I thought that this might be a very interesting discussion about these two different, but radically important legal documents that helped shape our Country. Basically, this could be a modern day Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debate.
Articles of Confederation: The founding document that led to the official creation of the United States of America. In short and basic terms, the AOC stated that each of the States were essentially mini-Countries with their own separate legislatures and even state currencies, that formed the greater union of the United States. Similar to today's European Union, but with far greater respect to the States themselves. State Governments were given greater authority and had a far greater influence over the decisions of the Presidency and the Congress as a whole.
Constitution: Congress has the right to levy taxes and authorize declarations of war. Right to regulate trade and commerce between the States, a Federal Court system, and more power to the Congress and the Presidency.
http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.art.html
I personally think that the AOC would have been better in the long run as the Civil War most certainly would not have happened if the AOC was still the law of the land. Plus, Canada was free to join with the rest of the States at anytime. On the other hand, The Constitution created the Federal Government, helped resolve many of the interstate issues of the day, and it helped bring greater stability within the Thirteen States in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.
The constitution is a much stronger approach however 200+ years later what was limited federal branch has become limitless in its grasp for control.
Not having a single currency was the biggest downfall of the AOC
If I had to pick one today id take the AOC but that's only because the federal arm has proven it is beyond control.
Quote:The constitution is a much stronger approach however 200+ years later what was limited federal branch has become limitless in its grasp for control.
But Oklahomie said that's a feature not a bug and we should be grateful that we have Uncle Sugar to take care of us poor unwashed masses.
Quote:But Oklahomie said that's a feature not a bug and we should be grateful that we have Uncle Sugar to take care of us poor unwashed masses.
As long as the rich are getting punished, Oklahomie is perfectly fine with all the "freebies" being distributed to the have nots. He also has a tattoo of Marx on one cheek, and Lenin on the other.
Quote:As long as the rich are getting punished, Oklahomie is perfectly fine with all the "freebies" being distributed to the have nots. He also has a tattoo of Marx on one cheek, and Lenin on the other.
I don't think they should be punished except in the cases of bankers that aided to the collapse.
I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows 1% of a population to control 40% of the wealth and paying less percentage than the average american. I don't think the idea that they should be paying the same percentage as everyone else nor the idea the idea that employees should get a living wage as punishment.
Quote:I don't think they should be punished except in the cases of bankers that aided to the collapse.
I do think there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows 1% of a population to control 40% of the wealth and paying less percentage than the average american. I don't think the idea that they should be paying the same percentage as everyone else nor the idea the idea that employees should get a living wage as punishment.
Watch out - you're sure to be labeled a Marxist/Leninist (I love that old style religion). And even worse, they'll accuse you of having voted for Obama.
Toe the line, son.
I don't think there is much of debate to be had around this to be honest. The Constitution is clearly the better method. In order to modify the Articles of Confederation a unanimous vote was required, for example, which would be practically impossible with today's 50 states. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no reliable way to enforce the laws written by Congress, no reliable way to collect taxes, and trade was significantly more difficult. There was no court system under the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation were a great tool for loosely uniting the states during the Revolutionary War, but it simply couldn't cut it as far as creating and maintaining a nation capable of gaining the level of success that the United States has. I don't know about you, but even with our rather disappointing current government I'm happier living in the US than I would be living under the Articles of Constitution where government was capable of less than what the UN is currently capable of. Whether you like government or not, there has to be some backbone in place in order for us to live the lives that we do.
Quote:I don't think there is much of debate to be had around this to be honest. The Constitution is clearly the better method. In order to modify the Articles of Confederation a unanimous vote was required, for example, which would be practically impossible with today's 50 states. Under the Articles of Confederation there was no reliable way to enforce the laws written by Congress, no reliable way to collect taxes, and trade was significantly more difficult. There was no court system under the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation were a great tool for loosely uniting the states during the Revolutionary War, but it simply couldn't cut it as far as creating and maintaining a nation capable of gaining the level of success that the United States has. I don't know about you, but even with our rather disappointing current government I'm happier living in the US than I would be living under the Articles of Constitution where government was capable of less than what the UN is currently capable of. Whether you like government or not, there has to be some backbone in place in order for us to live the lives that we do.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I will say that the Founders envisioned the United States as only being a small Country with a limited form of central Government with more power given to the States. They never could have dreamt that the United States would have ever expanded past the Ohio Valley and West of the Mississippi River. Let alone having a flag with each star representing 50 States and a handful of territories and possessions that we have today in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.
The AOC fulfilled that role of unifying the Colonies as one independent body of States, but you also have to consider with what I said earlier about the Civil War and how it could have been averted if the AOC was still the law of the land at that period of time. A lot of the issues between States during the Civil War are rooted in many of the old Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates in Philadelphia and Princeton that were happening at that time.
There was actually a special provision within the AOC which stated that Canada was free to join up with the rest of the US at anytime. So maybe out there in some Parallel Universe there actually exists a United States where Canada (or at least Quebec), would be apart of the US right now.
