Articles of Confederation

[Wild Cobra]

I placed my responce to Stout's posting in the correct thread.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then say something that makes sense with respect to your beliefs, for example, "Did anybody notice that the Tenth Amendment is still technically in the text of the United States Cons ution, and is therefore the law of the land? What would y'all think about actually following it?"

The Dormant Tenth Amendment?

The Tenth Amendment might actually be useful and serve the purposes that Wild Cobra wishes if there was anyone in the federal government who could remain doctrinally sound about its effect. Both sides give lip service to the notion of state's rights, but when their pet issues arise (same-sex marriage, social welfare programs, abortion) the vast majority of decision makers on either side of the political spectrum seem inclined to federalize the issue. I'm not sure it's a matter of lacking authority for upholding state's rights as it is an unwillingness to fulfill that mandate.

[Wild Cobra]

Then say something that makes sense with respect to your beliefs, for example, "Did anybody notice that the Tenth Amendment is still technically in the text of the United States Cons ution, and is therefore the law of the land? What would y'all think about actually following it?"

I have made that argument in different words on several ocassions. Yes, I brought that up again here. As I said though, my primary concern was with appointments to congress, and the terms. A few postings back:

I was thinking more of how it addresses elected officials when I posted this thread.

The Civil War effectively killed the intent of the tenth amendment.

[Extra Stout]

I have made that argument in different words on several ocassions. Yes, I brought that up again here. As I said though, my primary concern was with appointments to congress, and the terms. A few postings back:

Prior to the 17th Amendment, the interests of states as "sovereign" en ies were represented by their two Senators, who were appointed by state legislatures.

There is no still no legitimate reason for a person affirming strong central government to invoke the A of C.

[Wild Cobra]

Prior to the 17th Amendment, the interests of states as "sovereign" en ies were represented by their two Senators, who were appointed by state legislatures.

This was not what I was addressing, but I like the states choosing them rather than the people. I think the representatives being elected from the people work just fine for our voice, at least as originally intended in the cons ution.

All the 17th amendment did was change the manner of senator elections from the state legislators choosing them, to an election by the people.

Article 1; Section 3; Clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Beginning of the 17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Now the differences between States Rights are enough different that they are stronger under The Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Tenth Amendment:

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

The Articles clearly use more accurate wording. It uses the term "Expressly Delegated" as well. The way congress gets around the tenth amendment is by wrapping its abuses up under another power granted like commerce.

There is no still no legitimate reason for a person affirming strong central government to invoke the A of C.

I wish people would stop implying things I don't say. I never implied I want all of the articles reaffirmed. Why do people argue against points not made or suggested?

In my first posting:

There are a few things I like about it that were excluded in our cons ution.

[RandomGuy]

Under the Articles of Confederation, you would not have one nation, but rather 50 in league with one another. It would be analogous to the EU.

... and we all know how well that functions.

Imagine trying to be a multi-state company in such a league. 50 different sets of commerce laws...

[101A]

The Dormant Tenth Amendment?

The Tenth Amendment might actually be useful and serve the purposes that Wild Cobra wishes if there was anyone in the federal government who could remain doctrinally sound about its effect. Both sides give lip service to the notion of state's rights, but when their pet issues arise (same-sex marriage, social welfare programs, abortion) the vast majority of decision makers on either side of the political spectrum seem inclined to federalize the issue. I'm not sure it's a matter of lacking authority for upholding state's rights as it is an unwillingness to fulfill that mandate.

Isn't that, then, the responsibility of the SC to reign in those predispositions, or are those individuals just as afflicted?

[FromWayDowntown]

n/m