The Articles of Confederation are often taught in school as a failure, a worthless attempt at a national government that failed because it had to weak of a national state. Whats not talked about however, is the fact that most Americans were against the new constitution and that Federalists where the main pushers behind it. What if we held another constitutional convention and updated the AoC to modern day standards aka. Slavery, Civil Rights, and more. I got asked if I was a troll supporting this idea, and would like to know why this would be such a terrible idea.
i don't exactly know if it was entirely federalists, though james madison did write most of the constitution, and he was pretty federalist. Constitutional conventions are like bloodless (err....mostly) revolutions. for a government to call a constitutional convention is to risk it's very existance. the Government that formed after the revolutionary war was not the same government after 1788. now most, aside from rabid totalitarians would agree that the document produced in 1788 was a pretty good one (refusal to "deal" with the issue of slavery aside) but they still used some legal trickery to push it through. the articles of confederation called for a unanimous approval by the 13 states to amend the body of the document. the "new" constitution only called for 66% of the states (9) to amend the body of the document. see where this is going? the delegates knew that they would never get 13 states to agree so they fudged the rules, in spite of the disapproval of what we would call the congress at the time. the congress circa 1788 even addressed the topic of the convention going its "own way" and basically came to the conclusion that they were powerless to stop it, having been the body that vested the convention with it's powers. so the fear (founded fear IMO) is that if we called a new convention any limits placed on it by congress would go out the window as soon as the thing got going. kind of like a revolution on paper. the constitution has been shit on by the past 5 administrations (at least), but it is all we got left to protect us from our government. i could see an ultimate power grab taking place during a new convention. you think the GUB is in your business now.......
my comments on this will be on hold.... i want to read some replies first,,,to see the knowledge blades have on this issue,,, i'd be surprised if a lot of blades even know what the articles of confederation is.... if i started this thread,,,,i'd be caaled racist so quick,,,,as i am usually called.. ..because the knee-jerk reaction to the title alone ...is '' oh he's talking about slavery ''
I'll be the first. Good sir....You are a racist for not commenting in the wonderful typical chicken fashion.
after shays rebellion everyone was scared about the weak central government and the inability to raise an army for protection, which was a major reason the 2nd constitutional convention was much more successful than the first... every state could have their own form of money, which...well just imagine that... no power to tax from the central government plus the bill of rights was a good thing for sure...although it wasn't in the original constitution, it (the constitution) wouldn't have been ratified if these first 10 amendments weren't installed. basically the aoc just couldn't keep the U.S. united, and if they were kept around now adays, just imagine the interstate nightmares that would arise. each state would be like their own country -- to an extent.
the constitution is designed to where each state could govern itself,,,, but now we have ''central washington d.c. '' it wasnt meant to be that way....each state was to have the right to govern thierselves individually.. with no interference from d.c. thats all im gonna say... im suppose to be trolling this thread,, not posting.....
yeah but under the aoc there was just 1 branch of government, no exec, no judicial- it was really the states governing themselves. the constitution gives the fed government power over the states. we have in place "marble cake federalism" which is basically federal and state governments are intertwined in the legislature. the framers wanted a strong central government, just not an abusive monarchy. federal law still supersedes state law, and it wasn't till jackson that nullification really occurred. its hard for me to formulate my thoughts, i haven't studied this stuff in a while and am enjoying some herb, but just my 2 cents.
but this is not how the constitution was written. it was more like they had separate jurisdictions (see 10th amendment). the federal state was to uphold the constitution, protect the country in case of invasion, regulate interstate and international trade and that was about it. the several states were to see to everything else. each state was supposed to be a separate entity. and until the civil war that was pretty much what you had. the big federalist push didn't come till the reconstruction era. and what would be so bad about each state having its own currency anyway? i spend dollars in canada just fine. a single unified currency just allows the banks in charge of the fed to get rich.
I don't know what it is, or really care. All I know is that we don't have freedom in this country and talking about the articles of confederation isn't achieving that.... unless the articles of confederation is against slavery... I laugh at those people who think that a piece of paper can stop bullets.
great link here about who would be against another constitutional convention that is designed by the framers to give us citizens the right to change government when the feds are not listening. http://www.vx50.com/latest-news/who...onal-convention/comment-page-1/#comment-15514
but it would not be the citizens running the convention. it would be the same politicians who have already fucked everything up. i wouldn't trust that lot to pour piss out of a boot successfully, let alone redefine the very fabric of our country. not that the citizenship would be a hellava lot better, ever been to walmart on gubment check day??? if those are the cretins deciding my fate i'll buy a bullet and rent a gun and save some time.
From my experience, most people are opposed to it because the word "confederation" reminds them of the Civil War and slavery and they don't know the difference so they hate it. The same people probably wish they lived in the EU though.