but will respond to it when I get a chance. Right now I have to go work on some things outside away from this insipid computer. Have a good day.
 
could it be that you want to keep people in the dark about how each government would work?

lets give the forum members an example:

lets say we have a national system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a national government, we would probably have a dept. of public roads, which means the people of any-town would have to write a letter to Washington, and ask that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

Washington would most likely send a survey party to any-town, and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

being that any-towns letter would be among millions the dept would get, and the time involved to do a survey, and answer it could take months or even longer to get back from d.c.




lets say we have a federal system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a federal government, a person or persons would attend a city counsel meeting of their town, and request that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

the city counsel could render a decision right on the spot (up or down), or do their own survey and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

seeing how this situation deals on a local level, the decision will not take every much time, since it does not have to go thru Washington and bureaucrats, the problem can be dealt with in more timely manner, and lower cost to pay payers, and not tax citizens who do not live in any-town USA.


As someone said earlier, we currently have a mix of national and federal (by your definition). If that street is a federal highway, the feds get involved. A state highway, the state gets involved. A local county road - the county handles it.
 
As someone said earlier, we currently have a mix of national and federal (by your definition).

sorry no.......instead of taking the word of another poster and what he said, you need to read the federalist 39, ..."where it is a federal government"

Madison is weighing several aspects of the government , its powers, its creation, how things are determined...... and stating this is federal, this is national..

i already stated there are some things which are national before, like the powers of government, however the foundation of the Constitution is federal as Madison states it is.



no.. not right.

certain aspects are national, like the powers of the government which are used union wide.

we have a federal government because power is divided, between the states and the federal government in the Constitution creating federalism.
 
Last edited:
If that street is a federal highway, the feds get involved. A state highway, the state gets involved. A local county road - the county handles it.

if we have a national government, highways, streets ,roads, the central government will control it all.
 
if we have a national government, highways, streets ,roads, the central government will control it all.

Nonsense. But that is, of course, why your poll is flawed - you never offered a mixed option, nor did you offer a "it doesn't matter what we call it" option.
 
Nonsense. But that is, of course, why your poll is flawed - you never offered a mixed option, nor did you offer a "it doesn't matter what we call it" option.

really?


we are talking POWERS, in the preamble thread.....people are already creating preamles inserting that the new government will HAVE POWER TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND PROSPERITY OF PEOPLE.....any government had contains the powers which deal with the life's liberty and property of the people, is going to be the government with numerous and indefinite powers.

Federalist 39- The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.


when we are talking about a Constitution, we are talking about powers, where they are going to lie.


we have a Federal government, and it built on a separation of powers....ie federalism

federalist 39- But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government.

we know when we talk powers the federal government powers are few and defined.

federalist - 45 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.


why dont you explain to me, please, how you are going to dole out powers , here and there to separate governments, and not have a Constitution that is so huge, and cumbersome.
 
Last edited:
if we have a national government, highways, streets ,roads, the central government will control it all.

Nonsense. But that is, of course, why your poll is flawed - you never offered a mixed option, nor did you offer a "it doesn't matter what we call it" option.


federalist 39- But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government.


you were saying nonsense..........no... your are wrong..
 
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.

Very well explained. Thank you.
 
could it be that you want to keep people in the dark about how each government would work?

lets give the forum members an example:

lets say we have a national system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a national government, we would probably have a dept. of public roads, which means the people of any-town would have to write a letter to Washington, and ask that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

Washington would most likely send a survey party to any-town, and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

being that any-towns letter would be among millions the dept would get, and the time involved to do a survey, and answer it could take months or even longer to get back from d.c.



Lets say we have a federal system of government, and the people of any-town USA, feel that a street is dangerous because of traffic, and they believe a stop sign or speed bumps are needed to slow traffic down.

under a federal government, a person or persons would attend a city counsel meeting of their town, and request that a stop sign /speed bumps be installed on the street they feel is dangerous.

the city counsel could render a decision right on the spot (up or down), or do their own survey and make an assessment of the situation, and then would rule on the subject.

seeing how this situation deals on a local level, the decision will not take every much time, since it does not have to go thru Washington and bureaucrats, the problem can be dealt with in more timely manner, and lower cost to pay payers, and not tax citizens who do not live in any-town USA.



"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both."
 
"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both."



TO NOTE:
i have been discussing POWERS, as in the delegated powers the congress in this thread and wanting to know shall we have national powers or federal powers.......READ THE POLL...LOOK AT MY POST.

Madison is talking about things which makeup a national or federal character of the constitution.

1 ratification..its character

2 states being sovereign and independent, and its character.

3 the house and where its gets it powers, ..its character.

4 the senate and where it gets it powers.. its character.

5 the election of the president..its character

Madison goes on to explain what differences there are among a national and federal government is ........and the character of each one.


6 how amendments are to be made......it has no character.

7 introducing amendments..........it has no character

Madison goes on to say even though the POWERS are national powers, we have a federal government because the powers delegated to the central government are limited, making it a federal government.

which the poll is asking, do you want a national government........with all powers as Madison states or do you wish a federal government with limited powers, and all other powers remaining the power of the states.
 
Last edited:
1 the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America...................establishing the Constitution, is federal.

2 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.

3 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, 4.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,

5.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.

B]a very important paragraph below[/B]which must be read and closely and understood......Madison is stating what looks look like to be national on its face.....BUT is not because of the EXTENT [LIMITED] powers......limited because the central governments powers do not concern the life's liberty and property of the people.

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.
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature
 
Madison view of a national government below

But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure.

