[Fuerfsanv]

The Articles of Confederation is Superior to the U.S. Constitution. Do you agree or not?

Please explain your answer thoroughly.

Articles of Confederation.

USC

[avaincmolla]

The Articles of Confederation sucked monkey nuts. Why? I guess it's no fun having 13 different currencies and armies (I guess it would be 50 now today). It probably sucks when you can't even build a friggin' interstate highway, or have things like a national emergency oil supply. For racial minorities, it would probably also suck to be slaves. That's not a pleasant experience.

I didn't bother to read the text of the link. I am referring to the Articles of Confederation as they existed in history, except for the slave comment, though theoretically that was highly probably under an Articles of Confederation type government.

[Pvfcadbh]

The Articles of Confederation sucked monkey nuts. Why? I guess it's no fun having 13 different currencies and armies (I guess it would be 50 now today). It probably sucks when you can't even build a friggin' interstate highway, or have things like a national emergency oil supply. For racial minorities, it would probably also suck to be slaves. That's not a pleasant experience.

I didn't bother to read the text of the link. I am referring to the Articles of Confederation as they existed in history, except for the slave comment, though theoretically that was highly probably under an Articles of Confederation type government.

Everything you've mentioned could've easily been done under The Articles of Confederation, and the USC did nothing for slaves.

[attishina]

Everything you've mentioned could've easily been done under The Articles of Confederation, and the USC did nothing for slaves.

Sorry, but My vote is that the thread itself sucks. No futher comment offered..

[vipdumpp]

The Articles of Confederation sucked, but the US Constitution only bloated the problem even more.

[KraskiNetu]

Everything you've mentioned could've easily been done under The Articles of Confederation

If that were true, I'd imagine we would still have the AOC and not the Constitution.

, and the USC did nothing for slaves.

The Constitution made it possible to win the Civil War. Also, see the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments. Those would be amendments to the Constitution.

[lmHVYs8e]

Sorry, but My vote is that the thread itself sucks. No futher comment offered..

Translation:"Sorry I've nothing to say, and haven't a mind of my own."

If that were true, I'd imagine we would still have the AOC and not the Constitution.

No, they wanted complete control at the (centralized) federal level, period.

The Constitution made it possible to win the Civil War. Also, see the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments. Those would be amendments to the Constitution.

There was no reason to fight the civil war, and the emancipation proclamation did nothing. Blacks were still treated as second class citizens, couldn't vote, and it was only the liberal Civil Rights Movement that broke the barriers of segregation. Later the U.S.G. had no problem using them in their sick eugenics program either. So anyway, all that would've come under the Articles, and so would any amendments. The Articles were a superior system as it was a decentralized one. The Civil War (slaves) was an excuse for imperialism, and absolute control. Civil War is population adjustment and that's all it ever is.

Contrast and Compare:

One's a decentralized system, and one's a centralized one. Now look where we're today, and what, has absolute control.


Comparing the Articles and the Constitution
The United States has operated under two constitutions. The first, The Articles of Confederation, was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution, replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788.

The two documents have much in common - they were established by the same people (sometimes literally the same exact people, though mostly just in terms of contemporaries). But they differ more than they do resemble each other, when one looks at the details. Comparing them can give us insight into what the Framers found important in 1781, and what they changed their minds on by 1788.

Formal name of the nation
Articles: The United States of America
Constitution: (not specified, but referred to in the Preamble as "the United States of America")

Legislature
Articles: Unicameral, called Congress
Constitution: Bicameral, called Congress, divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate

Members of Congress
Articles: Between two and seven members per state
Constitution: Two Senators per state, Representatives apportioned according to population of each state

Voting in Congress
Articles: One vote per state
Constitution: One vote per Representative or Senator

Appointment of members
Articles: All appointed by state legislatures, in the manner each legislature directed
Constitution: Representatives elected by popular vote, Senators appointed by state legislatures

Term of legislative office
Articles: One year
Constitution: Two years for Representatives, six for Senators

Term limit for legislative office
Articles: No more than three out of every six years
Constitution: None

Congressional Pay
Articles: Paid by states
Constitution: Paid by the federal government

When Congress is not in session...
Articles: A Committee of States had the full powers of Congress
Constitution: The President can call for Congress to assemble

Chair of legislature
Articles: President of Congress
Constitution: Speaker of the House of Representatives, Vice President is President of the Senate

