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

what kind of constitution do you wish to create?

NATIONAL OR FEDERAL

it we use D.C as the central point of power.

do you wish a national government, that will have all power in D.C. and make decisions for people, on the smallest levels....example... meaning members of congress will decide for you... your streets, your zoning of property, your schools decisions, your choices for a career by getting all licenses from them not to mention everything about you life.



OR


do you wish a federal government, [the founders created] where powers are separated, the federal governments powers are limited to thing which concern the union, its defense, foreign negotiations, to see the states do not violate the Constitution but also place a check on any expansion of federal powers not delegated to it, and where state and local governments which are closer to the people and easier to control by the people will make decisions which concern the people's life's liberty and property.

sorry for the word national misspelled in the poll title.

Keep it the same as what we have now. I voted federal.

Somebody's going to be very disappointed.

paddymcdougall said:

Please include a "we don't care what you call it " option on the poll....

Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:

what kind of constitution do you wish to create?

NATIONAL OR FEDERAL

it we use D.C as the central point of power.

do you wish a national government, that will have all power in D.C. and make decisions for people, on the smallest levels....example... meaning members of congress will decide for you... your streets, your zoning of property, your schools decisions, your choices for a career by getting all licenses from them not to mention everything about you life.



OR


do you wish a federal government, [the founders created] where powers are separated, the federal governments powers are limited to thing which concern the union, its defense, foreign negotiations, to see the states do not violate the Constitution but also place a check on any expansion of federal powers not delegated to it, and where state and local governments which are closer to the people and easier to control by the people will make decisions which concern the people's life's liberty and property.

sorry for the word national misspelled in the poll title.

Click to expand...

The United States of America is one country of one people and our work should reflect that reality going in. The Constitution would apply to ALL people in ALL areas of the nation regardless of the state you live in.

haymarket said:

The United States of America is one country of one people and our work should reflect that reality going in. The Constitution would apply to ALL people in ALL areas of the nation regardless of the state you live in.

Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:

what kind of constitution do you wish to create?

Click to expand...

It looks like the majority has spoken.

2 Federal
0 National
1 We don't care what you call it. (I think this could be counted as federal since she doesn't mind either way.)

Majority wins. Let's go with federal. :ind:

haymarket said:

The United States of America is one country of one people and our work should reflect that reality going in. The Constitution would apply to ALL people in ALL areas of the nation regardless of the state you live in.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree with you, that there should be aspects of the government that should be national. I also believe those aspects should be limited and defined. I believe that states should have limited and defined roles along with local government role as well.

I will disagree with you about America being one people. It is not. Never has been. It is and was a collection of different people living differently. You move to any part of the United States from another and one can tell immediate differences in lifestyles, beliefs ect.. I think our constitution should recognize this. We have a bunch of very different people living different ways of life, but they have a common threads joining them. Freedom, history, and the constitution we all try to abide.

PirateMk1 said:

I would tend to agree with you, that there should be aspects of the government that should be national. I also believe those aspects should be limited and defined. I believe that states should have limited and defined roles along with local government role as well.

I will disagree with you about America being one people. It is not. Never has been. It is and was a collection of different people living differently. You move to any part of the United States from another and one can tell immediate differences in lifestyles, beliefs ect.. I think our constitution should recognize this. We have a bunch of very different people living different ways of life, but they have a common threads joining them. Freedom, history, and the constitution we all try to abide.

Click to expand...

certain aspects of the government are national.......their powers

when we are talking about powers of ANY governments, .......... the powers which deal with the personal life's of the people, life liberty and property are going to be powers which are in abundance.

whoever has these powers.......they will not be limited.


our founders wrote a Constitution to make the federal government limited, and in so the powers what concern the life's liberty and property of the people clearly remained the power of the states as they had before the Constitution was created.

Why cant I choose both?

ernst barkmann said:

certain aspects of the government are national.......their powers

when we are talking about powers of a ANY governments, .......... the powers which deal with the personal life's of the people, life liberty and property are going to be powers which are in abundance.

whoever has these powers.......they will not be limited.


our founders wrote a Constitution to make the federal government limited, and in so the powers what concern the life's liberty and property of the people clearly remained the power of the states as they had before the Constitution was created.

Click to expand...

I am not interested in government in any form having an abundance of power. I believe we need to start thinking out of the box. The national government role should be defined, the states roles should be defined, the local governments roles should be defined. ALL governments should have an abundance of chains and checks on their exceeding their power. Better more chains and checks than not enough. Laws and such should flow at a glacial pace. Power in government hands NEEDS to be limited.

PirateMk1 said:

I am not interested in government in any form having an abundance of power. I believe we need to start thinking out of the box. The national government role should be defined, the states roles should be defined, the local governments roles should be defined. ALL governments should have an abundance of chains and checks on their exceeding their power. Better more chains and checks than not enough. Laws and such should flow at a glacial pace. Power in government hands NEEDS to be limited.

