Reasons Against The Federal Government

  1. When the former colonies considered the best course of action, ten years after the war for independance; there were three options on the table; unite as one nation, form three nations and strive to be friends and allies, further manifest 13 seperate autonomies; And in so far as they were to be bound as one nation; the choice was between a virginia plan, which we have today, and a N.J. plan, where the states could make pacts with each other, the federal judiciary more about judging pacts and treaties and laws for morality and common sense, and the federal government perform less at the expense of the states.
  • The idea of a strong federal government was to avoid becoming a wartime europe of frequent warring states. The idea was one strong overarching federal government, obstructing the evils of many particular states, would grant a peacetime prosperity, under par with many other epochs in history.
  • Yet there were arguments against this, that had faith in the states working it out among themselves without a federal government; that realized the indians would be more appreciated were we not under federal policy; that it would dangerous to give an army to a federal government that ruled the states, which in turn, would have no recourse to right any wrongs in the direction of federal government; that realized that binding many future generations, to a decision made now, was not logical, and that any constitutions be better off short term.

So arguing against Madison, Hamilton and Jay, were lesser known pamphleteers, lesser known, because, their side lost, such as one known by the Pseudonym of “Brutus”; who rose against the tyranny of Ceasar, whereas one rises against the tyranny of federal government. Yet to me, Ceasar was a genius, on parallel with Jesus Christ, in legacy, and initials, as a writer, and general, who saved Rome from the civil wars and political proscriptions, that legalized killing oppossing political supporters; nevertheless, for the lack of form in style, the substance of his arguments are sound, and deserve, rehearing now.

As everyone complains about the federal government, except the democrats in power, a weak link in the polity-chain you’d think that would make the whole of society fall apart; but apparently this is a different kind of chain, a chain, not where the innercorrosion turns on and blames the other corrupted-but-holding on links, the democrats, actually even while everyone blames them, blame no one else; that’s part of their problem; they’ll go extinct before they turn on the church, or war, or banks, or school or corruption or anything, as inadequate. It’s an amazing study of entrophied-atrophy. Not that the jeffersonian designs, and peaceful assembly protections are anything to scoff at. But the implementation of ideals through entities designed to fulfill them, has not worked with communism, or the tribunals of ancient Rome, or the Democratic Party: Because Power Corrupts, is unable to over come the power it has; but more so, may we blame a rejection of the spiritual for this folly?

But let me say is the way to take on the federal government…..well, let me start again, I, you, us, other people, your average joe, people on the street, none of us can take on the federal government. Not the lawyers guild or New England Journal of Medicine, or Amherst College, or your local high school teachers or cops or farmers; not the rainbow family of living light, the presbytarian church, or facebook; the federal goverment is too strong. God might be able to take on the federal government; but you know what; it’s possible to make the case the federal government is stronger than God.

  • Only the states can take on the federal government, and that’s at least three combined or better, with proper media support. And the states are the tcraditional designated driver for curbing any drunkenness we perceive in the old federal.

So we must explore how and what states can do to take on the federal government in the interests of the people.

