• 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!

Was the Constitutional Convention really a Coup?

James972

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2016
Messages
22,166
Reaction score
808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It mostly was it seems. The Articles had been a huge success at limiting central govt. They contained amendment procedures, to amend the Articles, but every time the liberals tried to use them to expand the power of the central govt they failed. That is when they finally gave up and went outside the ratification process and subversively called their own convention. Who showed up? Liberals who wanted to expand the power of central govt. As soon as the conservatives saw how dangerous the new Constitution was [ Jefferson and Madison, mostly] they formed the Republican Party in 1792 to fight against liberal big govt, and Republicans have been carrying on the battle ever since.
 
The Articles of Confederation was a huge failure. I don't think they were that well thought out when drafted and accepted. They required the Federal government to pay the bills of the Confederacy but they give it any power to collect money. Any proposal of the federal government had to be agreed to by 100% of the States, therefore any State could shoot down a proposal that benefited the majority of the States.

This is why a new government had to be formed, like it says in the preamble of the Constitution .......to form a more perfect government........because the old government was far from perfect. The Founders recognized that if a federal government was to work it had to have more "teeth" in governing, but it also had to be limited in its power to govern. The amendments "the Bill of Rights" were added because some of the States were worried about the federal government usurping its limited power and infringing upon the people.
 
To be accurate, it is a form of self-coup.

In a self-coup, the governing body (be it a group or individual) replaces itself with another governing body. This may be in the form of an individual taking upon itself more or less power, or in this case the government as a whole deciding to replace itself with another government.

Caesar taking over Rome, Napoleon declaring himself Emperor, Shah Pahlavi retaking control in Iran, even the failed Soviet Coup in 1991 are all examples of this. As well as the Constitutional Convention that dissolved the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution. In each of these the individuals tried to work within the confines of the government at the time to take control.

This is different from a conventional coup, where the change is forced by an outside body or individual.
 
The Articles of Confederation was a huge failure.

totally wrong of course!! Constitution barely passed because most thought Articles were superior because they limited liberal govt more . Further, Constitution only passed when anti-federalists insisted on Bill of Rights to further limit big liberal govt. Most importantly, 200 years later we know they were right. The Constitution failed to limits govt power as communists like Sanders Obama Warren stand poised to take over our country.
 
To be accurate, it is a form of self-coup.

In a self-coup, the governing body (be it a group or individual) replaces itself with another governing body. This may be in the form of an individual taking upon itself more or less power, or in this case the government as a whole deciding to replace itself with another government.

Caesar taking over Rome, Napoleon declaring himself Emperor, Shah Pahlavi retaking control in Iran, even the failed Soviet Coup in 1991 are all examples of this. As well as the Constitutional Convention that dissolved the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution. In each of these the individuals tried to work within the confines of the government at the time to take control.

This is different from a conventional coup, where the change is forced by an outside body or individual.

it was coup because it was a lie. The Federalist said it was to limit govt when the exact opposite happened. Had anyone understood its true nature it would not have received one vote!!
 
totally wrong of course!! Constitution barely passed because most thought Articles were superior because they limited liberal govt more . Further, Constitution only passed when anti-federalists insisted on Bill of Rights to further limit big liberal govt. Most importantly, 200 years later we know they were right. The Constitution failed to limits govt power as communists like Sanders Obama Warren stand poised to take over our country.

The Articles of Confederation had many problems, 1st, there was no trade agreement between the States. The States had the power to set up any trade agreement with other States and Foreign powers. This lead to an economic disaster for the newly appointed federal government, congress could not regulate trade. 2nd, Under article 9, the federal government had the power to coin money, but so did each State have the right to coin it's own money. This met that the United State government had no uniform system of currency which made trade between the states and foreign government very difficult. 3rd, The articles of confederation required the federal government to be responsible for all U.S. debt, however, it did not give the federal government the power to tax, the power to tax was left to the States. 4th, there was no federal judiciary, this meant that disputes between States were left up to those States to resolve, I bet you can guess how that worked out. These are just a few flaws of the Articles of Confederation. I'm not saying that the Constitution is the best government ever, but it did address a lot of these problems and also put into play a way to change the Constitution when needed. Has it been abused, yes, has it been ignored, yes, however, it is up to the States and the People to put an end to the abuses by the federal government, left to itself, it will continue to grow into a bigger monster that it already is.
 
