Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to I Use Dial
Re: Granting the power to giveth, also to taketh. said by I Use Dial:Yes, the Constitution is more centralized that the Articles of Confederation, but only for very few things. Also, don't forget the "one-state veto rule" which existed under the Articles of Confederation. States like New York and Rhode Island vetoed proposed imposts to pay the debt of the revolution. One of the factors leading to growing demands to abandon the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation for the larger, more centralized government.
Losing the state power to veto the union's plans is a huge shift in power. When debates over the new constitution became serious, New York offered New Jersey a deal not to tax its imports, even refunding past harbor taxes if New Jersey would oppose creation of the new federal government.
The subordination of states to the new government was huge. If they wanted to preserve states rights, they would have remained with the Articles of Confederation. Clearly the founding generation wanted to sacrifice a large degree of liberty for security.
You'll say that ending the one-state veto was a narrow capitulation of power. But, the principle which the founding generation sought to correct is the same as the principle applied to interstate communications. If left to individual states it would be a race to the bottom. Each state reducing regulations to attract business to the detriment of neighboring states. |
|
| The same people who argued for the Constitution also argued that the states have the rights of nullification and even cessation.
--
Time... beckoning me. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by I Use Dial:The same people who argued for the Constitution also argued that the states have the rights of nullification and even cessation. Clearly that wasn't how it turned out when the Constitution granted the federal government the expansive power to ensure every state provides a republican form of government to its citizens. By definition, withdrawing from the union would deny its citizens such protection and be contrary to such form of government.
The debates over the constitution were dominated by hyperbole. The Bill or Rights were essentially a sop to the anti-federalists who had effectively instilled fear through hyperbole. The Bill of Rights isn't an absolute protection or definition or rights. Just as the enumerated powers (some being extremely broad) aren't limited to the challenges the founding generation faced. More accurately, both are principles to be balanced. |
|
MrHappy316Wish I had my tankPremium
join:2003-01-02
Summerville, SC
1 edit | reply to I Use Dial
Tell that to my state of SC who found out pretty quick that wasn't the case
edit Response box ended up in the wrong spot this was suppose to be a response to Dial /edit |
|