  • Two quick points or digressions. The first is that one may identify the federal judiciary as stopping change, as the policeman for the way things are; It is a backwards judiciary on several counts; overworking judges, not allowing more making decisions together, an aversion to spirituality as compatible with law. Congress expanded by several hundred members since the Supreme Court was formed. The courts are a natural source of rights for the people, and compelled to recognize truth in general, but so few judges working so many years, professionalizing something accessible to most = big problems in America; we must note the media does not examine our judicial, and flawed infrastructure.
  • The Bill of rights, some said, needn’t be added to the constitution, as the constitution is in the spirit of all wise things. That more rights would be respected in general, without the bill of rights. If there wasn’t a bill of rights, and peaceful assembly not practiced, then maybe we would start to question the whole body of the constitution as inappropiate for future centuries, decades, as aribitrary in its terms and divisions; and most of all, as grounded in elections when the kingdom of god does not vote. Now this last, is most important. If you understand the term here, I am sure you know what I mean, elections are made up, a final ruse upon the illusion of society, and any society concerned about truth, must then be concerned about elections, on earth, when humans are converted to beings, and yet these beings are said to have a choice, about a goverment that ignores them???
  • It is indeed ironic that our world, purposefully unaware of its place in the universe, having descended into a Judeo-Christian age, is unaware of the application of the Christian Term, The Kingdom of God, particularily in relevance to voting. This omission so highlights the dichotomy between church and state, (And states should foster positive relations with religions); that it makes the state, and each of us, seem nonexistent. The logical conclusion of this ignorance, is our own abscence. Call it an existential-freudianism that deems itself, feel itself, is treated as if, non-existent.
  • Certainly I feel nonexistent. And that’s enough to make me cry, except I think of all the beings around me, they are nonexistent, and insofar as you reproduce the beings, you have become more nonexistent, and insofar as people’s lives are thus so largely controlled by Heaven, is stately design, in a sacrificial metaphysic, so then the people do not exist, and their concern about their concerns, subjucated enough ensuring nonexistence. Thus my own futilty, my own nonexistence, parellels states of earth, and people in the world, this is what I work through and try to change, through an analysis of the metaphysic in toto, where this is so blind, that we are all connected, and the notions of fortunes rising individually, capitalistic illusion.
  • Brutus is very concerned and compelled that one generation is making decisions for future generations. This could be cause for the nonexistence I feel now. Brutus is particularily interested in this issue the public is invited to consider, precisely because the happiness of future generations is at stake.
  • Brutus states the case, that energies have been lacking that would fulfill the public interest, so there’s a convention of states, and they have formed a constitution. The people are the fount of all power, so the people must approve it. If it’s a good constitution, there will be future happiness.
  • But surely there is a contradiction between the spirit of the people consenting to something for all time, and the spirit of the people enabled to reaffirm and reexamine its polity and structure; surely that is not so high a bar as to exclude generations; surely that will make the people more apathetic.
  • And what is the nature of general concerns the states can’t agree about. What is the inability to manage, the states have been going through together?
  • For surely the folly of our society is the lack of self-examination and healthy thought upon structures of society herself. As nonexistent, then asserting states as countries, is consistent with all asserting themselves, and feeling out what existence may be felt; for we are all beings all about. Any mismanagement is a calculated even sacrificial design by heaven. And what is heaven? Something attached to the consciousness, reading this, resigned to the state of affairs; my concern with the renegotiation of everything; is in their concern; defeated as heaven must be, to enforce this state, lie and sacrifice, sugarcoating metaphysic otherwise apprehended as serious enough to phantoms.
  • Two general impressions: Forming a long term union is a real politic; the low and acceptable offer to take, generally accepted. But what is that meta-physic? Why is that low ball relatively easy to take? Are the costs and rewards of other shorter term options explored? And, secondly, the assertion of power in the people, called to examine a constitution, that power can’t parted with for many generations can it? Now that the power of the people is accepted, is the point to tuck it away unneeded for centuries?
  • The dismal formula seems to be that the situation on earth, of the being, and nature of heaven, is more than our leaders can deal with; that the people in general are unable, partly that they gave power to leaders and institutions, partly that the design is not meant for something better; Recourse to the people comes rarely actually, as it did in Ameria in 1987, thus we conclude, power comes to the people, when the leaders decide to give it to them; yet the situation on earth likewise is too serious for one in the Kingdom of Heaven. Decisions, involving the serious nature of reality, must be made collectively, for it is too serious, otherwise.
  • If America exists to keep her states from warring, and collect the indians, that service has long been rendered. Our leaders, and peoples, too asleep to recognize that…..well, it’s just impossible to fathom a nation of mostly good people missing this key component of its critical constitution…..I can’t. Even without the structures some short-term cconstitution would have turned over to the people to excercise every other generation, even without giving back the form of peaceful assembly for local decision making, with ayes and nays, even with the military arrogance of a large nation: All these things may influence the psyche, surely as we wonder how much power the government has ever given back to the people: But it is not who we blame.
  • It is too glaring an ommission, only God ordains this; God in this sense defined as the kingdom of heaven, in negotiation or analysis upon, the universe; within a situation too serious to be considered without everyone; So therefore I feel the logic of dissolving 95% of the federal government, replacing it with state governments, and regional councils, is abundant, and hard to miss, and logical; so it will change and come about, soon: But somehow it must be coupled to our own empowerment. The world must turn upside down, or at least start to; and the commingling of heaven, with this world, seen. I must enter the Kingdom of God, and yet there still be a preponderance of seriousness to transmit the cause.