Last edited:
The Articles of Confederation had many problems, 1st, there was no trade agreement between the States.

And it goes even deeper than that.

Because each state was considered an independent nation, there were disputes between them as well. Like the Pennamite War, between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over their state borders.

Ultimately these problems led to Shay's Rebellion, which showed how weak and ineffective the AofC was in governing the nation.

And the failure of the Confederate States of America should once and for all show that the idea of a Confederation in governing anything larger than a single nation-state is doomed to failure. Anybody that believes otherwise is a fool.

Probably the closest we have now to a Confederation is the European Commonwealth. And you already have one major nation leaving the organization, and others are considering leaving.
 
I'm not saying that the Constitution is the best government ever, but it did address a lot of these problems

but those were trivial problems!! Most people opposed Constitution because it did not protect freedom of the states or of individual. 200 years in we know they were right with communists like Obama, Sanders Warren MSNBC poised to take over federal govt. Do you understand?
 
Probably the closest we have now to a Confederation is the European Commonwealth. And you already have one major nation leaving the organization, and others are considering leaving.

exactly!!!! they are leaving to regain their freedom!!! not doubling down and totally surrendering their freedom to a libcommie central govt. Do you get it now?
 
exactly!!!! they are leaving to regain their freedom!!! not doubling down and totally surrendering their freedom to a libcommie central govt. Do you get it now?

No.

The difference is that one is a grouping of colonies that were a single entity, with a common language, tried to work together as a corm of Socialist co-operative, and failed. Instead they banded together to form a stronger single nation.

The other is a hodgepodge of individual nations, some of which have existed in one form or another for thousands of years with thousands of years of warfare and dozens of languages trying to form a Commonwealth. And one that is failing.

I guess you also believe that that England should also return to it's original 7 Kingdoms as well. And that Greece should dissolve as a nation and return to independent city-states.
 
but those were trivial problems!! Most people opposed Constitution because it did not protect freedom of the states or of individual. 200 years in we know they were right with communists like Obama, Sanders Warren MSNBC poised to take over federal govt. Do you understand?

There are protections for the States and the people, Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution spells out the enumerated power of the Federal Government, it is up to the States and the People to keep the Federal Government in check, the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to grant itself power. The States, realizing that they could get "goodies" from the federal government by enacting policies the federal government want has lead us down this road we are on today, granting power to the federal government in return for "goodies".
 
To be accurate, it is a form of self-coup.

In a self-coup, the governing body (be it a group or individual) replaces itself with another governing body. This may be in the form of an individual taking upon itself more or less power, or in this case the government as a whole deciding to replace itself with another government.

Caesar taking over Rome, Napoleon declaring himself Emperor, Shah Pahlavi retaking control in Iran, even the failed Soviet Coup in 1991 are all examples of this. As well as the Constitutional Convention that dissolved the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution. In each of these the individuals tried to work within the confines of the government at the time to take control.

This is different from a conventional coup, where the change is forced by an outside body or individual.

There was a ratification process; it's not like they (the framers) all signed it, and that was the end of it.
 
There was a ratification process; it's not like they (the framers) all signed it, and that was the end of it.

That is why it was a self-coup. It was an internal change in government, brought upon by the government (and the citizens) themselves. And the process took over 10 months, it did not come about overnight.

In the same way that the rise of Napoleon and the death of the French Republic went through a similar process. The Republic did not just in an overthrow, the people in France wanted a change and stability after The Terror. Much like the rise of Caesar, the ruling body overthrew itself and put in place a Consulate in 1799, which was ultimately responsible in the rise of Napoleon in taking control of the country.