Executive
Articles: None
Constitution: President

National Judiciary
Articles: Maritime judiciary established
Constitution: Federal judiciary established, including Supreme Court

Adjudicator of disputes between states
Articles: Congress
Constitution: Supreme Court

New States
Articles: Admitted upon agreement of nine states (special exemption provided for Canada)
Constitution: Admitted upon agreement of Congress

Amendment
Articles: When agreed upon by all states
Constitution: When agreed upon by three-fourths of all states

Navy
Articles: Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip warships to counter piracy
Constitution: Congress authorized to build a navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war

Army
Articles: Congress to decide on size of force and to requisition troops from each state according to population
Constitution: Congress authorized to raise and support armies

Power to coin money
Articles: United States and the states
Constitution: United States only

Ex post facto laws
Articles: Not forbidden
Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Bills of attainder
Articles: Not forbidden
Constitution: Forbidden of both the states and the Congress

Taxes
Articles: Apportioned by Congress, collected by the states
Constitution: Laid and collected by Congress

Ratification
Articles: Unanimous consent required
Constitution: Consent of nine states required

[Guaranano]

No, they wanted complete control at the (centralized) federal level, period.

No, they realized that they could get nothing done without empowering an institution to make decisions.

There was no reason to fight the civil war, and the emancipation proclamation did nothing.

Alright, well as long as a random guy on the internet says so, that's good enough for me. I say that all US history prior till now has awaited the inevitable popular referendum which will make Dennis Rodman, emperor sky king of the USA.

Blacks were still treated as second class citizens, couldn't vote, and it was only the liberal Civil Rights Movement that broke the barriers of segregation.

The 14th Amendment TO THE CONSTITUTION was instrumental in making that happen, as well as for the women's liberation movement as well. The 14th was a direct product of the Civil War.

Later the U.S.G. had no problem using them in their sick eugenics program either.

Pardon?

So anyway, all that would've come under the Articles, and so would any amendments. The Articles were a superior system as it was a decentralized one.

Oh alright, as long as you say so, then it must be true. Let's see, if Rome had never fallen things would has still turned out the same as they did today and this will not stop the future ascension of the sky king, Dennis Rodman.

The Civil War (slaves) was an excuse for imperialism, and absolute control. Civil War is population adjustment and that's all it ever is.

Imperialism over who? "Population adjustment?" Come again?

[UJRonald]

Translation:"Sorry I've nothing to say, and haven't a mind of my own."




[/i]

Actually, if you want a real translation. The subject is so idiotic and unimportant that I wouldn't waste my time on it. I would prefer to discuss the relative moves of the game of tiddly-winks. I was being nice before.

[Bemapayople]

Actually, if you want a real translation. The subject is so idiotic and unimportant that I wouldn't waste my time on it. I would prefer to discuss the relative moves of the game of tiddly-winks. I was being nice before.

You have nothing to add and that's quite obvious. Be as nice as you want there, charlie...

No, they realized that they could get nothing done without empowering an institution to make decisions.

Who realized they couldn't get anything done? Not the sovereign states.

The 14th Amendment TO THE CONSTITUTION was instrumental in making that happen, as well as for the women's liberation movement as well. The 14th was a direct product of the Civil War.

The AOC was an amendable document, and who cares as 14th amendment did nothing during the time of it's passing. They even had to institute martial Law. I made a comment about the emancipation proclamation, and you came back with a stupid nonsensical remark. It was the Civil Rights movement, and not the 14th amendment that broke the segregation barrier, and you should know this. There isn't anything that the USC has done that the Articles couldn't have done better as each state was a sovereign entity that didn't have to listen to anything that came from the federal level. They were free to do as they pleased.

Pardon?

What're you confused about?

Imperialism over who? "Population adjustment?" Come again?

Yes, it was war for territory. Control of every state under one central authority. Population adjustment. Yes, that's what a civil war is as it's the citizenry fighting one another.

