• 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 .
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.


guy i think you need to do a lot more thinking, you seem to be fusing together a federal system, and an Confederacy......and the poll does not deal with the latter.
 
guy i think you need to do a lot more thinking, you seem to be fusing together a federal system, and an Confederacy......and the poll does not deal with the latter.

What you post you want is a confederacy. Just because the word "confederacy" attaches in people's mind to the civil war, for the word itself you are arguing for a federation, or a confederacy.
 
What you post you want is a confederacy. Just because the word "confederacy" attaches in people's mind to the civil war, for the word itself you are arguing for a federation, or a confederacy.

wrong, if i wanted a confederacy, then their would be no federal court system, to keep states within constitutional law...

which i want a federal court system.

BUT my poll is about powers of government from the legislative side of government, not judicial.

judicial can only act, then something is BROUGHT before the court.


A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body.[1]

The governmental or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism. It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. Germany with sixteen Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer was a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France by contrast has always been unitary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
 
Last edited:
wrong, if i wanted a confederacy, then their would be no federal court system, to keep states within constitutional law...

which i want a federal court system.

BUT my poll is about powers of government from the legislative side of government, not judicial.

judicial can only act, then something is BROUGHT before the court.


A federation (from Latin: foedus, gen.: foederis, "covenant"), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal political body.[1]

The governmental or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism. It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. Germany with sixteen Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer was a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France by contrast has always been unitary.

Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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."
.

That's why I used the word "federation." I suppose "National only" or "Federation" would be most accurate for 2 choices to pick from. A confederation is not barred from having a federal ("central") court system.
 
That's why I used the word "federation." I suppose "National only" or "Federation" would be most accurate for 2 choices to pick from. A confederation is not barred from having a federal ("central") court system.

At anyrate his poll is fixed in a way that one would not logically vote for a National Government. Its like asking to vote between his version of government or his version of what he stands against. Do you want this? Or something that I made up that no one actually wants? Well of course the votes are going to be 100% for Federal when he defines Nationalism as basically China.
 
That's why I used the word "federation." I suppose "National only" or "Federation" would be most accurate for 2 choices to pick from. A confederation is not barred from having a federal ("central") court system.

a Confederacy can have a central government, .......however under a Confederacy, there is not going to be a central government court system, which has authority over state governments.

the poll posted stated national and federal, ...because i know of no person who is wanting to create a Confederacy in america, ...the founders by their actions showed that type of government does not work.
 
Last edited:
At anyrate his poll is fixed in a way that one would not logically vote for a National Government. Its like asking to vote between his version of government or his version of what he stands against. Do you want this? Or something that I made up that no one actually wants? Well of course the votes are going to be 100% for Federal when he defines Nationalism as basically China.

wrong its not based on china, ...its based on James Madison, which you should should know this, unless your not reading the post.


post #45--
Madison view of a national government below

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 view of a federal government below

[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.
 
Last edited:
wrong its not based on china, ...its based on James Madison, which you should should know this, unless your not reading the post.


post #45--
Yes and my point was that your definitions sound like typical Right vs Left partisan hackery. Mainly because no one has brought up the type of national government that you defined in these pre-convention debates.

Madison view of a federal government below
You stopped the quote in the middle of a paragraph. It goes on to explain the need for a general government.

In the poll you defined a Federal Government and insisted that is what the "the founders created". But it reads more like you were channeling Calhoun.
 
Yes and my point was that your definitions sound like typical Right vs Left partisan hackery. Mainly because no one has brought up the type of national government that you defined in these pre-convention debates.

You stopped the quote in the middle of a paragraph. It goes on to explain the need for a general government.

In the poll you defined a Federal Government and insisted that is what the "the founders created". But it reads more like you were channeling Calhoun.

the states at the convention were to revise the articles, however a new constitution was created,..do you believe their was never a chance to create a national government based on the description by Madison?

my poll deals with powers, and those powers are legislative powers in the poll......only

meaning do you want national government with powers only, or do you want central and state governments to both have powers....is the question.

i cut nothing short, Madison is making a case for the new central government, but he is arguing its federal, because the powers of congress are defined to enumerated powers only...making it federal.

my poll is accurate.
 
the states at the convention were to revise the articles, however a new constitution was created,..do you believe their was never a chance to create a national government based on the description by Madison?
Thats irrelevant since no one in this pre-convention has proposed a authoritarian nationalist government like what you described.