Madison's view of a federal government below

In the latter, [FEDERAL]the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

6 If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal.

In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national;

7 in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
 
In the opinion of this outsider, slanted polls such as this serve no purpose other than as a platform for the orations of the poll creator.

Since he opposes what he calls a "National System," that choice is to abolish all local, county and state government entirely as an absolute. The alternative, which he wants, is not the opposed absolute extreme of eliminating the federal government entirely. Thus, the poll is not two clearly opposed views.

This is what all these states rights vs federal rights topics comes down to as an issue - other than nitpicking exact words of it:

We, the people of the United States, with each State empowered to act with its sovereign and independent authority except for specific authority granted to the federal government, and in order to form a permanent federal government empowered to assure the mutual military defense of the nation and to maintain a national monetary system, establish this new Constitution for the United States of America to secure the blessings of liberty, security and prosperity to ourselves and our posterity.

The Bill Of Rights would then define which, if any, rights would be nationwide rights - and everything else would be up to the states.

Or such other words to clearly vote on the issue of which branch of government - for most matters - is the final authority with the states or is the final authority with the federal government? Basically, it is a vote on a redo of the technical power-issue leading to the Civil War, without the war and without slavery on the table.

A reason this specific topic of state vs federal power is a good starting point is because if a majority want nearly all authority to lie within the states, that would significantly reduce then what need be in the national Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Debating clearly slanted polls posted by individuals wording it in a bias method to serve their own goal will serve no purpose other than having already tiring people of the topic if ever proposed as a legitimately worded poll.
 
In the opinion of this outsider, slanted polls such as this serve no purpose other than as a platform for the orations of the poll creator.

Since he opposes what he calls a "National System," that choice is to abolish all local, county and state government entirely as an absolute. The alternative, which he wants, is not the opposed absolute extreme of eliminating the federal government entirely. Thus, the poll is not two clearly opposed views.

This is what all these states rights vs federal rights topics comes down to as an issue - other than nitpicking exact words of it:

We, the people of the United States, with each State empowered to act with its sovereign and independent authority except for specific authority granted to the federal government, and in order to form a permanent federal government empowered to assure the mutual military defense of the nation and to maintain a national monetary system, establish this new Constitution for the United States of America to secure the blessings of liberty, security and prosperity to ourselves and our posterity.

The Bill Of Rights would then define which, if any, rights would be nationwide rights - and everything else would be up to the states.

Or such other words to clearly vote on the issue of which branch of government - for most matters - is the final authority with the states or is the final authority with the federal government? Basically, it is a vote on a redo of the technical power-issue leading to the Civil War, without the war and without slavery on the table.

A reason this specific topic of state vs federal power is a good starting point is because if a majority want nearly all authority to lie within the states, that would significantly reduce then what need be in the national Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Debating clearly slanted polls posted by individuals wording it in a bias method to serve their own goal will serve no purpose other than having already tiring people of the topic if ever proposed as a legitimately worded poll.

this topic is about do you want a national government, / a central government with all powers.

or do you wish a federal government, which separates powers BETWEEN the states and the federal government, with the federal government having limited powers, while the states have numerous......but with a federal government court system, which can strike down unconstitutional states laws.
 
this topic is about do you want a national government, / a central government with all powers.

or do you wish a federal government, which separates powers BETWEEN the states and the federal government, with the federal government having limited powers, while the states have numerous......but with a federal government court system, which can strike down unconstitutional states laws.

While your OP may explain that to some degree, that is not what the poll itself is. The actual distinction is NOT "National" or "Federal." Rather, it is "Federal" or "Federation."

Federal clearly puts the national government at the top of the power ladder. Federation puts state government at the top of the power ladder, for which Federal power is that which is collectively given to the national government for specific reasons such as national defense, a national monetary system and other specific powers granted either in the Constitution to the federal government and/or conveyed by the states.
 
While your OP may explain that to some degree, that is not what the poll itself is. The actual distinction is NOT "National" or "Federal." Rather, it is "Federal" or "Federation."

Federal clearly puts the national government at the top of the power ladder. Federation puts state government at the top of the power ladder, for which Federal power is that which is collectively given to the national government for specific reasons such as national defense, a national monetary system and other specific powers granted either in the Constitution to the federal government and/or conveyed by the states.




federalist 45



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.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.
 
federalist 45



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.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Yes, I believe that is a core issue the Convention will need to address at some point in an official vote on the topic. My criticism was of the wording of the poll, not your explanation of it. Many likely agree with you. Many will not.

The challenge, of course, is in where is the fulcrum of the balance. I doubt anyone wants to abolish state and local government. Rather, it will be who is the final protector of individual, human and civil rights?

My own opinion? While local control sounds cozy, local government not only can be the most oppressive of all, it is the most easily bought and taken over too. The smaller the government body with the final authority, the more easily it is corrupted, co-opted, taken over and bought. That principle applies to states as well, and the question of states bidding against each other for business also could be a problem. But an all-powerful federal government then is a problem too. So the question in real terms comes down to where the divisions of power are placed.

For example, if a state decided to not allow women to vote, or that only property owners can vote, were to adopt intensely oppressive and selective laws etc, could the "union" even hold together? An example of state government mostly having power is the European Union. Would they REALLY stick together in a military situation? Are they really a collective?

Historically, countries without a strong federal/national authority tended to be militarily defeated, endless fighting amongst themselves, and little individual rights. Rather, they become a collective of little fiefdoms each with their own little tyrants and power brokers.
 
Back
Top Bottom