War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

geoschmo · #1 September 14th, 2001, 10:44 PM

quote:
Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
I have to disagree with that one, strongly. We stopped being a federation of States in a slow, leak process, as the Federal government slowly took over more and more powers from the States and the people--powers that are supposedly reserved to the States and the People in the 9th and 10th Amendments to said Constitution.

Of course a lot of this is a purely acedemic argument about semantics and definitions. But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations.

"Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union.

To be sure over time there has been a "leak" of the balance of power from the decentralized states towards a more massive federal burocracy. And that's not alway's been a good thing by any stretch.

quote:
(OK, why is rambling about silly political ideologies of the past soothing to me? )

I don't know. But I feel it too. This has been very theraputic. Almost like making my mind "think" for a while has allowed my emotions to take a break.

Geoschmo

LazarusLong42 · #2 September 14th, 2001, 10:57 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
But the "Articles of Confederation" Gave almost no power to the congress. Really the only thing the congress could do was mediate desputes between the various states, and make treaties and wars with other nations.
Once we gave up on that and signed the Constitution we went from being a close federation of independant, sovereign, nation states, and became a single nation, or union.

Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex.

Eric

geoschmo · #3 September 14th, 2001, 11:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by LazarusLong42:
Oh, yes, absolutely... the AoC created about as loose a federation as one could create. I hadn't really thought of the states as being "nation-states" under the AoC, but I suppose that's probably a better definition. The AoC was barely more binding than, say, the NATO charter, or the EU charter. Though certainly much more than the UN charter, which is as binding as Kleenex.

Eric

Yes, I would say it is very close to the NATO charter. Although if a NATO member wants to go to war with another country we won't really stop them, unless it's another NATO member. But they probably would get kicked out eventually if they were the aggressor.

I wonder how different things would be today if we had kept the AoC?

I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.

Geoschmo

geoschmo · #4 September 14th, 2001, 11:15 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

Alpha Kodiak · #5 September 14th, 2001, 11:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

The sound you hear is the rest of the forum being put to sleep by Laz and Geo's facinating discussion about 18th and 19th century politics.

I don't know, I think it is more interesting than the incessant droning of the talking heads on TV and radio. While this is truly the cataclysmic news story, there really isn't much new to say right at the moment, but that doesn't stop the news from saying the same thing over and o v e r aga...zzzzz

Uh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah, maybe I'm just insensitive, but it seems like we should at least start to get back to some sense of normalcy. They can always interrupt with real news. Of course, there is little that is worthwhile on TV normally anyway, so maybe this is an improvement.

Oh well, time to go back to sle... I mean work.

geoschmo · #6 September 14th, 2001, 11:58 PM

Oh man are you right about that.

The only thing worse than hearing the same thing over and over is hearing all these really specific, detailed reports, that turn out to be absolute bunk. That has been happening TOO much the past 48 hours.

I guess the new press rule is if you don't have anything new to say, make something up.

Geoschmo

Lisif Deoral · #7 September 15th, 2001, 12:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
I think the EU is really just an economic agreement isn't it. Kind of a T&R treaty in SEIV terms? I don't really know though. I didn't think it had any military ramifications at all.

Mainly economic, but not just that. There are also some political obligations and some attempts to coordinate foreign and internal (social) policies.
There's no military involvement - although most of the member states are also members of the NATO.

By the way, there's something I never understood about the American Civil War - had (has?) a member state the right to quit the Union? IOW, had the remaining member states the right to "restore order" through use of force?