my poll deals with powers, and those powers are legislative powers in the poll......only

meaning do you want national government with powers only, or do you want central and state governments to both have powers....is the question.
Well that is the gist of your poll, just that there is a lot of biased baggage attached to it as well. One of the main problems is that you didnt use precise correct terminology. You presented two concepts of government as defined by you. A better poll would give textbook examples. ANd links to several references. You cant just try and pull a quick one and think that no one would notice. Everyone noticed the flaw in your poll and told you about it. No amount of backtracking will dig you out of the mistakes that you made.


i cut nothing short, Madison is making a case for the new central government, but he is arguing its federal, because the powers of congress are defined to enumerated powers only...making it federal.

my poll is accurate.
Madison argued that it was both. "The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."
 
Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way...

Rather than settling on a label and then forming a government around that idea, why not decide what we want the government to do and see where that gets us in the end?
 
Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way...

Rather than settling on a label and then forming a government around that idea, why not decide what we want the government to do and see where that gets us in the end?

Oh, that would be way too sensible...
 
Thats irrelevant since no one in this pre-convention has proposed a authoritarian nationalist government like what you described.

Well that is the gist of your poll, just that there is a lot of biased baggage attached to it as well. One of the main problems is that you didnt use precise correct terminology. You presented two concepts of government as defined by you. A better poll would give textbook examples. ANd links to several references. You cant just try and pull a quick one and think that no one would notice. Everyone noticed the flaw in your poll and told you about it. No amount of backtracking will dig you out of the mistakes that you made.


Madison argued that it was both. "The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both."



there are some of this forum who want a national government, and dont not like state powers......

my poll is correct, you are either going to have concentrated power in one central government, or divided powers between the central government and state governments.

who's everyone?

did not make any mistakes.

Madison argued that the Constitution has different aspects which were both national and federal,...however i talked about POWERS....legislative powers.

so the government in Washington is delegated national powers by the Constitution, and because they are limited to only external objects of the union, this makes the government ...federal.
 
Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way...

Rather than settling on a label and then forming a government around that idea, why not decide what we want the government to do and see where that gets us in the end?

if you mean to dole out powers were government can be in the sphere, over the same object/entity/person ...it will not work.
 
if you mean to dole out powers were government can be in the sphere, over the same object/entity/person ...it will not work.
No, I meant decide what we want the government to do/not do and make a constitution that creates a government to do/not do those things.
 
No, I meant decide what we want the government to do/not do and make a constitution that creates a government to do/not do those things.

i see the point you are trying to make.

here is the point i am, using an example.

If you have a kingdom and it has two kings ruling over it and everything in that kingdom, then you cause conflict because both kings are going to want to exercise authority over the same objects/people in that kingdom.


the founders separated powers, and the federal government was not granted any powers which dealt with the personal life's of the people, but instead state governments were.

also when a government is granted powers concerning the peoples life's, this also makes it possible for that government to violate your rights, by not granting any powder to the federal government concerning the people personal life's, a rights violation by the federal government could not take place, this was Madison and Hamilton's argument against the anti-federalist argument for the federal government having to much power over the people.

when states violated your rights, the federal court system could be utilized.
 
Last edited:
the founders separated powers, and the federal government was not granted any powers which dealt with the personal life's of the people, but instead state governments were.

.

Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
 
Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

you are correct

the court can rule on controversies between Citizens....but something must be brought before them, they cannot act without that.

when i talk about separation, it is the powers of congress. i am talking about.

congress has the power to punish treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and added later, slavery and tax evasion. HOWEVER you MUST commit a criminal act......i stated this before many times.

but they are granted no power to be involved in you personal life...
 
you are correct

the court can rule on controversies between Citizens....but something must be brought before them, they cannot act without that.

when i talk about separation, it is the powers of congress. i am talking about.

congress has the power to punish treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and added later, slavery and tax evasion. HOWEVER you MUST commit a criminal act......i stated this before many times.

but they are granted no power to be involved in you personal life...

I agree and neither should State government be involved in your personal life. If I want to endanger my life at my leisure the State should have no power to stop me unless in doing so I invade on someone elses rights and/or freedoms and liberties. Helmet laws, seat belt laws, the amount of ammo mounted on a firearm are none of the governments business federally, state or local. The fears of a overstepping federal government also apply to a State having too much power. ANd that is also why the Federal government is important to the states.