  • Yet it is such a gaping maw, to consider the allowance of humans, into the face of the risk involved. We are treated as if we don’t exist; we nonexist in that sense. The universe does exist, by transmitting its will upon earth with ease, or so we say. My nonexistence, in terms of being able to exert rational influence upon my society, in terms of ideas of obsolete government; intended for a sacred half of earth, signalled a time, as does now, when the people may assert within their nonexistence, where ideas I write of may be recognized and expanded, where America does the right thing, somehow this is all tied together in a spiritual reckoning, and a time given, to an epoch or age, where, like in 1787, the people have to be consulted, for the deal to be made; so now politics may overspill into the spiritual, and the extension of society critically include the calculations of risks, potentials of gains and losses, explanations why: For the Kingdom of Heaven seems dug in, to what its doing, for ages; yet so that consideration of policy, even amid the complex development of the afterlife, is not considered, dug in to trenching through each day, like myself; without hope in policy considerations effecting, mine, or Earth’s Practice.
  • There is the ability to think, there is sight, and the power that generates such, and it is serious about, but there are conceived of communications within a logical scope. Aristotle suggests politics is a metaphor in general, and for the human body in particular: But let us look at The Metaphor of 1787.
  • Brutus really understands 1787 is an important year in history. A) There are overtones of some great deal made to shift history out of medieval nobility and into Constitutional Republican democracy. B) The people are being affirmed and recognized as essential to government because government comes from the people. So this is a time very important, and Brutus argues we must convey that special issue of timliness, where the people are affirmed as central to government, by endorsing government, to future generations, rather than their greatness be marked upon taking away this democratic and essential affirmation.
  • Yet a done deal is a done deal. This was not to be, anymore than people decide issues rather than their local mayors today. The unfettered trust placed in the Government, has led to an apathy and dearth of concern among the people regarding their daily life, what they want from time life and what community offers; Should teaching be professionalized? Isn’t agriculture everyone’s first concern? Can we talk about our spiritual differences and why we think the way we do? Does anyone thing the universe is alive?
  • And the Unfettered Trust, Brutus argues, comes from rejecting the states as checks upon the federal government. Of making the judiciary, contingent upon the federal government, and then endlessly finding for federal government. Were states involved, and needed to approve legislation, things would be different; they would have placed the check, upon the ever increasing duties of the federal government; government which rarely gives back power; government which needs the check and balance and political development of its regions, closer to home.
  • Brutus says because federal law nullifies state law, because the line between what the constitution says the federal government can do, and what the federal government may eventually end up doing, is too easy a line for such a power body, to not cross.
  • The state becomes a metaphor for organizing sentiments of thought, even collecting like-minds. The state could be a check upon the revenue-raising ability of the federal government; upon the use of soldiers; upon what is the general interest and welfare. When the federal government is paying the salaries of these all important federal judges, do you really expect them to rule against the federal government? These arguments are very relevant today. Somehow these relevant arguments, credible and arguable as they are, have been filtered out of the dialogue, omitted from education; its hard to say this effect is not consistent with propoganda, and ungodly controll of media; not through any evil people at the helm; but because God wills totalitarian features in a metaphysic special times may consider.
  • The great and insurmountable difference between the ways of the ancient world which our constituional republic emulates is that ancient times had a viable and traditional culture of tribes. The tribes would handle criminal affairs amid the people; overarching governments, the tribes, from their cities, which had senates and constitutions, would send representatives to, were not invested with the awesome power of punishing criminals. Whereas America did away with native tribal culture, and coming from medieval europe, had little tribal sense; the state was the closest thing, the county, the locality, to tribal thinking; exactly what the constitution fails to foster.
  • Brutus goes so far to speculate the federal government may end the states; which has not happened; though the state rarely engages in relevant legislation, and national issues dominate the news. He cites how large countries, expansion of Greece and Rome, is where the tyranny comes from; whereas when they were smaller, as they originated as city-states, and amid a balance of power, they were must less tyrannical, and known as the good models political scientists seek to invest.
  • It is not hard to infer Brutus is recommending something like a constitutional convention, every 25 years, where each state has 50 delegates at one assembly, and maybe 10 of them in a senate, much like the political party conventions every four years here; and you could talk about what the states can do, what the feds should do, how long the terms should be, could the executive in chief be by committee, The Supreme Court, regional concerns, dealing with new issues. Can the assertion of the people every 25 years be allowed on the dark theater of history? Is this something for anyone to fear? Why wasn’t it enacted? Why have this Constitution for all time, yet every four years convene to nominate a president to lead us through its structure? Wouldn’t conventions, supercede these post carrying conventioneers; when the issue is men, and not strictly ideas?
  • The issue of humanity and what is on earth, is omitted; nor considered what is reproduced, and where does all the violence go to- Is it impossible to renegotiate? It must start from the acknowledgement of the Kingdom of God and what to do with it. Whether consensing together is time to consider what is possible considering this; what it takes is seriously known of course; Nor is it hard to imagine this discourse shying away from tribal circles and councils, or true peaceful assemblies; though the truest paths are often corrupted obstructed.
  • The number one thing I think a regular constitutional convention would consider is what pacts and trade deals states or regions could make with each other. The country would be sustainable as possible, states would produce for markets in other states, this would inspire states to have their own automobile manufacturor sort of thing; producing for direct and nearer market would also value producing what is needed and valuing not producing what is not needed, waste would become a clearer guide.

