MUST READ: Constitution the first example of federal power grab from states and individuals???

Anyone else notice how those anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution pro-Aoc defenders of the Southern Confederacy have a hopeless case?

Yep, the Southern Confederacy copied, almost word-for-word, the US Constitution!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

They even made a few "pro-liberty" tweaks, one of which was to put slavery into the Confederation Constitution!

Anyone else notice how similar the United Nations is to the Articles of Confederation?

Both have a bunch of unelected autocrats telling us what to do.

Neither has a separation of powers.

Neither has a bi-cameral legislature.

Neither has any checks and balances between the non-existance branches of government.

Neither can be amended without an act of God.

The United Nations has a worthless Bill-of-Rights, the AoC doesn't have a Bill-of-Rights.

Both the UN and AoC are worthless.

So if you support the Articles of Confederation, you support the United nations.

Nice.

Let's get this straight:

According to Buppert, Buppert is smarter, more Patriotic, and knows more about what was going on in 1788, than George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson, Robert Morris, George read, George Clymer, Roger Sherman, George Wythe, and John Hancock.

Even those initally opposed to the Constitution ended up supporting it:

Edmund Randolph voted for ratification.

Elbridge Gerry became vice-president

George Clinton became vice-president

James Monroe became a Senator

Richard Henry Lee became a Senator

Patrick Henry agreed to run for federal office. and even Henry agreed the Articles of Confederation needed to be modified (but, of course, it was basically impossible to do it)

George Mason, who died in 1792, is the only major anti-federalist who I do not know if he is on the recored as supporting the Constition, but that's because he died shortly after the Bill-of-Rights was passed.

At one time, it was actually a good informative site to read.

Not any more.
This article linked in the OP is an example of the tripe that exists over there now.

Pseudo-intellectuals and their mental masturbations.

The Idiocy of William Buppert on the lewrockwell blog

From today's lewrockwell blog:

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)
by William Buppert

http://www.lewrockw ell.com/buppert/ buppert29. 1.html

While the lewrockwell blog runs a lot of good articles and supports Ron Paul, they have been running a lot of idiotic articles that bash the US Constitution, this one included. The article is mostly bullshit, and geared towards those who are ignorant of history, and continues a theme that the Articles of Confederation are better than the Constitution.

The Constitution is far superior to the AoC for the following reasons:

1) the Constitution has a provision for SOME democracy, as the House is elected, while the AoC has NO democracy. This makes the AoC prone to Aristocracy.

2) the AoC does not have a Bill-of-Rights.

3) the AoC is virtually impossible to amend, as you need unanimous approval, and hence would never have added a Bill-of-Rights by amendment. Also, it was difficult just to get all thirteen states to even gather a quorum.

4) the AoC does not a a bicameral legislature, and instead concentrates power into one body.

5) the AoC does not have separate branches for an executive or judiciary. Hence, the AoC was prone to a military dictator, who only needed to march an army into the legislature and take control of the entire government. The legislature then sets up a puppet judiciary, while the legislature remains a puppet to the dictator. This is in fact what usually happens to loose confederations, like the ancient Greek States when Alexander took over (usually preceded by anarchy and civil wars). Another example is Napoleon, which happened right after the time of the AoC.

6) the AoC does not allow for legal secession, like the Constitution. Rather, the AoC was a "perpetual union". Secession is supposedly the sacred cow over at lewrockwell, and this fact is even cited in Buppert's article.

7) at the time of the AoC, foreign agents from England, France, and Spain (plus the Indians & the Dutch), were in constant contact with US government and state officials. If you know your US history, you know that different portions of the US had strong factions in favor of these foreign powers during the early republic. If not for the Constitution, these factions would have led to regional confederacies, standing armies in every state, anarchy, and continual civil war, just like over in Europe the past 1000 years.

8) the Western land of the US were claimed and counterclaimed by several states, with many conflicting claims. Under the Constitution, these were worked out peacefully, and new states were added. If you know your world history, you might be aware than no republic has ever done this before, rather, everywhere else, wars over land break out and "provinces", not states, are added.