For the record I am almost in agreement with you on your poll but you attached to much baggage with it. ANd honestly since we have talked about such things before I know exactly what that baggage is even though you didnt really share it in the OP. Pretty much my objections are that too much state power is just as bad as too much general government power.
 
I agree and neither should State government be involved in your personal life. If I want to endanger my life at my leisure the State should have no power to stop me unless in doing so I invade on someone elses rights and/or freedoms and liberties. Helmet laws, seat belt laws, the amount of ammo mounted on a firearm are none of the governments business federally, state or local. The fears of a overstepping federal government also apply to a State having too much power. ANd that is also why the Federal government is important to the states.

For the record I am almost in agreement with you on your poll but you attached to much baggage with it. ANd honestly since we have talked about such things before I know exactly what that baggage is even though you didnt really share it in the OP. Pretty much my objections are that too much state power is just as bad as too much general government power.

state government/local is involved because they deal with you in your personal life because they are closer to you, meaning they deal in criminal law, if someone kills ,rapes ,steals, auto issues, regulation of your business, land ownership, zoning, pollution and many other things, but they have no power to protect you from yourself.

laws which govern the public roads, are a state /local powers, because driving is not a right, its a privilege.

since the USSC applied the 2nd amendment to states, then the restriction which applied only to the federal government now also applies to the states, and no government has the power to infringe on the right to bear arms.

when a state government over steps it power and violates your rights, you have the ability to seek justice in a state court first if you like, or it can be taken to a federal court...however today instead of using the court system to solve controversies between Citizens vs Citizens and between state governments......congress is intervening and making it their job to solve controversies, and by doing that they are getting deeper into the life's of the people.

there is no question states can be tyrannical, but again that is why we have a federal court system to keep them in line with the Constitution.

as the founders stated, when a government cannot be involved in the life's liberty and property of the people, then its not possible for it to violate your rights...hence why the federal government is limited.

the whole purpose of the poll is , do you want all powers coming from 1 central location, which can be 3000 miles away governing a small town in say CA, or do you want powers separated, and state and local government which is closer and more responsive to the the people, and easier to root out corruption, then on a national scale, where its harder to get even the most simple things done.
 
Last edited:
i see the point you are trying to make.

here is the point i am, using an example.

If you have a kingdom and it has two kings ruling over it and everything in that kingdom, then you cause conflict because both kings are going to want to exercise authority over the same objects/people in that kingdom.


the founders separated powers, and the federal government was not granted any powers which dealt with the personal life's of the people, but instead state governments were.

also when a government is granted powers concerning the peoples life's, this also makes it possible for that government to violate your rights, by not granting any powder to the federal government concerning the people personal life's, a rights violation by the federal government could not take place, this was Madison and Hamilton's argument against the anti-federalist argument for the federal government having to much power over the people.

when states violated your rights, the federal court system could be utilized.
What I gather from this is that you would prefer a governing system that has:
  • A national organization which is tasked with certain limited duties important to all states.
  • State organizations which are tasked with more specific duties, specific to the individual state
  • Also possibly localized governing bodies tasked with the specific needs of their communities/areas which are not addressed by the state or national governments.
 
What I gather from this is that you would prefer a governing system that has:
  • A national organization which is tasked with certain limited duties important to all states.
  • State organizations which are tasked with more specific duties, specific to the individual state
  • Also possibly localized governing bodies tasked with the specific needs of their communities/areas which are not addressed by the state or national governments.

that's pretty good,

our government is federal with national powers....and since those powers are limited, that makes it federal.
 
Maybe our constitution should enshrine driving as a right... hmmmm
 
Maybe our constitution should enshrine driving as a right... hmmmm

IMO driving is a right, not a privilege given to us from the all mighty government. Driving philosophically driving isnt any different than walking. At the very least driving is a liberty. And in some places driving is a necessity of life.
 
IMO driving is a right, not a privilege given to us from the all mighty government. Driving philosophically driving isnt any different than walking. At the very least driving is a liberty. And in some places driving is a necessity of life.

I'm not entirely sure of all the reasons for driving being a privilege in most areas.

I can understand the need for required training/competence demonstration (driving classes/practice/tests) to educate new drivers about road laws & etiquette.
But in many cases I'm not sure it sticks....

Is it possible to have a conditional right that is dependent on demonstrated competence? That wouldn't be a right though, would it...
 
Back
Top Bottom