Click to expand...

but if ANY powers which concern the personal lifes of the people are placed in a central power, then they will always say they are doing what is necessary and proper for the people to justify their increase of power, which is not delegated.

the powers which deal with personal life's of the people are vastly more then those which deal with the union itself

in a federal government, one government is going to have more powers then the other [those concerning the people]..and that side will not be limited...ie small

in a national government, all power will reside in 1 single government in a central location, and there is nothing limited about it at all.

FreedomFromAll said:

Why cant I choose both?

Click to expand...

because you have to chose where powers are going to rest......1 location, or separated.

ernst barkmann said:

because you have to chose where powers are going to rest......1 location, or separated.

Click to expand...

No.... I dont have to do what you say. I will just abstain from your poll rather than be forced into a false dilemma decision.

We have been over this before and you claimed that the US fits into your radical neo-confederate ideals. Thats great that is your opinion but I do not have to accept your opinions as valid. Nor will I toss my vote in that direction.

I voted federal because that is the ONLY way we have any chance to limit the central government.

I do wish we could pick up DC and move it to a more central location in the country--maybe Kansas or Missouri--so that it would be more easily accessible to more citizens. But for now I'll settle for a strictly limited federal government.

FreedomFromAll said:

No.... I dont have to do what you say. I will just abstain from your poll rather than be forced into a false dilemma decision.

We have been over this before and you claimed that the US fits into your radical neo-confederate ideals. Thats great that is your opinion but I do not have to accept your opinions as valid. Nor will I toss my vote in that direction.

Click to expand...

that is not what i mean......you dont have to take the poll.

however in creating a Constitution, the decision is going to have to be made, you cannot get around it.

neo-confederate:roll:

ernst barkmann said:

that is not what i mean......you dont have to take the poll.

however in creating a Constitution, the decision is going to have to be made, you cannot get around it.

neo-confederate:roll:

Click to expand...

You did a piss poor job of defining a federal government and also defined national government is a specific self serving way.

I refuse to use your definitions at all. Federalism | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Federalism

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state."

FreedomFromAll said:

You did a piss poor job of defining a federal government and also defined national government is a specific self serving way.

I refuse to use your definitions at all. Federalism | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Federalism

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state."

Click to expand...

really?.......

our Constitution means for the federal government ....the union as a whole...... external powers

domestic............ internal to the union......state powers.



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.

ernst barkmann said:

but if ANY powers which concern the personal lifes of the people are placed in a central power, then they will always say they are doing what is necessary and proper for the people to justify their increase of power, which is not delegated.

the powers which deal with personal life's of the people are vastly more then those which deal with the union itself

in a federal government, one government is going to have more powers then the other [those concerning the people]..and that side will not be limited...ie small

in a national government, all power will reside in 1 single government in a central location, and there is nothing limited about it at all.

Click to expand...

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.

ernst barkmann said:

certain aspects of the government are national.......their powers

when we are talking about powers of ANY governments, .......... the powers which deal with the personal life's of the people, life liberty and property are going to be powers which are in abundance.

whoever has these powers.......they will not be limited.


our founders wrote a Constitution to make the federal government limited, and in so the powers what concern the life's liberty and property of the people clearly remained the power of the states as they had before the Constitution was created.

Click to expand...

Basically we have a hybrid of the two. We don't have a national or a federal government but rather an American government created by the people and for the people.

vasuderatorrent said:

It looks like the majority has spoken.

2 Federal
0 National
1 We don't care what you call it. (I think this could be counted as federal since she doesn't mind either way.)

Majority wins. Let's go with federal. :ind:

Click to expand...

Might be a LITTLE early to call the vote, but since I don't think it matters a frack what we call it, sure!

paddymcdougall said:

Might be a LITTLE early to call the vote, but since I don't think it matters a frack what we call it, sure!

Click to expand...

I'll call it federal. Won't you?

Like all things, we can clarify this in the document not only using the term but also how it is used.

vasuderatorrent said:

I'll call it federal. Won't you?

Click to expand...

Sure!

ernst barkmann said:

really?.......

our Constitution means for the federal government ....the union as a whole...... external powers

domestic............ internal to the union......state powers.



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.

Click to expand...

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. Tell us how you believe that the States have a right to secede. And how you dont recognize basically any changes in the government since day one. Also go into the thing about voting for Senators.

I would prefer as limited a government as possible - the minimum level of duties and authority given to each level.

Thus, federal.

Additionally, some mention needs to be made in the constitution that the duties of the government are limited to those outlined in the constitution, which would in turn require a constitutional amendment to add additional duties.

vasuderatorrent said:

Basically we have a hybrid of the two. We don't have a national or a federal government but rather an American government created by the people and for the people.

Click to expand...

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.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Click to expand...

the statement above tells you all powers in the Constitution are federal powers, those powers that are not in this Constitution remain the powers of the states............there are no state powers in the Constitution.

all the powers of the federal government do not have anything to do with the personal life's of the people........if you deny that.....then please provide which clause does.

the powers which deal in the personal life's of the people, are going to be many powers, and the states retained those powers, the federal government was not delegated any.