Another similar change was Nazi Germany. Which step by step used the system in place to change the government from a Democratic Republic to a dictatorship.
 
tried to work together as a corm of Socialist co-operative, and failed. Instead they banded together to form a stronger single nation.

.
total illiteracy the colonies were socialist?? a central govt owned all the businesses?? there was barely a central govt let lone a powerful one with any authority
 
I guess you also believe that that England should also return to it's original 7 Kingdoms as well. And that Greece should dissolve as a nation and return to independent city-states.

not at all a very very weak central govt like Articles of Confederation, or a little stronger, is perfect!
 
The other is a hodgepodge of individual nations, some of which have existed in one form or another for thousands of years with thousands of years of warfare and dozens of languages trying to form a Commonwealth. And one that is failing.

.

you are missing the point. Constitution just passed using the lie that it would limit central govt. Now we see the anti federalists were right!
 
There are protections for the States and the people, Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution spells out the enumerated power of the Federal Government, it is up to the States and the People to keep the Federal Government in check, the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to grant itself power. The States, realizing that they could get "goodies" from the federal government by enacting policies the federal government want has lead us down this road we are on today, granting power to the federal government in return for "goodies".

all very predictable proving the Constitutional Convention was a coup and the radification process was a based on a lie.
 
There was a ratification process; it's not like they (the framers) all signed it, and that was the end of it.

yes a ratification process based on the lie that Constitution would keep central govt very limited. Without the lie not one colony would have voted for it.
 
That is why it was a self-coup. It was an internal change in government, brought upon by the government (and the citizens) themselves. And the process took over 10 months, it did not come about overnight.

In the same way that the rise of Napoleon and the death of the French Republic went through a similar process. The Republic did not just in an overthrow, the people in France wanted a change and stability after The Terror. Much like the rise of Caesar, the ruling body overthrew itself and put in place a Consulate in 1799, which was ultimately responsible in the rise of Napoleon in taking control of the country.

Another similar change was Nazi Germany. Which step by step used the system in place to change the government from a Democratic Republic to a dictatorship.

as I said ratification was based on huge liberal lie about essential nature of Constitution.
 
total illiteracy the colonies were socialist?? a central govt owned all the businesses?? there was barely a central govt let lone a powerful one with any authority

What, are you Drax the Destroyer, and can only take things literally and missed completely what I said?

Go troll elsewhere, I have no more interest in this, you are boring and bring nothing at all of interest to this discussion.
 
yes a ratification process based on the lie that Constitution would keep central govt very limited. Without the lie not one colony would have voted for it.

There was no lie, they said it from the start. It's up to the people to keep their government in check. No other form of government has ever lasted this long.
 
yes a ratification process based on the lie that Constitution would keep central govt very limited. Without the lie not one colony would have voted for it.

James, have you read the Constitution? Like I said, Article 1 section 8 spells out the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, all other powers are reserved to the States and the People. The Constitution is just a piece of paper that spells out how the Federal government should operate, it is up to the States and the People to make sure it operates within these boundaries.

The problems are this: Politicians have figured out that they can bribe the public with the public's money. States have figured out that they can get more money (public money, yours and mine) if they acquiesce to the Federal Government requests, even at the sake of their citizens.

People need to hold their States responsible and in return, the States would hold the Federal Government responsible. What WE have forgot is, it was the STATES that created the Federal Government, not the other way around.
 
James, have you read the Constitution? Like I said, Article 1 section 8 spells out the enumerated powers of the Federal Government, all other powers are reserved to the States and the People. The Constitution is just a piece of paper that spells out how the Federal government should operate, it is up to the States and the People to make sure it operates within these boundaries.

The problems are this: Politicians have figured out that they can bribe the public with the public's money. States have figured out that they can get more money (public money, yours and mine) if they acquiesce to the Federal Government requests, even at the sake of their citizens.

People need to hold their States responsible and in return, the States would hold the Federal Government responsible. What WE have forgot is, it was the STATES that created the Federal Government, not the other way around.

so you agree that Constitution was ratified based on the lie that it would keep federal govt very limited??
 
Back
Top Bottom