Brutus argues forcing the vastness of this country through the thin lines of this federal government, will disenfranchise the people of this country. The people are underrepresented in this federal plan. There are too few congressman, and having more, would make business more cluttered. So Brutus is identifying the form of congress as where common local issues may be addressed, in concourse. But our distant climates, different manners, ad interests are too diverse and heterogeneous for one government. And this is true, our economy would be streamlined and powerful if states developed trade pacts with each other.

  • Brutus goes on that a great army will be needed, that our great soldiers, are first there to enforce the federal government, and great armies are where tyranny comes from, as armies are more naturally approved as needed by the people, than be standing forever.
  • Along with soldiers, the legal system will be beholden to the federal government and this is out of backward medieval courts, where the king controlled the judiciary.
  • The dispersion today, is not as great as it was in 1787, because we are much closer via media. Maine and Georgie had not much recourse to each other’s mind, he cites.
  • Brutus opines the soldiers will be used on its own people and officials soon corrupted. The former only seems like its about to happen, whereas the latter is a longstanding complaint it seems only a cconstotutional convention addressing such isues as these are needed. I think Brutus exagerrates here on both points to excite the people here.
  • We have to ask ourselves how much is limiting the people’s asent to the constitution to a one-time one-shot deal, rather than putting in language for a constitutional convention every 25 yrs, is that some play to power by a ruling class seeking the mercantile homogeity and expansion a one size fits all government does?
  • Brutus writes of taxation in his second published essay. Like Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers, and also I believe, writing out of NYC, and New York; Brutus also totally believes the power to tax is an awesome power of the federal government to tax, is the most significant power to the federal government. The ability to tax, to enforce taxation, through soldiers ultimately, is the critical cog to government; not because taxation in itself is bad or evil, but because taxation potentially, and does, fund government across the board.
  • Regulating the taxation of the federal government is of utmost important so as to check unfettered government able to spend on whatever it wants to spend on; like a girl on a shopping spree. Checking taxes, through forms such as state consent, would guarentee the federal government wouldn’t get too big, evil and onerous; and likely limit wars.
  • I hope the people wanting their taxes lowered, ultimately understand this is about limiting the role of government. And I hope people about limiting the role of government, understands those roles probably do have a need that can be filled by the people, through the people, and also that eliminating federal expansion is consistent with increasing the experience of state government. There need not be a total reduction of government. I fear the debate forgets, how the responsibility of state government will increase, as federal government, and the expanse of land it is entrusted with, is questioned.
  • Taxes will always be approved by a government approving itself, through a judiciary as well appointed by the federal government, and therefore it is assumed to government to theoretically have an infinite amount of concerns, yet the idea of an unlimited government, is something no one wants; Particularily in preparations for war, we should not assume some unlimited quality. That is wrong. It is better to shrink the concern of war, than make it the infinite fount for taxation.
  • —————–
  • Likewise having a standing federal army is threatening and inhibiting to the states and the people and contrary thus to moral government, and an unchecked government likely to propell into further soldiers; citing Ceasr transforming the republic to an empire via his army. Brutus also cites Cromwell, as a general, who by maintaining a standing army, curtailed the freedoms of the people and virtuos government. Thus the idea of a federal government having a standing army, is a bad idea. 70% of the former colonies eschewed a standing army. Brutus argues the constitution needs a clause citing what criteria has to be met for an army to be raised. In this, he cites trade with the indians as a goal.
  • Brutus mentions that Massachussetts and Pennsylvania compelled an army, because there were militia’s actively waging war against it. What is Brutus’s opinion on militias? A recourse for the people against federal government, or a weakened form of standing army ripe for manipulation? In any event, the unresolved, important question of how states can exert a check on the federal, is mentioned, and unresolved, short of saying he could not support a constitution where there was no way of states checking federal government. States should ratify wars; likewise this is the huge problem today still: There is no check by the states on the federal, and that simply does not make sense.
  • The idea, Brutus says, is for the federal to be much less than the states. The state representatives to the federal will soon be federal, and the notion of changing them into another politician who will not fall prey to the federal, cynical reality. That is why a real debate in the constitutional convention was state legislatures controll their state federal representatives; then decision-making would originate out of the states; thus you have to see how the states, must meet the federal, and giving this responsibility to the people, through elected representatives, treacherous, how it appears to offer power to the people, but really is about extinguishing effective and potential limitation upon itself. It’s a real example of a masquerade, a snake oil , the U.S. is founded upon.
  • Brutus Hamilton and Madison agree where the issues lie, but see them differently. The power to tax according to its desire is agreed upon as critical, but seen as positive by one, and negative by another. Soldiers are seen as intimidatig, but that is good to one, bad to another, and finally the strong and concentrated judiciary as well.
  • The concentrated judiciary is firmly cast as being bound by the constitution. Brutus’s questions that as limiting the number of wise rules that may guide us. Likewise, that our legislature is so judicially bound by the constitution, rather than the constitution bound by congress may not be wise, and certainly limiting.L
  • As we see played out every year, the judiciary encourages the federal government; which Brutus warns of, as in thiheretly wrong structural design.
  • The terms are too broad in the constitution. “The general wellfare” and other such terms, can include anything, this too will make government inherently expand at the expense of better government, “equity” “domestic tranquillity”
  • Brutus then goes on to point out legal similarities between our proposed government and recent British kingdoms, mainly that the executive still greatly controlls the judiciary, and the judiciary be more a rubber stamp for the government, then an active engaging entity of morality for the people; which was why history loved The Roman Republic, and I the jersey plan, which would focus the courts on pacts and laws, and innovation, while criminal, be handled, I say, by the people, who are closer to God than the government.
  • How do we incorporate approval by states, into national legislation and war? How do we make the judiciary more about rights and morality. Did Brutus know the judiciary of the roman republic was staffed by the lower class, the upper class couldn’t work it, out of fears of class collusion. Hamilton cites antiquity all the time, and pointedly ignores the liberal effect and intent of the republic judiciary, that’s what missing.
  • Where is the god and christian terminology in all this? Where is the tribal understanding spirituality and government go together; or does that lead to hard truths, the kingdom of heaven wants us to not deal with?

