Comment by lesuorac
3 years ago
Sure, the founders in 1776 desired a weak federal government.
But the writers of the constitution in 1788 wanted a strong one because the existing weak one sucked.
3 years ago
Sure, the founders in 1776 desired a weak federal government.
But the writers of the constitution in 1788 wanted a strong one because the existing weak one sucked.
The founders in 1776 were happy with things in 1788 and generally opposed the constitution. After reading the articles of confederation (yes I actually did that), there are some things that should have been cleaned up, but overall I think it was a good enough system that didn't need to be replaced.
It wasn't, then or in the 1860s, hence the strong, modern, adaptive federalism we have today that treats states as provinces and makes important things move quickly.
One could squint and say states matter today, but that's just admitting a need for glasses. They are ghosts of what they were, and increasingly need to be retired.
It will be nice when we put to pasture the policy-as-experiments across states for things that are clearly universally demanded: finance, health insurance, women's medical care, education, defense, gun control, decreased corporate control of the food supply, transportation, environmental regulation, and so forth. It's amazing how much the modern GOP has pushed folks towards this, may they continue their business Republican-led shenanigans to unite the country and encourage progress when otherwise we would be slovenly.
Why is this the case? Duplication of fixed costs are expensive.
Let's get rid of these crufty overindulgent home-owners-associations-on-steriods and federalize already.
(paragraphs 1, 4 serious, the rest in jest)
While paragraph 3 may be in jest, the non-standization meant that some states did allow women to vote long before it was constitutionally mandated. Of course it also meant some people were enslaved long before it was explicitly constitutionally allowed.
2 replies →
>and increasingly need to be retired.
There's ~150 million people that think the opposite should be done.
4 replies →
The states switched to the constitution because the confederation was too weak and didn't handle or clarify many important issues. Most of the founders were still around.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_period. "...could not accomplish anything independent of the states. It had no chief executive, and no court system. Congress lacked the power to levy taxes, regulate foreign or interstate commerce, or effectively negotiate with foreign powers. The weakness of Congress proved self-reinforcing, as the leading political figures of the day served in state governments or foreign posts. The failure of the national government to handle the challenges facing the United States led to calls for reform and frequent talk of secession".
The people behind the constitution were not the same people behind the articles of confederation. Yes they were around, but they were happy back on their farms and businesses and didn't even realize what was going on until the constitution was nearly a done deal. They rushed back and eventually came up with the bill of rights.
1 reply →
I don't think this is right. I've read a bunch of people who didn't like The Constitution, but they weren't making full throated arguments for just keeping the status quo. Can you point me to arguments from "the founders in 1776" for just keeping the Articles in their form at the time?
That only makes sense if you think slavery should’ve never been abolished. How would it have ended under the Articles of Confederation?
It doesn't matter whether slavery would have been abolished, because what wouldn't have been legally enshrined without the Constitution were the 14th, 15th, and 24th amendments (and later civil rights laws that finally gave power to these amendments), and possibly the 19th amendment.
1 reply →
It would have ended because the Industrial Revolution made slave labor un-economic, in the worst case.
Modern capitalists prefer seasonal labor for agriculture. They don't have to feed/clothe/house people year round, and have no personal investment. Seasonal migrant agriculture labor cheap and easily exploited, with little legal protection. Slaves, like domestic a nimals (reprehensible as that simily is), must be treated well enough to keep working productively. There is no such need with migrant labor. If they are abused or killed it is easy to sweep under the rug. There'll be new migrants available next year.
NOTE: I'm not saying slavery is good, or even better than migrant labor. They are both highly unethical if you consider how corporations treat migrant labor today.
25 replies →
>But the writers of the constitution in 1788 wanted a strong one because the existing weak one sucked.
The founders wrote reams upon reams discussing exactly what they wanted to do with the constitution and how they intended each and every bit of the constitution to work toward that goal. The intent was basically "we need just a little more centralization in order to deal with the truly national issues."
The government they created to replace the articles of confederation was weak by the standards of the time let alone modern ones.