Originally posted by normbenignThe British Commonwealth didn't exist until 1931. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Commonwealth-association-of-states The Founders didn't use the term "Commonwealth" because that is not what they created.
I suspect that the reason the founders were not enthused about the term commonwealth, is that is what the English system was called. If you will read the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution, the definition is almost the same as you set forth for a Commonwealth.
Even the US Constitution emphasizes State sovereignty, with certai ...[text shortened]... Europe where nations are small and close, but each enjoys its own distinct culture and economy.
The US Constitution sharply reduced State sovereignty and had an entire section (Article I, section 10) specifically banning States from exercising many of their previous powers. Article IV also did away with various sovereign prerogatives.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyAs I expected, you will just keep repeating the claim without evidence - and slowly but carefully change the claim.
Eventually power gives way to corruption. It is only human nature. This is why the US adopted Federalism verses a king. They thought it imperative to divide power in order to help thwart corruption and abuse.
Remember that the claim was that corruption is proportional to power. Now you are merely saying that power causes corruption.
Perhaps you prefer a king.
Pro tip: don't try to read minds, you are no good at it. Nothing I have said should suggest to you that I would prefer a king.
Originally posted by twhiteheadName a world government devoid of corruption.
As I expected, you will just keep repeating the claim without evidence - and slowly but carefully change the claim.
Remember that the claim was that corruption is proportional to power. Now you are merely saying that power causes corruption.
[b]Perhaps you prefer a king.
Pro tip: don't try to read minds, you are no good at it. Nothing I have said should suggest to you that I would prefer a king.[/b]
Power simply magnifies such corruption and it continues with less checks and balances
Originally posted by no1marauderYeh, and they also got rid of the phase "perpetual union".
The British Commonwealth didn't exist until 1931. http://www.britannica.com/topic/Commonwealth-association-of-states The Founders didn't use the term "Commonwealth" because that is not what they created.
The US Constitution sharply reduced State sovereignty and had an entire section (Article I, section 10) specifically banning States from exercising many of their previous powers. Article IV also did away with various sovereign prerogatives.
Originally posted by no1marauderThey forgot to mention the perpetual part, perhaps a reflection of humility in that their perpetual union didn't make it past a decade.
And made it "a more perfect Union" while retaining its perpetual nature.
"More perfect" is an oxymoron. It is a superlative. Try more best on for size.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignThe perpetual union was that entity defined and created by ratification of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." When the articles were replaced by the ratification of the Constitution, was there a ratified declaration in it or elsewhere of the dissolution and subsequent constitution of a new union?
They forgot to mention the perpetual part, perhaps a reflection of humility in that their perpetual union didn't make it past a decade.
"More perfect" is an oxymoron. It is a superlative. Try more best on for size.
I'm asking, only asking. Perhaps some federal or states' ratification documents said this?
Originally posted by JS357Perpetual anything is perhaps an overly optimistic goal. As you are probably aware, no1 and I have danced around this issue many times. His attempt is to make the secession by the CSA illegal, but this has been argued both before and after the Civil War, by scholars far closer than either of us, with no conclusive end.
The perpetual union was that entity defined and created by ratification of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." When the articles were replaced by the ratification of the Constitution, what there a ratified declaration in it or elsewhere of the dissolution and subsequent constitution of a new union?
I'm asking, only asking. Perhaps some federal or states' ratification documents said this?
I like to think that Jefferson, much closer to the actual documents and debates knew something, when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html#kfQ8GYP73yF5H6ek.99
Also, ".....our attachment to no nation on earth should supplant our attachment to liberty."
I am certain that the founders wanted the Union to be permanent, but were realistic enough to know that might not be possible. After all they were separating from their colonial origins, as Englishmen. They would have to fight against George III's soldiers, and perhaps face the gallows if they lost.