[lapyignipinge]

I prefer the USC as opposed to the USAC. However, I believe our USC needs a series of amendments to make the USG more responsive to current issues:

1. The U.S. Senate shall be elected every year ending in "5" or "0" by proportional representation. The 100 seats of the U.S. Senate shall be apportioned among all political parties in proportion to the percentage of states won by each party.
2. The U.S. House of Representatives shall be elected every year ending in "5" of "0" by proportional representation. The first 300 seats will be apportioned among all political parties in proportion to the perecentage of popular vote recieved by each party. The party with the pluraity of votes shall recieve a bonus 100 seats and the party that holds the Presidency shall be awarded a bonus 35 seats.
3. The Presidency shall be elected every year ending in "5" or "0" by direct popular vote. The candidate that wins at least 50.1% of the direct popular vote shall be elected President. If no candidate attains 50.1% of the DPV, then a runoff between the top two candidates will be held and whomever wins the most state shall be elected President.
4. The President shall have line item veto power.
5. Abortion shall be banned in this Constitution except in cases of exigent circumstances.
6. The US Congress shall establish a national language and legislate to this end.
7. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the US Congress from instituting a draft of some form of complusory national service.
8. The President, Congress, and the people may present to the electorate, laws, treaties, Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court decisions for approval in a national refferundum. A 50.1% approval is required for the ratifiying or invalidation of laws and treaties and a minimum of 60.0% is required for the ratifying and repealing of Constitutional amendments and the setting aside of SCOTUS decisions.
9. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the USG from providing public funds to faith-based organizations.
10. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit the free exercise of religion in public building so long as such practice doesn't endanger oneself or others.
11. All term limits, including those on the President of the United States are hereby repealled.

[natahololll]

Who realized they couldn't get anything done? Not the sovereign states.

The sovereign states realized that they couldn't get anything done without the Constitution. This is high school US history.

The AOC was an amendable document, and who cares as 14th amendment did nothing during the time of it's passing.

Not totally true (i.e. the Reconstruction era). However, I think it matters as the 14th Amendment was necessary for Brown vs Board of Ed and also as the basis for the Women's Rights Movements. I certainly care as I might have had to attend college at Tuskegee University, where I would have enjoyed a nice career in carpentry or woodworking, which is not my preference.

They even had to institute martial Law. I made a comment about the emancipation proclamation, and you came back with a stupid nonsensical remark.

Your remarks on this thread are nothing but stupid nonsensical remarks. They mainly consist of statements that are the logical and factual equivalents of "I'm right cuz I said so."

It was the Civil Rights movement, and not the 14th amendment that broke the segregation barrier, and you should know this.

Who said I didn't? You should concentrate more on upping your game from "cuz I said so" to making some sense here.

There isn't anything that the USC has done that the Articles couldn't have done better as each state was a sovereign entity that didn't have to listen to anything that came from the federal level. They were free to do as they pleased.

Yeah, we can say that in theory anyone could do anything, but that's a worthless kind of statement. Hitler could have decided to make peace with the rest of the world and installed representative democracy, but I don't think that was likely. If the Native Americans had united, they could have attacked every white settler and maybe discouraged them from landing for a century or two. We can speculate all day on what could happen in some fantasy scenarios. Since you don't bring any logic or fact to the table, this is just a waste of time.

What're you confused about?

I put the confused smily underneath the part that made no sense. If you want to answer, you can go back and figure it out.

Yes, it was war for territory. Control of every state under one central authority. Population adjustment. Yes, that's what a civil war is as it's the citizenry fighting one another.

OK, I don't agree with that at all. I say it was a war about politics. Incompatible North versus South politics. No population adjustment. You're generalization is wrong too. Civil wars can be about a great many things, not just this one or two things you've listed.

[occurrini]

The Articles of Confederation is Superior to the U.S. Constitution. Do you agree or not?

Please explain your answer thoroughly.

Articles of Confederation.

USC

Been there, tried it and it did not work.
The idea behind the UNITED States of America is to build one nation, with one currency, one language, yes one language, one military.
Anyone that reads American history knows this.
Anyone that says our present system is inferior is simply wrong because first of all you can't show a superior system
Yes, there is always a tension between centralized power and a more decentralized government, but our present system was determined at the end of the Civil War when the UNITED States beat the Confederates.
We are the most powerful nation on earth, so let's not be running down the current system.
Yes, it has it's problems, to worst being that people have found out they can better their standard of living with less effort by sucking on the federal tit.
We have too many people that believe government is here to make their life better. That is a trend that will change as more and more the government failes to do much of anything for its citzens except to tax them more and more.
Still, with all it's warts and blemishes it's the greatest government ever devised and will continue to be for at least this century.

[RlUbQU3R]

In my opinion the AOC had many shortcomings when compared to the Constitution.