 

  • DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

1) The first thing is agreeing our name is The United States of America

2) Every power not expressly delegated to the United States, is retained by each state.

3) The point of joining together is to protect ourselves, from europe and indians.

4) Paupers, Vagabonds and Fugitives must be turned over, and have less rights.

 

 

5) Decisions for the United States are made in convened conventions also known as Congress, as necessary.

6) Each state sends 2-7 delegates, each state has one vote

7) These delegates do what the state legislature tells them to do

8) All speech in this congress is protected, as are the persons of the delegates

9) You can’t be a delegate more than 3 out of any 6 years.

10) One of my big problems with the U.S. Constitution is it forbids states or entities making their own currency, and doing trade pacts with each other, and pacts in general. In The Articles of Confederation, pacts and treaties between states, are allowed, as approved by congress, as their purpose and duration explained.

 

11) States can’t have standing armies, specifically, but should have an official armed state militia. The government may commission garrisons and warships for states; not the states themselves.

12) States can’t make war themselves, that needs approval of Congress. From this tone, you can see, states tighten up around indians. Yet if the state learns of an imminient Indian attack, it may go to war.

13) Each state ponies up funds and soldiers if required. Said officers to be appointed by State legislatures. Each state is assessed by the value of its land, and then the state collects that from its people. Hamilton thought the right of Direct Taxation, the right of the federal government to tax individuals, critical; as the states wouldn’t collect enough, being closer and kinder probably to its citizens.

14) Congress would resolve disputes between states, including how much a state could expand into Indian Terratory.

15) There is no president or executive in the Articles, a majority of congress decides everything of importance.

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: