Q: If the Constitution gets restored, would you want to go back to the Articles of Confederation?
Submitted by atrickpay on Thu, 08/07/2008 - 15:25
See this for some info on the Articles if you are unfamiliar.
Personally, I sure would--the Articles granted politicians much less power.
»
We do not need to return to
We do not need to return to the Articles of Confederation for two reasons.
The first being that they were deeply flawed in they recognized the individual States as Sovereign with no real ability to unite them. If we hadn't scrapped them, we would have been back under British rule. The Founders understood this and acted accordingly.
The second being that this country worked well under the Constitution of the United States of America. However, the officers of government made a huge mistake when they incorporated the District of Columbia into a private corporation for carrying out the business needs of the original jurisdiction government, which was barred from doing some of the things it wanted to, for the banking interests, during the reconstruction of the South.
All that is needed today is to reseat the original jurisdiction government, which is underway, and rest control of the Corp. U.S. from the IMF, who currently owns it.
The problem we have today is through the years leading up to and after the Civil War, the people of this great nation started forgetting their history and their law; and, relied on third party information as to what they should do and what was truly happening in their government. We became lazy and complacent. A good place to learn more about this is Team Law: http://teamlaw.org/history.htm And, then do your own independent research on the matter to verify what you learn.
The Articles were a failure and were doomed from the beginning. Here are some comments from a previous discussion on the matter: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/54692#comment-549370
Dup
Sorry.
I think we should
make a law NO LAWYERS can run for office. Every bill has to fit on to ONE piece of paper and NO fancy double talk. Every tax increase comes with a tax DECREASE somewhere else. Only elected leaders go to war and who ever wants to volunteer. If you are caught lobbying an elect official you can be HUNG that day. No public schools, all private schools teach what you want, pray what you want. All churches pay a business tax like every other business. No income tax. Limit on the number of elected officials, less is best. Every single person is considered a business so there will be a tax on everyone. This would be used as an incentive to hold down the population and pay for guns so when our elected officials go to war we should at least buy their guns. LOL If you can not pay your tax, no ice cream for you. LOL
We can have no more laws than we have fingers and toes. (that's twenty) So everyone can remember them. If you want to add one you have to take one away. LOL Gee, I'm in a googy mood tonight. Peace
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
We had and still have that
We had and still have that law. It is called the Title of Nobility Amendment and it is 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Not to be confused with the United States Constitution which belongs to the Corp. U.S. which is a private corporation owned by foreign interests - the IMF.
Well, we probably wouldn't
Well, we probably wouldn't need to so long as we have responsible people who will obey the Constitution.... but if not, then maybe.... or maybe we reorganize the Republic into a Confederation.
Trusting that we'll have "responsible people" is foolish
The restraints built-in to the Constitution were supposed to PROTECT us from irresponsible, power-hungry, and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. The Founders knew better than to assume that politicians would be saints. Other than Dr. Paul, can you name a single current politician who is really trustworthy and who understands and follows the Constitution? I can't -- no, not even Kucinich and a few others who TALK about the Constitution.
We have learned, to our sorrow, that the Constitutional protections for liberty and restraints against misuse of power were simply NOT strong enough. The U.S. federal government is now far more powerful, oppressive, dangerous, intrusive, and expensive than King George's monarchy ever was.
So, yes: go back to something like the Articles, updated and improved but retaining the basic idea of NO POWER TO TAX for the central government, and nearly all power reserved, clearly and decisively, to the States themselves.
Ultimately, eliminate coercive government entirely: this cruel, violence-and-threat-based form of society is responsible for more death, war, poverty, and destruction than any other human institution, and it is time for love and freedom to REPLACE social forms based on coercion. Freedom works; tyranny does not -- except for the sociopaths who want power over others and who live like parasites off the rest of us.
I revere the Founders,but
I revere the Founders,but you're correct about the safeguards in the document. Patrick Henry and Franklin both had severe reservations about the Constitution as written. I believe the document is a strong one in spirit of the Law, but should be remade even stronger in Letter of the Law someday.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
It is a trick question.
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which is also a constitution. We ran this country from 1781 to 1788 under the Articles, then replaced it with the current Constitution. The Articles featured a unicameral legislature, with 2-7 people in Congress, but each state got one vote total, appointed representation for 1 year by the state legislature. There was no executive office and we were under maritime law. There is more, but there were many similarities as well as great differences. We should just try to follow the one we have.
I don't get
Why is it a trick question if the Articles also happened to be a "constitution"?
If the Constitution is restored, then we continue to follow it.
OR we choose to scrap it and restore the Articles of Confederation ( which had problems) OR we start from scratch and make a new constitution. Your original statement means we go back to our present Constitution and use the Articles. We can only do one or the other, not both at the same time.
No, but there need to be
No, but there need to be changes, in my opinion.
The Separation of Powers has always been too weak; the Executive Branch has always been too strong.
Also the Supreme Court, if it serves any useful purpose at all, should serve as a check against constitutionally illegal laws like the Patriot Act. Part of the high court's job, as judicial review, should be direct veto power over any laws passed by Congress. We shouldn't have to wait ten years before an unconstitutional federal law is stricken down. The court should not have the power to make Law, but it should have unlimited power to repeal it.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Great Question
I know we all would like a return to the constitution, however even if we followed it perfectly, its still a far from perfect document. I really would prefer a much more specific hardcore libertarian charter of freedoms. Jefferson said governments are formed through the consent of the governed. I don't know about you, but i've never consented to be governed by anybody! I and everyone else deserves to have a say in the constitution we live under. As for the articles of confederation, if "we" ever did revert to them they would logically only be the rule of law in the original colonies.
That is quite true
The Framers bounded the rest of the population under the rule of the Constitution even though the Framers never gave the people the opportunity to agree to it/sign it...
ps. Have you read Spooner's book No Treason?
I tend to adopt the Libertarian view that the U.S. Constitution
was written with too many places where it can, and does, "leak" tyranny. Although there were strong reasons and forces behind establishing a stronger federal government at that time, I don't think that even the most ardent Federalists imagined the extent to which their centralized monster would have grown. There were anti-Federalist forces who could, and did, imagine the long term growth of a strong central government and the eventual costs that such a thing would present. As more than one historian has opined, if the citizens are content to sit by and allow a government to seize their property and to curtail their liberties, then there is no written document that can ever retrieve them. That which was purchased with human blood and sacrifice, once completely lost, can only be restored the same way it was originally won.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
interesting... I'm with you!
interesting... I'm with you!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
“A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Prov. 22:3; 27:12 KJV)
Hey McCain-----┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