9) Under the Constitution, new states that wanted to secede from old states were able to do so, including Vermont (from New York), Maine (from Massachusetts) , and Kentucky (from Virginia).

The worst part of Buppert's article, I will quote here:

"The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup d’état. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.

The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government."

Buppert is either an idiot or a liar when he talks of a coup d'etat.

In a real coup d'etat, the people in the conspiracy do not get permission from their own governments to do something, they just do it illegally on their own.

Secondly, the Constitution, after it was signed, did nothing. It was not a government and had no binding effect, it was just a proposal. In a real coup d'etat, the decision made is final, it is not a proposal anyone gets to vote on.

The Constitution, to become ratified, had to be approved by the following:

* The Confederation congress had to officially send it to the states. Had they decided it was a coup d'etat, they would have killed it right at the beginning.

* Each state had to agree to hold elections for ratifying conventions. Any state legislature could have decided not to hold ratifying elections for conventions. Had the Constitution been a real coup d'etat, no state would have held an election for a ratifying convention.

* Each election allowed candidates and voters their choice. If the Constitution was a real coup d'etat, most of the candidates in each of the 13 states, and most of the voters in the 13 states, would have elected candidates who opposed the supposed coup d'etat.

* Each state then held a ratifying convention. If the Constitution was a real coup d'etat, it would have been voted down. One state did, North Carolina, but then they changed their mind later.

* Even after the Constitution was ratified, all states were free to un-ratify later, if they so chose.

* Under the US Constitition, all ultimate power remains lodged in the state legislatures.

The Constitution itself was a short, simple, and easy to read document, not written in legalese, so the voters and elected officials knew exactly what they were doing. Not to mention the many thousands of newspaper articles that appeared all over the country, providing the text of the Constitution, and many pieces of analysis by federalists and anti-federalists.

The final issue with the idiotic coup d'etat thesis, is the issue of some delegates exceeding their instructions.

The author, Buppert, does not actually provide us any details on who got what instructions, so I will do so. (probably because he doesn't know himself)

Two states had strict instructions not to make drastic changes to the AoC, New York and Rhode Island. But Rhode Island did not attend the Constitutional Convention, and New York did not have a quorum, so they were not among the 11 states that officially presented the Constitution.

Two other states, Delaware and New Jersey, had instructions to amend the AoC, but were to avoid overthrowing the AoC. The leaders of these delegations were John Dickinson of Delaware, and William Paterson of New Jersey. Paterson was known as the strongest states-rights advocate at the entire Convention, while Dickinson was a big states-rights advocates as well, but feared Delaware would soon be gobbled up by a larger state in upcoming trade wars.

Delegates who attend conventions are like ambassadors, they are supposed to use their own judgment, and if they exceed their instructions can be reprimanded. In the case of Dickinson and Paterson, they negotiated what they thought was a better deal, they got equal representation in the Senate. This gave them greater power in the Electoral College as well, and since the Senate confirmed the Supreme Court, greater power in the that branch, too. Also, the Senate had treaty power. These small states knew they were prone to be wiped off the map in a loose confederation free-for-all. An army from a bigger state could easily have marched in and taken the small states by conquest, especially if they kept voting against larger states in the AoC.

So Delaware and New jersey did not engage in coup e'etat, they used their diplomatic skills to broker their people a better deal, a deal that was later ratified by their people. Even if Delaware and New Jersey had voted against the Constitution, it still would have passed 9 states to 2.

Since the Constitution passed 11 states to 0, you would have to find 4 more states on top of Delaware and New Jersey, to even begin the idiotic coup d'etat hypothesis. Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania' s delegates were free to do what they wanted for sure, while the other southern states had open ended instructions. That leaves Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maryland. New Hampshire missed the early voting. The vote to get rid of the AoC was taken early in the Convention, when Maryland was gone as well.

James Wilson said; "We are free to propose anything and decide nothing."

Wilson gets it, Buppert doesn't. The Constitutional Convention DECIDED NOTHING, and hence WAS NOT a coup d'etat.

Long Live the US Constitution!