JimS
10-08-2006, 16:04
Lets discuss our own Constitutional process vs. that in Iraq. No rules other than what the forum dictates. I am hoping to learn more about our Constitutional process.:)
------------
I will get it started with the following. (The following taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution, emphasis's in color, bold or italics mine).
"During the Revolutionary War, the thirteen states first formed a weak central government—with the Congress being its only component—under the Articles of Confederation. Congress lacked any power to impose taxes (interesting that this is what one group of Libertarians subscribe to --- "Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary." taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), and, because there was no national executive or judiciary, it relied on state authorities, who were often uncooperative, to enforce all its acts. It also had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before they could be amended and states took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, Congress was frequently blocked from making even moderate changes.
In September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Confederation Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787. Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787. The resolution calling the Convention specified its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution. The Philadelphia Convention voted to keep deliberations secret and decided to draft a new fundamental government design which eventually stipulated that only 9 of the 13 states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states). These actions were criticized by some as exceeding the convention's mandate and existing law. However, Congress, noting dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation government, unanimously agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite what some perceived as the exceeded terms of reference. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin. In it he talked about how he wasn't completely satisfied with it but that perfection would never fully be achieved. He accepted the document as it was and he wanted all those against the ratification of it to do the same.[citation needed] The new government it prescribed came into existence on March 4, 1789, after fierce fights over ratification in many of the states."
----------
Given that our own Constitution was not fully ratified until May 29th, 1790 (with Rhode Island's acceptance; 14 years after our Declaration of Independence) and only failure of the initial Governmental structure and much consternation - in fact, if you notice the initial Government was nothing like that of the one in the Constitution - why is it that some in the U.S. think the process in Iraq should be proceeding at a much faster pace and with little to no problems or that in Afghanistan for that matter. Ours took almost 14 years following our separation and we did not apparently have antagonists like Iran and Syria then - at least not the ease of which these antagonists could participate.
I'll leave it with this for now - I need to do more reading. Hopefully someone here is really a history buff.
JimS
------------
I will get it started with the following. (The following taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution, emphasis's in color, bold or italics mine).
"During the Revolutionary War, the thirteen states first formed a weak central government—with the Congress being its only component—under the Articles of Confederation. Congress lacked any power to impose taxes (interesting that this is what one group of Libertarians subscribe to --- "Anarcho-capitalists, by contrast, oppose all taxation, rejecting any government claim for a monopoly of protection as unnecessary." taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism), and, because there was no national executive or judiciary, it relied on state authorities, who were often uncooperative, to enforce all its acts. It also had no authority to override tax laws and tariffs between states. The Articles required unanimous consent from all the states before they could be amended and states took the central government so lightly that their representatives were often absent. For lack of a quorum, Congress was frequently blocked from making even moderate changes.
In September 1786, commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce. They invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. After debate, the Confederation Congress endorsed the plan to revise the Articles of Confederation on February 21, 1787. Twelve states, Rhode Island being the only exception, accepted this invitation and sent delegates to convene in May 1787. The resolution calling the Convention specified its purpose was to propose amendments to the Articles, but the Convention decided to propose a rewritten Constitution. The Philadelphia Convention voted to keep deliberations secret and decided to draft a new fundamental government design which eventually stipulated that only 9 of the 13 states would have to ratify for the new government to go into effect (for the participating states). These actions were criticized by some as exceeding the convention's mandate and existing law. However, Congress, noting dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation government, unanimously agreed to submit the proposal to the states despite what some perceived as the exceeded terms of reference. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin. In it he talked about how he wasn't completely satisfied with it but that perfection would never fully be achieved. He accepted the document as it was and he wanted all those against the ratification of it to do the same.[citation needed] The new government it prescribed came into existence on March 4, 1789, after fierce fights over ratification in many of the states."
----------
Given that our own Constitution was not fully ratified until May 29th, 1790 (with Rhode Island's acceptance; 14 years after our Declaration of Independence) and only failure of the initial Governmental structure and much consternation - in fact, if you notice the initial Government was nothing like that of the one in the Constitution - why is it that some in the U.S. think the process in Iraq should be proceeding at a much faster pace and with little to no problems or that in Afghanistan for that matter. Ours took almost 14 years following our separation and we did not apparently have antagonists like Iran and Syria then - at least not the ease of which these antagonists could participate.
I'll leave it with this for now - I need to do more reading. Hopefully someone here is really a history buff.
JimS