For example, in the AOC each of the 13 states had one vote in Congress, and no legislation could be passed without at least 9 states voting for it. This left open the possibility that legislation, while supported by representatives of the vast majority of the population would not pass if, say, New Hampshire, Delaware, Rhode Island New Jersey and Georgia (roughly 12% of the US population at the time) opposed it.

The bicameral legislature created by the Constitution provided low population states with equal representation in one body, but created a second body recognizing the huge disparity in population among the states, and apportioning representation based on population.

Replacing a 2/3 requiremnt for passing legislation with a simple majority made it easier for the government to pass legislation. Some may consider this a weakness in the Constitution ("tyranny of the majority"), but the AOC had built into it a prospect of the "tyranny of the minority".

"And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

The unanimity requirement made it practically impossible to amend the AOC. It gave a "veto" power to any state despite the fact that the most populated state at the time (Virginia) represented barely 20% of the US population. A "small" state such as Delaware, with approximately 1.5% of the US population in 1780, could "veto" an amendment approved by states representing roughly 98.5% of the population.

The Constitution provides that amendments can be passed by a vote of 2/3 of both houses of Congress, plus 3/4 of state legislatures or national convention.

So it remains difficult to amend the Constitution (as it should be), but not practically impossible.

Under the AOC Congress could ask the states to pay taxes, but had no means of enforcing the request. It had no means of raising funds for the common defense (the inability to adequately handle encroachments by foreign powers along the borders and on the Mississippi may have been one result of this). It was at the mercy of the states when it came to raising funds to pay off debts incurred during the war. It could not regulate trade among the states (leading to states imposing tarriffs on goods from other states).


Under the AOC Congress was, essentially, the legislative, executive and judicial branch (it created no courts to settle issues of law). It passed the laws, enforced the laws (as best it could), and determined legal disputes between the states.

While the unwillingness to consider a strong national government (particularly one with a strong executive) at a time when the US was in the process of attempting to get out from under a King makes sense, it wasn't practical in the long run. Nor did it make sense to not have an independent branch to address legal issues.

While my analysis is somewhat simplistic, and the Constitution certainly has it's flaws, it is far less flawed, in my opinion, than the AOC.

[Grizli]

Define superior!

[Piemonedmow]

Define superior!

Smarter, better looking, etc. See white vs. black.

[Nubtoubrem]

The Constitution itself represents a growth of the beast over the Articles of Confederation.

[MannyLopez]

Define superior!

The AOC...

The Constitution itself represents a growth of the beast over the Articles of Confederation.

An asshole federalist fearmongering Imperial Beast.

Side note: W.E.B. Du Bois, I'll get to you and your revisionist "school history" later. Heads up on the U.S. education system. It's a compulsory communist piece of shit, and all historical curriculum is brainwashed. Ever read a Free Republic: http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/...-citizens.html

[texprofi]

The AOC...

An asshole federalist fearmongering Imperial Beast.

Side note: W.E.B. Du Bois, I'll get to you and your revisionist "school history" later. Heads up on the U.S. education system. It's a compulsory communist piece of shit, and all historical curriculum is brainwashed. Ever read a Free Republic: http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/...-citizens.html

Gee, I almost agree with you. The American school system is dumbed down so that all children of all races can keep up and move up. It would not look good if most Black kids could not get past the 6th grade and most hispanic kids could not get past 8th grade and most White kids graduate behind the Jews and Asians. That would not do at all, so they have to dumb down the curriculum to the point where 99.995% of all students pass.
Everybody be happy that way.
Once upon a time in America before students were homogonized at the point of bayonets and guns, we had a decent education system, but now it's become a wreck because we have to drag along everyone, deserving or not.
The profoundly stupid get to graduate with the exceptionally gifted. Socialism at work!
This has nothing to do with the Constitution but then according to the Constitution the Federal Government has no business sticking it's affirmative action nose into our high schools either.
Now, the action is in private schools. The well off send their kids to private schools so they can actually learn something and join the brotherhood of the elite.
Democracy and Free Enterprise at work restoring the balance.

[derty]

The Articles of Confederation proved a very ineffective government. The Constitution provides a much better representative government than a Constitutional Monarch, direct democracy, or any other form of government. The only exception I would make would be a benevolent dictatorship with me as the dictator.

Other problems with the Articles of Confederation was that it was practically impossible to amend any shortcomings that it would impose in future years. Furthermore, it relied on states to collect the money and send it to the government. This proved fatally to how the government needs to be operated.