If the AOC was still around, we would have had a system of Government which was very similar to that of Switzerland in the 18th and 19th Centuries. With the States replacing the role of Swiss Cantons. In fact, the Founding Fathers (or at least Jefferson), wanted to model the United States after Switzerland and NOT the Roman Republic and certainly not Ancient Athens. Even though many of our ideas of a Republic were borrowed from that of Ancient Rome.
That pretty much finishes my rambling for the night lol.
Quote:I agree with a lot of what you said, but I will say that the Founders envisioned the United States as only being a small Country with a limited form of central Government with more power given to the States. They never could have dreamt that the United States would have ever expanded past the Ohio Valley and West of the Mississippi River. Let alone having a flag with each star representing 50 States and a handful of territories and possessions that we have today in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.
The AOC fulfilled that role of unifying the Colonies as one independent body of States, but you also have to consider with what I said earlier about the Civil War and how it could have been averted if the AOC was still the law of the land at that period of time. A lot of the issues between States during the Civil War are rooted in many of the old Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates in Philadelphia and Princeton that were happening at that time.
There was actually a special provision within the AOC which stated that Canada was free to join up with the rest of the US at anytime. So maybe out there in some Parallel Universe there actually exists a United States where Canada (or at least Quebec), would be apart of the US right now.
If the AOC was still around, we would have had a system of Government which was very similar to that of Switzerland in the 18th and 19th Centuries. With the States replacing the role of Swiss Cantons. In fact, the Founding Fathers (or at least Jefferson), wanted to model the United States after Switzerland and NOT the Roman Republic and certainly not Ancient Athens. Even though many of our ideas of a Republic were borrowed from that of Ancient Rome.
That pretty much finishes my rambling for the night lol.
Well stated.
I think it comes down to the choice that had to be made early on in the Republic: where you a supporter of Jefferson or Hamilton?
I'm all for Hamilton.
Quote:Well stated.
I think it comes down to the choice that had to be made early on in the Republic: where you a supporter of Jefferson or Hamilton?
I'm all for Hamilton.
I'm an Aaron Burr man myself
I think Burr and Benedict Arnold were two of our greatest hero's. If you look back at History, you can't fault Arnold for defecting. The Congress kept giving control of the US Arfmy to an inept man named George Washington, and Arnold was tired of losing men to an idiot.
Burr was a true revolutionary, and had he became the leader, he'd have made the US a much different country.
As far as the OP, the AOC are what the Constitution are based off of. You do realize the basic reason we went to war was because of Tax (see: Boston Tea Party), and the original, unadulterated Constitution was written for the original 13 plus 7 states. That's what the Founder's thought we'd add, and each would be start from the state level then go to the Federal level.
Also, the Founders put in an article, a right, to over throw the government at which times the People thought it was necessary. Even Jefferson said the government should be over thrown every 100 years.
Quote:I agree with a lot of what you said, but I will say that the Founders envisioned the United States as only being a small Country with a limited form of central Government with more power given to the States. They never could have dreamt that the United States would have ever expanded past the Ohio Valley and West of the Mississippi River. Let alone having a flag with each star representing 50 States and a handful of territories and possessions that we have today in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean.
The AOC fulfilled that role of unifying the Colonies as one independent body of States, but you also have to consider with what I said earlier about the Civil War and how it could have been averted if the AOC was still the law of the land at that period of time. A lot of the issues between States during the Civil War are rooted in many of the old Federalist vs Anti-Federalist debates in Philadelphia and Princeton that were happening at that time.
There was actually a special provision within the AOC which stated that Canada was free to join up with the rest of the US at anytime. So maybe out there in some Parallel Universe there actually exists a United States where Canada (or at least Quebec), would be apart of the US right now.
If the AOC was still around, we would have had a system of Government which was very similar to that of Switzerland in the 18th and 19th Centuries. With the States replacing the role of Swiss Cantons. In fact, the Founding Fathers (or at least Jefferson), wanted to model the United States after Switzerland and NOT the Roman Republic and certainly not Ancient Athens. Even though many of our ideas of a Republic were borrowed from that of Ancient Rome.
That pretty much finishes my rambling for the night lol.
While I don't disagree with what you've stated, the idea that the founding fathers not envisioning a 50 state union doesn't improve the AoC in my opinion. They may not have envisioned such a place, but it was Thomas Jefferson - a particularly important founding father, who favored a system with less government power than was granted by the Constitution - that went ahead and used powers that were arguably beyond the scope of the Constitution to make the Louisianna Purchase happen.
Also, yes, it's possible the AoC would have avoided the Civil War, but you have to consider whether or not the AoC would have had the capacity to allow us to expand to the point of controlling such a large amount land thus limiting the number neighbors that we have to deal with. I would say that has played a big role in the US being relatively peaceful
on home soil. Afterall, it's a lot easier to invade when all you've got to do is walk across a line on a map than it is to travel across an ocean.